Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
December 10, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42127
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Summary
One of the major goals of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as
amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110), is to raise the
achievement of students who currently fail to meet grade-level proficiency standards. Because
student achievement is widely believed to depend largely on the quality of instruction, the law
also contains provisions designed to improve teacher quality. These provisions establish
professional credentials for teachers and charge states and school districts with developing plans
to improve teacher quality. According to the law, these plans must ensure that all core subject-
matter courses are taught by a highly qualified teacher and that poor and minority students have
equal access to quality instruction.
To be deemed highly qualified, NCLB requires that teachers possess a baccalaureate degree and a
state teaching certificate, and that teachers also demonstrate subject-matter knowledge for their
teaching level. Elementary school teachers must show knowledge of basic elementary school
curricular areas. Middle and secondary school teachers must demonstrate a high level of
competency in all subject areas taught. Demonstration of subject-matter knowledge and
competency may be shown by passing a state certification exam or licensing test in the relevant
subject(s).
This report examines implementation of the NCLB requirement and examines the extent to which
schools achieved the law’s goal of placing a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. After
describing the highly qualified teacher requirement in detail, the report analyzes data from a
national survey of schools conducted a year before NCLB became law. These data suggest that as
many as four out of five teachers met the NCLB requirement prior to its enactment. Data reported
throughout implementation of the law indicate that the proportion of highly qualified teachers
increased each year, but that no state has reached 100%. In addition, analysis of these data also
support concerns about the equitable distribution of teaching quality between poor and nonpoor
schools.
This report concludes with a discussion of teacher quality issues that may be considered as the
ESEA reauthorization process unfolds. Several of these issues have been the subject of waiver
authority exercised by the Secretary of Education under both the current and previous
administrations. Congress has also taken up these issues along with reauthorization of the rest of
the ESEA. This report will be updated as significant legislative developments occur.
Congressional Research Service
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Teacher Quality and the No Child Left Behind Act ......................................................................... 2
A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom ...................................................................... 2
Equitable Distribution of Teacher Quality ................................................................................. 3
Improvement Plans and Accountability ..................................................................................... 3
Refining the Highly Qualified Teacher Definition .......................................................................... 4
Subject Matter Issues ................................................................................................................. 4
High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation ............................................................. 5
Different Teachers in Different Settings .................................................................................... 5
Deadlines for Implementation ................................................................................................... 6
A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom ............................................................................ 9
Teacher Quality Prior to NCLB ................................................................................................. 9
Teacher Quality After NCLB ................................................................................................... 10
Teacher Quality Issues for Congress .............................................................................................. 12
Multiple Subject Teachers ....................................................................................................... 12
Definition of Subject Matter .................................................................................................... 12
Middle School Teachers .......................................................................................................... 13
Rural Schools........................................................................................................................... 13
Urban and Poor Schools .......................................................................................................... 13
HQT Waivers ........................................................................................................................... 14
Figures
Figure 1. Diagram of Highly Qualified Teacher Requirement ........................................................ 8
Tables
Table 1. Qualifications of Core Subject Teachers, 1999-2000 ....................................................... 10
Table 2. Percentage of Core Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers ..................... 11
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 14
Congressional Research Service
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Introduction
It is widely believed that good teachers are critical to student learning. A large body of academic
research has produced strong evidence that teacher quality is positively related to student
performance. However, the strength of this research finding depends on the measure used to
indicate “quality.” Studies that use credentials such as degree attainment or teacher certification
show weaker impacts on student performance than studies that use direct measures of teachers’
pedagogical and subject-matter knowledge.1 Nevertheless, credentials are more readily available
to local school administrators that hire teachers and more easily incorporated into state and
federal policy. In recent years, education policy governing the attainment of teaching credentials
has evolved to incorporate pedagogy and subject expertise. General state certification exams have
been replaced or enhanced with testing for knowledge of subject matter. Some states have
developed multi-tiered, knowledge-based certification systems. Teacher preparation programs in
some states have begun requiring that candidates obtain a major or minor in a subject as a
prerequisite for or in conjunction with an education degree.2
Federal education policies have also aimed to enhance teaching credentials by placing added
emphasis on subject expertise. Most recently, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (P.L. 107-110),
requires that all public school teachers, in states participating in the ESEA Title I-A program, be
highly qualified by demonstrating subject knowledge for their teaching level. Elementary school
teachers must show knowledge of basic elementary school curricular areas. Middle and secondary
school teachers must demonstrate a high level of competency in all subject areas taught. Subject-
matter knowledge and competency may be demonstrated by passing a state certification exam or
licensing test in the relevant subject(s).3
One of the major goals of NCLB is to raise the achievement of students who currently fail to meet
grade-level proficiency standards. Since student achievement has been shown to be largely
dependent on teacher quality, the law seeks to improve achievement by setting higher minimum
teacher quality requirements. In complying with the law, schools are prevented from hiring
teachers with emergency or provisional certification, those without a baccalaureate degree, or
those with limited subject knowledge.
