Archived Information

TEACHER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS

Goal: To improve the quality of teacher education and initial certification standards, and to improve the knowledge and skills of all
teachers, particularly new teachers and teachers who work in high-need areas.
Relationship of Program to Volume 1, Department-wide Objectives: The three initiatives authorized under Title II support Objective 1.4 (a talented and dedicated
teacher is in every classroom in America) by providing competitive grants to states for comprehensive teacher quality reforms; by providing competitive grants to
partnerships of districts and institutions of higher education for fundamental improvements in teacher education; and by providing competitive grants to states and
partnerships for new strategies for reducing shortages of qualified teachers in high-need areas.
FY 2000—$98,000,000
FY 2001—$98,000,000 (Requested budget)

OBJECTIVE 1: IMPROVE THE SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE OF NEW TEACHERS BY FUNDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF STATE POLICIES THAT STRENGTHEN INITIAL LICENSING STANDARDS AND THE DEVELOPMENT
OF STATE OR LOCAL POLICIES/PROGRAMS THAT REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNCERTIFIED TEACHERS.
Indicator 1.1 Teacher certification standards. State grantees: An external panel of experts will find that all states that use their grant to strengthen initial
teacher certification standards will have implemented higher standards within 3 years of the grant award. Within 1 1/2 years of the grant award, these states
will have demonstrated progress toward implementation of higher standards.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: Unable to judge because no 1999 data Sources: State Report Card on the Quality of
1999: This is a new program for 1999. New program are available. Teacher Preparation (Sec. 207).
2000: 100%
2001: 100%
2002: 100%

TEACHER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS PAGE M-39

Indicator 1.2 Certification rate. State, recruitment, and partnership grantees: The percentages of new and current teachers who meet their state’s teacher
certification requirements, including passing content knowledge and competency tests, will increase each year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: No 1999 data. Unable to judge. Sources: State Report Card on the Quality of
1999: This is a new program for 1999. New program Teacher Preparation (Sec. 207).
2000: New program Explanation: This is a new program, so
2001: New program performance data are not yet available.

OBJECTIVE 2: INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY, PLACEMENT, AND RETENTION RATES OF WELL-PREPARED, HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERS IN HIGH-NEED SCHOOLS.
Indicator 2.1 Placement and retention. Partnership and recruitment grantees: There will be an increase each year in the percentage of graduates from teacher
preparation programs with partnership or recruitment grants who serve for at least 3 years in high-need schools, particularly high-poverty schools in
partnership districts.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: No 1999 data. Unable to judge. Sources: Annual program performance reports.
1999: This is a new program for 1999. New program
2000: New program Explanation: This is a new program, so
2001: New program performance data are not yet available.

PAGE M-40 TEACHER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS

 Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Limitations of Data and Planned
Improvements: Annual program performance
reports will contain self-reported data from
grantees.

Indicator 2.2 Support for new teachers. Partnership and recruitment grantees: The percentage of new teachers in districts with partnerships or recruitment
grants who receive ongoing support services and education from their grant program for at least their first 3 years of teaching will increase each year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: No 1999 data on actual grantee Sources: Annual program performance reports.
1999: This is a new program for 1999. New program performance are available.
2000: New program
2001: New program

TEACHER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS PAGE M-41

OBJECTIVE 3: IMPROVE THE ACADEMIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING OF FUTURE TEACHERS.
Indicator 3.1 Content knowledge and teaching skills. Partnership and recruitment grantees: The percentage of graduates from teacher preparation programs
with partnership or recruitment grants who demonstrate strong content knowledge and teaching skills in the subject they teach will increase each year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: No 1999 data. Unable to judge. Sources: Annual program performance reports.
1999: This is a new program for 1999. New program Frequency: Annually.
2000: New program Explanation: This is a new program, so Next Update: 2000.
2001: New program performance data are not yet available.
2001: New program National Evaluation.
Frequency: One update.
Next Update: 2003.

Indicator 3.2 Technological skills. Partnership and state grantees: The percentage of teachers from partnership programs and grantee states who are prepared
to integrate technology into the classroom will increase each year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: No 1999 data. Sources: Annual program performance reports.
1999: This is a new program for 1999. New program
2000: New program Explanation: This is a new program, so
2001: New program performance data are not yet available.

