A Summary of Highly Qualified Teacher Data June 2007 The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) called for

all core subject classes to be taught by highly qualified teachers by the end of the 2005-06 school year. To measure progress in meeting the highly qualified teacher (HQT) goal, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) collects State-level data on the teacher quality provisions of NCLB1 through the Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPR).2 Ninety-two percent of core academic classes in our nation’s public schools were staffed by an HQT during school year 2005-06 (Exhibit 1). A higher proportion of core academic classes were taught by highly qualified teachers in elementary schools (94 percent) than in secondary schools (91 percent). Classes in high-poverty schools were less likely to be staffed by a highly qualified teacher than were classes in low-poverty schools. At the elementary level, 96 percent of core academic classes in low-poverty schools were taught by HQTs, compared to 90 percent of classes in high-poverty schools. The gap was even greater at the secondary level with 94 percent of classes in low-poverty schools taught by HQTs compared to 86 percent of classes in highpoverty schools. The percentage of core academic classes taught by HQTs has been increasing since 2003-04. In 2005-06, 92 percent of all core academic classes were taught by an HQT—an increase of approximately 6 percentage points from 2003-04. While there has been progress toward the goal of all teachers being highly qualified by 2005-06, growth was slightly slower from the 2004-05 school year (91 percent) to 2005-06 (92 percent) than from the 2003-04 baseline (87 percent).

1 2

The statutory reporting requirements can be found in §1111(h)(4)(G); §9101(23) ESEA. CSPR data were collected for the first time for the 2002-03 school year. Because several states reported that they did not have the mechanisms to accurately report these data the first year, the 2002-03 data have been excluded from this analysis. The 2003-04 data will serve as the baseline for this issue brief.

1

Exhibit 1

Percentage of Core Academ Classes Taught by HQT ic
Revised 2005-06 Data

100 90 80

92.2

95.8 90.4

94.0

85.7

93.8

90.9

Percent HQT

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
All schools Highpoverty Lowpoverty All Highpoverty Lowpoverty All
`

Elementary

Secondary Data as of 5/24/07. N= 51 states.

Highlights from the 2005-06 Highly Qualified Teacher Data • In 2005-06, the percentage of classes taught by HQTs for all schools ranged from 53 percent (District of Columbia) to 99 percent (Montana, Wisconsin). Twenty-one States (41 percent) reported rates of 95 percent or greater.3 Almost three-quarters of States reported that 90 percent or more of core academic classes were taught by highly qualified teachers (37 States). Montana and Wisconsin reported that 99 percent of core academic classes were taught by highly qualified teachers. Of the 49 States that reported data on the percentage of core academic classes taught by HQTs for all schools in 2003-04 and 2005-06, 34 reported an overall increase in the percentage, and 15 reported a decrease.

• •

3

Fifty-one states submitted complete data. Puerto Rico and Nebraska did not submit complete data and are not included in these analyses

2

• • •

The increase from 2003-04 to 2005-06 in the percentage of classes taught by HQTs ranged from over 52 percentage points in Alaska to 0.2 percentage points in Montana. From 2003-04 to 2005-06, Oklahoma, Arizona, Louisiana and Idaho reported a decrease of 5 percentage points or more in the percentage of classes taught by HQTs. From 2003-04 to 2005-06, four States—Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Massachusetts—reported decreases of 2 points or less in the percentage of classes taught by HQTs.

Differences in HQT Percentages in High- and Low Poverty Schools • • • A larger percentage of classes are taught by HQTs in low-poverty schools than in their high-poverty counterparts—94.5 percent versus 88 percent. In the majority of States (48 for secondary and 45 for elementary),4 high-poverty schools were less likely to have classes taught by HQTs than low-poverty schools. In high-poverty schools, the percentage of classes taught by HQTs ranged from 99.5 (North Dakota) to 36.3 percent for elementary (Alaska) and from 97.1 percent (New Hampshire) to 51.4 percent for secondary (Idaho). In low-poverty schools, the percentage of classes taught by HQTs ranged from 49 percent (Alaska) to 99.8 percent in elementary classes (Illinois and North Dakota) and from 52.2 percent (District of Columbia) to 99.9 percent in secondary classes (Illinois). The gap between high-poverty and low-poverty schools was greatest in Maryland (62 percent in high-poverty elementary schools compared to 94 percent in low-poverty elementary schools; 60 percent in high-poverty secondary schools compared to 88 percent in low-poverty secondary schools). The gaps between high-poverty and low-poverty schools are generally much wider at the secondary than at the elementary level. Twenty-one States had a gap of 2 percentage points or less between high- and low-poverty schools, but only five States had a gap this small at the secondary level (Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia). Four States (Arkansas, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia) and the District of Columbia reported a greater percentage of classes in high-poverty schools taught by HQTs than in their low-poverty schools at the elementary level.

4

N=50 states; Bureau of Indian Affairs does not have any schools classified low poverty and is not included in this analysis.

3

At the secondary level, the District of Columbia and Arizona reported that the percentage of core academic classes taught by HQTs was higher in high-poverty schools than in lowpoverty schools.

Most Commonly Reported Reasons for Classes that Were Not Taught by a Highly Qualified Teacher5 Of those elementary teachers who are not highly qualified— • Alaska, California, Utah, Wyoming, Alabama and Hawaii reported that more than 80 percent of the elementary school classes taught by teachers who were not highly qualified were taught by certified general education teachers who had not passed a subjectknowledge test or had not demonstrated subject-matter competency through HOUSSE. Twenty States reported that 20 percent or less of the teachers teaching elementary classes for which they were not highly qualified were general education teachers who had not passed a subject-knowledge test or had not demonstrated subject-matter competency through HOUSSE. Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Kentucky and Rhode Island reported that the majority of their elementary classes that were taught by non-HQTs were special education classes taught by certified special education teachers who had not passed a subject-knowledge test or had not demonstrated subject-matter competency through HOUSSE. More than half of the States reporting (N=49) indicated that 20 percent or more of those elementary classes without a highly qualified teacher were taught by teachers who were not fully certified and were not in an approved alternative route program. Ten States reported that in none of the cases where an elementary class was taught by a teacher who was not highly qualified was the teacher’s status the result of lack of certification.

Of those secondary teachers who are not highly qualified— • More than one-third of States (17) reported that 50 percent or more of the secondary classes that were taught by a non-HQT were taught by certified general education teachers who had not demonstrated subject-matter knowledge in those subjects. Eighteen States said that 20 percent or less of the secondary classes with non-HQTs were taught by teachers who had not demonstrated subject-matter knowledge in those subjects.

5

Idaho, Massachusetts, Nebraska and Puerto Rico did not provide complete data and are not included in this analysis.

4

Twenty-three States reported that 10 percent or less of the secondary classes taught by teachers who were not highly qualified were special education classes taught by certified special education teachers who had not demonstrated subject-matter competency in those subjects. Oklahoma, Kentucky, Rhode Island and New Jersey indicated that the majority of the secondary classes taught by teachers who were not highly qualified were taught by certified special education teachers who had not demonstrated subject-matter competency in those subjects (92.9 percent, 61 percent, 60 percent and 50 percent, respectively). In West Virginia, New York, Missouri and the District of Columbia, 80 percent or more of the secondary school classes taught by teachers who were not highly qualified were taught by teachers who were not fully certified and were not in an approved alternative route program.

5