1 Michael B. Allen, Eight Questions on Teacher Preparation: What Does the Research Say?, Education Commission of
the States, July 2003; Linda Darling-Hammond and Gary Sykes, “Wanted: A National Teacher Supply Policy for
Education,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 11, no. 33 (September 2003); Dan Goldhaber and Emily
Anthony, “Can Teacher Quality Be Effectively Assessed?,” The Urban Institute, Research Paper no. 410958, April 27,
2004; Leslie G. Vandervoort and David C. Berliner, “National Board Certified Teachers and Their Students’
Achievement,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 12, no. 46 (September 2004); Eric A. Hanushek et al., “The
Market for Teacher Quality,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper no. 11154, February 2005.
2 The College of Education at the University of Kentucky provides a compilation of teacher certification requirements
for all 50 states. The compilation is available online at http://www.uky.edu/Education/TEP/usacert.html. The National
Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification annually publishes a similar compilation, The
NASDTEC Manual on the Preparation & Certification of Educational Personnel, which is available at
http://www.nasdtec.org.
3 Teachers may also demonstrate knowledge by having majored in the relevant subject(s), and experienced teachers
may do so through the “high objective uniform state standard of evaluation” (HOUSSE) method explained later in this
report.
Congressional Research Service
1
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
For some time, it was thought that schools hired teachers lacking full credentials because a
shortage existed in the overall supply of qualified teachers. That idea has been challenged in
recent years by research that revealed the shortage is in fact a distribution problem. Some so-
called “hard-to-staff” schools find it difficult to maintain a staff of qualified teachers, while other
schools have an adequate supply (and in some cases an oversupply) of quality teachers.4
The reasons for the uneven distribution in the teacher supply are still a matter of debate. Some
argue that rules providing priority in reassignment options to teachers with seniority and the late
decision deadline given to resigning teachers relegates the least-qualified teachers to less
desirable schools. Others point to working conditions and other factors that make these schools
less desirable to quality teachers in the first place. Whatever the reasons for the uneven
distribution of quality teachers, the persistence of hard-to-staff schools may undermine the impact
of NCLB teacher quality standards in reducing the student achievement gap. To address this
issue, Congress included in NCLB a requirement that poor and minority students have equal
access to quality instruction.
This report examines implementation of the NCLB requirement of a highly qualified teacher in
every public school classroom. The first section of the report describes the highly qualified
teacher (HQT) requirement and how it was specified through regulation, guidance, and policy
statements issued by the Education Department (ED). In the second section, the report analyzes
data from a national survey of schools to assess teacher quality prior to enactment of NCLB and
examines state reporting data to track how teacher quality may have improved throughout the
law’s implementation. Finally, the report discusses teacher quality issues that Congress may
consider as the ESEA reauthorization process unfolds.
Teacher Quality and the No Child Left Behind Act
With regard to teacher quality, NCLB made three major amendments to the ESEA: (1) the law
required that all teachers of core academic subjects be “highly qualified,” (2) it mandated that the
distribution of teacher quality be equal across poor and minority schools, and (3) it established
accountability provisions to ensure that annual improvements in teacher quality are achieved.