OBJECTIVE 4: IMPROVE THE ABILITY OF TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS TO CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVE THEIR TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMS AND MEET THE STAFFING NEEDS OF PARTNER DISTRICTS.
Indicator 4.1 Process of self-assessment and improvement. Partnership and recruitment grantees: The percentage of teacher preparation programs with
partnership and recruitment grants that have a formal process for assessing the effectiveness of their graduates as classroom teachers will increase each year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: No 1999 data on actual grantee Sources: Annual program performance reports.
1999: This is a new program for 1999. New program performance are available. Frequency: Annually.
2000: New program Next Update: 2000.
2001: New program
National Evaluation.
Frequency: Two updates.
Next Update: 2002.

Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

PAGE M-42 TEACHER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS

 Based on a review of recruitment grantee Validation Procedures: Evaluation data
applications, 19 recruitment grantees indicated collection will be verified by on-site monitoring
they would develop an assessment process as and review, and survey and analyses performed
part of their Title II activities; assessment by an experienced data collection agency with
activities include written or oral evaluation of internal review procedures.
teachers’ work, student achievement data, and
interviews with supervisors. Limitations of Data and Planned
Improvements: Annual program performance
Based on a review of partnership applications, 23 reports will contain self-reported data from
partnership grantees indicated they will grantees.
develop an assessment process as part of their
Title II activities; assessment activities include
evaluations by other educators, student
achievement data, INTASC standards, and
teachers’ portfolios.

Explanations: This is a new program, so actual

program performance data are not yet available.

Indicator 4.2 Collaboration among partners. Partnership grantees: The percentage of partnership grantees with a governance structure that conducts a formal
assessment of the staffing needs of local districts, monitors the effectiveness of partnership activities, and provides funds to partnership members for new
activities will increase each year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Status: Progress toward target is likely. Sources: Annual program performance reports.
Grantees have a collaborative structure in place.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1999: 100%* New programs
2000: 100%
2001: 100%
Grantees have a formal needs assessment process in place.
1999: 88%* New programs
2000: 100%
2001: 100%
Grantees monitor the effectiveness of partnership activities.
1999: 96%* New programs
2000: 100%
2001: 100%
Grantees provide increasing funds to partnership members for new activities.
1999: 24%* New programs
2000: 100%
2001: 100%
* Baseline data

TEACHER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS PAGE M-43

KEY STRATEGIES
Strategies Continued from 1999
None.

New or Strengthened Strategies

To expand grantee awareness of promising practices and increase the pace of change in teacher education reform, the Title II Program will disseminate information to grantees
and prospective grantees in the following areas:
 Strategies that some states have used to improve certification standards, reduce the number of uncertified teachers, and hold teacher training programs accountable for training highly
skilled teachers.
 Upcoming awards program for teacher education programs and the lessons learned from the award winners. For example, learn how the programs measure the effectiveness of their
graduates.
 Ways in which the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers To Use Technology, and other related programs can be used to support the
program goals.
 Best practices in the field.
 Teaching opportunities for students and recent graduates.
To meet grantee and program performance goals, including comprehensive reform of teacher preparation programs, improved teacher recruitment practices and stronger state
licensure systems, the Title II Program will provide technical assistance and facilitate communication among grantees through the following means:
 Sponsoring activities such as focus groups, conferences, or workshops where participating partners can exchange information and ideas to enhance the success of the program.
 Sponsoring workshops to help grantees coordinate with the Eisenhower Professional Development Program.
 Providing technical assistance to partnerships in the development of assessment instruments.
 Helping grantee institutions share information on effective strategies.
To base program and grantee work on the best research and the best practices, the Title II Program will coordinate with other programs and organizations, such as:
 The National Science Foundation’s teacher preparation programs and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s teacher preparation activities.
 The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the National Governor's Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the American Council on
Education, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the State Higher Educational Executive Officers, and other organizations, to promote program goals.
 ED’s Office of Postsecondary Education programs: Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers To Use Technology and Gear Up, and ED’s Office of Vocational Education’s teacher education
initiative.

HOW THIS PROGRAM COORDINATES WITH OTHER FEDERAL ACTIVITIES

 Coordination includes involving NASA’s teacher preparation program grantees in technical assistance and dissemination activities with Title II grantees, starting with the first Title II
project directors’ conference. Coordination efforts will also involve the teacher preparation programs run through the National Science Foundation.