A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom
NCLB requires that each state educational agency (SEA) receiving ESEA Title I, Part A funding
(compensatory education of disadvantaged students) must have a plan to ensure that, by no later
than the end of the 2005-2006 school year, all public school teachers teaching in core academic
subjects within the state meet the definition of an HQT.
According to ESEA, Section 9101(23), the definition of an HQT has two basic components
involving minimum credentials and subject-matter knowledge. First, to be deemed highly
4 Richard M. Ingersol, Teacher Turnover, Teacher Shortages, and the Organization of Schools, Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy, Research Report, January 2001; Patrick J. Murphy and Michael M. DeArmond, From the
Headlines to the Frontlines: The Teacher Shortage and Its Implications for Recruitment Policy, Center on Reinventing
Public Education, research paper, July 2003; the American Association for Employment in Education, Educator Supply
and Demand in the United States 2001, research report, 2002; Recruiting New Teachers, Inc., The Urban Teacher
Challenge, research report, January 2000.
Congressional Research Service
2
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
qualified, a teacher must possess a baccalaureate degree and full state teaching certification (i.e.,
must not have had any certification requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or
provisional basis). Second, a teacher must demonstrate subject-matter knowledge in the areas that
she or he teaches. The manner in which teachers satisfy the second component depends on the
extent of their teaching experience and the level at which they teach. These subject knowledge
requirements are as follows:
• New elementary school teachers must pass a rigorous state test demonstrating
subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, math, and other basic
elementary school curricular areas.
• New middle or secondary school teachers must demonstrate a high level of
competency in all subjects taught by (1) passing rigorous state academic tests in
those subjects, or (2) completing an academic major (or equivalent course work),
graduate degree, or advanced certification in each subject taught.
• Experienced school teachers must meet (1) the requirements described above
for new teachers (depending upon his or her level of instruction), or (2)
demonstrate competency in all subjects taught using a “high objective uniform
state standard of evaluation” (HOUSSE).
These provisions indicate that the tests used to demonstrate subject-matter knowledge may
include state certification or licensing exams. Section 9101(23) states that a demonstration of
subject-matter knowledge by an elementary school teacher “may consist of passing a State-
required certification or licensing test or tests in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of
the basic elementary school curriculum.” For a middle or secondary school teacher, Section
9101(23) states that a demonstration of subject-matter knowledge “may consist of a passing level
of performance on a State-required certification or licensing test or tests in each of the academic
subjects in which the teacher teaches.”
Equitable Distribution of Teacher Quality
Through passage of the NCLB amendments, lawmakers not only established minimum standards
for teacher qualifications, they also sought to give all students equal access to good teachers. To
this end, the law requires that each state desiring Title II, Part A funds submit a plan to the
Secretary that, among other things, includes “steps that the State educational agency will take to
ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by
inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.”5 The state’s plan must further include the
measures to be used to evaluate and publicly report on progress made in this area.
Improvement Plans and Accountability
NCLB requires educational agencies to issue reports annually on the progress made toward
meeting the HQT deadline. Each local education agency (LEA) is required to issue these reports
publicly and report progress for the LEA as a whole and for each school within the LEA. Each
SEA is required to submit reports annually to the Secretary on progress toward meeting the
deadline.
5 Section 1111(b)(8)(C).
Congressional Research Service
3
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Section 2141 of the law states that an LEA found to have failed to meet its annual HQT objectives
for two consecutive years must submit an improvement plan to its SEA which must provide
technical assistance in the development and implementation of the LEA’s plan. An LEA found to
have failed to meet its annual objectives for a third year that has also failed to make Adequate
Yearly Progress for three consecutive years must enter into an agreement with its SEA and accept
restrictions on its use of Title I and II funds. Specifically, such an LEA must agree to only use
Title II funds for approved professional development activities that result in progress toward
meeting the HQT deadline and may not use Title I funds to hire paraprofessionals.
Refining the Highly Qualified Teacher Definition
Following passage of NCLB, ED further specified the HQT definition through regulation,
nonregulatory guidance, and other means. In general, these policy statements addressed concerns
about the scope and application of the HQT requirements. Among a wide variety of
implementation issues, ED sought to clarify what constitutes “core” subject matter, how states
should develop and apply a HOUSSE, how the HQT requirements may be differentially applied
to different types of teachers and in different types of educational settings, and when various
aspects of the requirement must be completed.
Subject Matter Issues
Early in the implementation of these provisions, some asked whether they apply to all teachers,
including vocational education teachers, special education teachers, or others not teaching core
academic subjects. According to ESEA Section 9101(11), “The term ‘core academic subjects’
means English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and
government, economics, arts, history, and geography.” Final regulations for the Title I program
published on December 2, 2002, in the Federal Register clarified that these requirements apply
only to core academic subject teachers. ED noted that these requirements would apply to a
vocational education teacher or a special education teacher providing instruction in a core
academic subject.6
ED addressed other subject matter issues in subsequent guidance and policy letters. A March
2004 policy announcement modified earlier nonregulatory guidance (issued in January 2004),
which stated that science teachers teaching more than one field of science (e.g., biology and
chemistry) would have to be highly qualified in each of the fields taught. Under the new
flexibility, states determine whether science teachers need to be highly qualified in each science
field they teach or highly qualified in science in general, based on how the state currently certifies
teachers in these subject areas.
This new flexibility, along with other changes, was incorporated into the revised nonregulatory
guidance issued on August 3, 2005.7 For example, the guidance clarifies that social studies is not
6 The application of HQT requirements to special education teachers was subsequently modified under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. For more information, see CRS Report R42070, The Education of Students with
Disabilities: Alignment Between the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, by Ann Lordeman and Rebecca R. Skinner.
7 The most recently revised ESEA Title II nonregulatory guidance is available online at http://www.ed.gov/programs/
teacherqual/guidance.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
considered a core subject and that certification in social studies or possession of a “composite
social studies degree” does not necessarily indicate that a teacher is highly qualified to teach
related subjects (e.g., economics and history). States are to determine whether a social studies
teacher is qualified to teach the specific subject he or she is assigned to teach.
High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation
According to NCLB, a teacher who is not new to the teaching profession may demonstrate
subject matter knowledge through state-determined HOUSSE procedures. In defining its
HOUSSE, the SEA must set standards for both grade appropriate academic subject knowledge
and teaching skills that are aligned with challenging state academic and student achievement
standards. The HOUSSE must provide objective information about teachers’ content knowledge
in all subjects taught and be applied uniformly statewide to all teachers in the same subjects and
grade levels. Finally, the statute states that the HOUSSE may use multiple measures of teacher
competency and may consider, but not be based primarily on, time teaching the relevant subjects.
Nonregulatory guidance, published on September 12, 2003, included suggestions on the
development of HOUSSE procedures. According to the guidance, states should consider several
factors when developing their HOUSSE procedures, including whether the proposed HOUSSE
measures provide an “objective” way of determining whether a teacher has adequate subject-
matter knowledge. The latest (August 2005) guidance defines new teachers as those with less than
one year of teaching experience and teachers who are not new as those with more than one year of
experience. However, the guidance indicates that states have the authority to determine who is
new to the profession and who is not. States may also design their HOUSSE procedures to allow
a teacher to go through the process a single time to demonstrate competency in multiple subjects.
Different Teachers in Different Settings
NCLB states that full certification includes “certification obtained through alternative routes to
certification.” The December 2002 final regulations indicated that teachers who were
participating in an alternative certification program will be considered highly qualified on a
provisional basis. Such teachers have a maximum of three years in which to become fully
certified without being in violation of the highly qualified requirements regarding certification.8
This allowance is made only for a teacher in an alternative certification program who is receiving
high-quality professional development, intensive supervision, and is making satisfactory progress
toward full certification.