CHALLENGES TO ACHIEVING PROGRAM GOAL

 The capability of the Title II office to provide extensive technical assistance to grant recipients.
 The ability of grant recipients to
 develop leadership support in their states or on campuses,
 build broad collaborative partnerships with key stakeholders, and
 develop strategies to sustain the project after Federal funding ends.
Grant recipients must overcome decades of neglect for teacher preparation programs among campus leaders such as presidents, provosts, and members of the arts and sciences community.
Securing the personal involvement of these leaders for the restructuring of teacher preparation programs is a crucial but often difficult task to achieve. The support and involvement of
campus leaders in teacher preparation programs is a precondition to policy and practice changes (such as changing faculty expectations or creating a faculty reward system). It is also a
necessary precondition for obtaining financial support that ensures that high-quality teacher preparation becomes a university-wide priority and remains a priority after Federal Title II
funding ends.
 Ensuring sustained political and public interest in and support of the Title II programs.

PAGE M-44 TEACHER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS

INDICATOR CHANGES
From FY 1999 Annual Plan (two years old)
Adjusted
 Indicator 1.1 (state and local assessments) was modified for FY 2000. The FY 2000 indicator remains unchanged in FY 20001, except for its number, which is described above.
 Indicator 1.2 (NAEP reading and math) was modified for FY 2000 to target performance of the lowest achieving students and students in the highest poverty public schools as well as
being renumbered as Indicator 1.1 (a shared indicator with Goals 2000). The FY 2001 indicator remains the same as FY 2000.
 Indicator 2.2 (standards and assessments) was modified by dropping the assessment indicator and including in standards piece in FY 2000 Indicator 2.1 (use of challenging standards)
FY 2001 Indicator 3.2 (aligned assessments) brings back the FY 99 assessment piece that had been dropped in FY 2000.
 Indicator 2.3 (research-based curriculum and instruction) was modified as FY 2000 Indicator 2.4.
 Indicator 2.4 (extended learning time) was slightly modified in FY 2000 and numbered as Indicator 2.3.
 Indicator 2.5 (services to private school students) was modified as FY 2000 Indicator 2.7 to delete “more effective communication, consultation, and services” and substitute with
“effective implementation of on-site services to students.” For FY 2001, the indicator has been dropped as described above.
 Indicator 3.2 (qualified teacher aides) was modified in FY 2000 Indicator 2.6 to shift the focus from credentials to district support for the educational improvement through career
ladders for paraprofessionals and aides. FY 2001 Indicator 2.5 retains the FY 2000 indicator and expands to include qualified staff in Title I schools.
 Indicator 4.1 (implementing high standards) was slightly modified as FY 2000 Indicator 3.1(Establishing annual progress measures) and dropped in FY 2001.
 Indicator 4.2 (linked assessments) was modified slightly in FY 2000 Indicator 3.2 (aligned assessments) and substantially maintained as FY 2001 Indicator 3.2 (aligned assessments).
 Indicator 4.3 (accountability: monitoring, intervention and assistance) was significantly changed in FY 2000 indicator to assess only the provision of “effective assistance to schools
not making progress through school support teams and other sources.” The FY 2001 Indicator 3.3 remains the same as FY 2000 but has been expanded to include public school
enrollment options as described above.
 Indicator 5.1 (school-parent compacts) was modified in FY 2000 Indicator 2.5 to delete “school staff and parents will report” and replace it with “Title I participating schools will
report.” The FY 2001 Indicator 2.3 has been changed to reflect a broader assessment of the effectiveness of parental involvement programs.
 Indicator 5.2 (improved attendance and homework completion) was not included in FY 2000 Indicator 2.5 but used instead as performance data.
Dropped
 None.
From FY 2000 Annual Plan (last year’s)
Adjusted
 Several indicators have been combined since last year to reduce the overall number of indicators. The purpose of this adjustment was to combine indicators from last year’s plan that
were similar to each other into one indicator for the FY 2001 plan.
 The following changes were made: former Indicators 1.3, 3.1, and 6.1 were combined to Indicator 1.2 for the FY 2001 plan; former Indicators 3.2, 3.3, and 6.3 were combined to
Indicator 2.1 in the FY 2001 plan; and former Indicators 2.1 and 6.2 were combined to Indicator 2.2 for the FY 2001 plan.
 The wording of several indicators was slightly adjusted, and the indicators were given new numbers; in the FY 2001 plan, these are Indicators 3.2, 4.1, and 4.2.
Dropped
 Indicator 2.2 was dropped since last year’s plan. This indicator was a process indicator, measuring enrollment in academic courses, rather than an outcome indicator.
New—None.

TEACHER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS PAGE M-45