Concerns had been raised that the HQT requirements would limit participation in international
teacher exchange programs. In a policy letter issued on March 24, 2003, the Secretary addressed
these concerns by indicating how teachers from other countries could be considered highly
qualified in the state in which they teach. The Secretary pointed out that each state has the full
authority to define and enforce its own requirements for certification and licensure and make
accommodations for foreign teachers. Accommodations could also be made in developing tests
8 These regulations were invalidated by a September 27, 2010, ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (Renee v. Duncan, 623 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 2010)), but the 111th Congress subsequently overturned the
court’s ruling by codifying the regulations in an amendment passed under the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011
(P.L. 111-322).
Congressional Research Service
5
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
and other ways of demonstrating subject-matter expertise. In making this point, the Secretary
clarified that one such demonstration provided in the law is coursework equivalent to an
academic major.
These changes were included in the September 2003 updated guidance, along with clarification
on the issue of middle school teachers. When determining whether teachers of core academic
subjects in grades 6 through 8 should meet competency requirements for elementary or middle
school teachers, the guidance advises states to “examine the degree of rigor and technicality of
the subject matter that a teacher will need to know in relation to the state’s content standards and
academic achievement standards for the subjects in those grade levels.” In addition, states may
choose to consider teachers with middle school certification to be “highly qualified,” and states
may approve tests that are specifically developed for middle school teachers if the tests are
“rigorous content-area assessments that are developed specifically for middle school teachers and
aligned with middle school content and academic standards.”
In a March 31, 2004, policy letter, the Secretary announced that additional flexibility could be
applied in the implementation of the HQT requirements with regard to teachers in small rural
school districts.9 In small rural districts, ED provided that teachers teaching core academic
subjects who meet the highly qualified requirements in at least one of the subject areas they teach
may have an additional three years to meet these requirements in the other subjects they might
teach. For current teachers, this three-year grace period began with the 2004-2005 school year,
meaning that rather than facing a deadline of the end of the 2005-2006 school year to be highly
qualified in all core subjects taught, current rural teachers have until the end of the 2006-2007
school year. For newly hired teachers, a full three-year grace period can be provided from the date
of hiring. But those newly hired teachers will have to be highly qualified in one of their core
subject areas when hired. States decide whether to offer this flexibility to eligible rural districts.
Section 9101(23) states that charter school teachers must meet “the requirements set forth in the
State’s public charter school law.” ED’s guidance clarifies that this only refers to the requirements
for certification and indicates that such teachers must meet all other HQT requirements. The
guidance also states that teachers in juvenile and correctional institutions or “other alternative
settings” must meet HQT standards only if such settings are considered LEAs under state law.
Deadlines for Implementation
Each SEA was to submit its plan to meet the HQT deadline along with its Consolidated State
Application for State Grants on July 12, 2002. The plan was to establish annual measurable
objectives for each LEA and school that, at a minimum, included annual increases in the
percentage of HQTs at each LEA and school to ensure that the 2005-2006 deadline was met. In
turn, each LEA was also to have a plan to meet this deadline. In addition, beginning with the first
day of the 2002-2003 school year, any LEA receiving ESEA Title I funding must ensure that all
teachers hired after that date who are teaching in Title I-supported programs are highly qualified.
States and LEAs must also submit annual reports to ED describing progress on the state-set
annual objectives.
9 Rural school teachers are defined as those teaching in schools eligible for the Small Rural School Achievement
(SRSA) Program (ESEA Title VI-B). The policy letter announcing this flexibility is available at http://www.ed.gov/
policy/elsec/guid/secletter/040331.html.
Congressional Research Service
6
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
The Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPR), for the 2003-2004 school year due in
January of 2005, were to contain the first data on the status of meeting the HQT requirement.
However, ED reported widespread problems in state data systems and offered a series of regional
data workshops to support states in collecting data.10 This includes the additional data on teachers
who are not highly qualified that was required to be submitted in the January 2006 CSPR. ED
announced these workshops in a policy letter to chief state school officers dated October 21,
2005.
The letter also announced additional flexibility in meeting the HQT deadline. The Secretary
stated that the letter’s purpose was “to assure you that States that do not quite reach the 100%
goal by the end of the 2005-2006 school year will not lose federal funds if they are implementing
the law and making a good-faith effort to reach the HQT goal in NCLB as soon as possible.”11
Instead, states that “meet the law’s requirements and the Department’s expectations in these areas
but fall short of having highly qualified teachers in every classroom” would be given an
additional year to reach the 100% goal.
In a letter dated March 21, 2006, the Secretary requested that each state submit a revised plan to
meet the 2006-2007 goal. The letter also established a schedule for reviewing these plans,
monitoring their implementation, and assessing the state’s progress.12 The Secretary’s latest letter
to chief state school officers on this policy (dated July 23, 2007) stated that all but one state had a
plan approved.13 The letter also stated that data submitted in the 2005-2006 CSPR indicated that
no state had reached 100% HQT (further examination of these data will be undertaken in the next
section of this report). The Secretary reiterated ED’s earlier position that no penalties would be
imposed on states making a good-faith effort to reach the HQT goal.
Figure 1 provides a graphic diagram of the major HQT requirements as defined in NCLB and
further specified in ED regulation and guidance.
10 A GAO report dated July 2003 anticipated these data systems problems: U.S. Government Accountability Office, No
Child Left Behind Act: More Information Would Help States Determine Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified, GAO-
03-631.
11 The Secretary’s letter is available at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/051021.html.
12 The Secretary’s letter is available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/cssoltr.doc.
13 The Secretary’s letter is available at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/070723.html.
Congressional Research Service
7
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Figure 1. Diagram of Highly Qualified Teacher Requirement
CRS-8
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom
This section examines progress made toward meeting the NCLB goal of placing a highly
qualified teacher in every classroom. Data gathered prior to the law’s passage will be compared to
the most recent data available to see whether the nation’s schools witnessed a measurable increase
in the proportion of highly qualified teachers.
The only nationally representative source of pre-NCLB information on teacher quality is the
Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), which collects data on teachers’ assignments, education,
and certification.14 The SASS survey fielded during the 1999-2000 school year provides a
snapshot of the teaching force prior to passage of NCLB. The only national source of post-NCLB
data on teacher quality comes from the law’s reporting requirements. Each year, states must
submit to ED, as part of their CSPR, “the percentage of classes being taught by highly qualified
teachers in the State.”15
It is important to note that the units of analysis for these two data sources are different. In the
SASS data, the “objects” being measured in the survey are teachers; thus, these data are designed
to address such questions as, “how many teachers are highly qualified?” Conversely, in the CSPR
data the units of analysis are classes; thus, these data are designed to address such questions as,
“how many classes are taught by highly qualified teachers?” Although the pre- and post-NCLB
data come from different sources and use different units of analysis, these data do appear to show
improvement in teacher quality over the years in which the law was implemented.
Teacher Quality Prior to NCLB
According to the 1999-2000 SASS survey, just under 3 million teachers were employed in the
nation’s public schools and, for about 6%, that year was their first year of teaching.16 Virtually all
teachers (99.3%) held a baccalaureate degree at the time of the survey; the large majority (95.9%)
also held some form of state teaching certification. Nearly one-third of all teachers did not teach a
“core” academic subject during the 1999-2000 school year; these noncore teachers are not subject
to the HQT requirement and are omitted from this analysis.17
The SASS data suggest that prior to the passage of NCLB, more than eight out of ten teachers
met the HQT requirement. Of the 2.1 million teachers who taught at least one core subject in
14 The SASS sample is drawn from ED’s Common Core of Data, which contains virtually every school in the country.
15 Section 1111(h)(4)(G).
16 This figure does not include those employed as teacher aides (or paraprofessionals). Although NCLB does contain a
separate series of requirements for paraprofessional quality, individuals employed to assist teachers were not included
in the SASS sample. For information on the requirements for paraprofessionals, see CRS Report RS22545,
Paraprofessional Quality and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
17 Although “social studies” is not part of the statutory definition of a “core academic subject,” it is used in this analysis
because it encompasses subjects that are in statute but not in the survey—namely, economics, history, and geography.
SASS survey respondents could also categorize themselves as “Kindergarten” and/or “Elementary” teachers; those
choosing these categories were also considered core subject teachers in this analysis. Special education teachers who
teach core subjects are required to be HQT; however, they were omitted from this analysis because the SASS
instrument design prevented clear distinction between those who taught core subjects and those who did not.
Congressional Research Service
9
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
1999-2000, 1.73 million taught a single subject and 339,000 taught two subjects.18 Nine in ten
single-subject teachers reported that they held full state certification in the subject they taught.
Half of all two-subject teachers reported that they held full state certification in both of their
subjects. Taken together, 84.5% of all single and two-subject teachers held a baccalaureate degree
and reported being certified in the subject(s) they taught. Since NCLB considers state certification
in all fields taught adequate demonstration of subject-matter knowledge, 84.5% of teachers met
the HQT requirement. Table 1 presents the qualifications of core subject teachers for the 1999-
2000 school year.
An additional 3.1% of all teachers were participating in an alternative certification program at the
time of the survey. NCLB considers such teachers to be provisionally HQT and gave them three
years to complete their program and become fully certified. Also qualifying for provisional HQT
status (this time through regulation instead of statute) were another 0.4% of teachers who taught
two subjects, held certification in only one, and were located in LEAs eligible for participation in
the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program (ESEA Title VI-B). According to ED’s
guidance, these teachers have additional time to demonstrate subject-matter knowledge in the
field in which they are not highly qualified—one year in the case of veteran teachers and three
years for new teachers. Thus, a total of 3.5% of all 1999-2000 teachers would have been
temporarily deemed highly qualified teachers (combining those in alternative certification
programs and those in SRSA schools who were uncertified in one of their two subjects).
Table 1. Qualifications of Core Subject Teachers, 1999-2000
Number
Percent
Core subject teachers
2,068,306
100%
Certified in al subjects taught
1,747,343
84.5
Highly qualified teachers
1,747,343
84.5
In alternative certification program
64,009
3.1
Certified in 1 of 2 subjects and SRSA
9,246
0.4
Highly qualified and provisionally highly qualified teachers
1,820,598
88.0
Source: CRS analysis of the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics’ 1999-2000
Schools and Staffing Survey.
Teacher Quality After NCLB
NCLB reporting requirements (under the CSPR) ask states to tabulate the proportion of classes
taught by highly qualified teachers, rather than the proportion of teachers who were highly
qualified. Consequently, the CSPR data focus on a different unit of analysis and are not
completely compatible with the estimates produced by the SASS survey. However, given that the
SASS data show that a large majority of core subject teachers (83.6%) are also single-subject
teachers, the proportion of core subject HQTs and the proportion of core subject classes taught by
HQTs should not be greatly different.
18 Those who reported their teaching assignment field as “Kindergarten” or “Elementary” were counted as single-
subject teachers. Additional analysis of SASS data reveal that only a small fraction (less than 2%) of these teachers
taught more than two subjects in 1999-2000. Therefore, the analysis in this report only considers teachers’ first two
teaching assignments.
Congressional Research Service
10
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
The 1999-2000 SASS data show that prior to passage of NCLB, there was a very high proportion
(84.5%) of core subject teachers who were highly qualified by the law’s definition. Although they
are not comparable to the SASS data, the CSPR data appear to show improvement in teacher
quality over the years in which NCLB was implemented. Table 2 presents the percentage of core
subject classes taught by highly qualified teachers.19 The 2003-2004 CSPR data show a higher
proportion of HQT-led classes (86.5%) than was suggested by the SASS data, and the subsequent
years show a steady increase over time—from 90.6% in 2004-2005 to 96.7% in 2009-10.
The CSPR data also provide HQT information disaggregated by school level and poverty status.
Although there was improvement each year and in all subgroups, the CSPR data show that classes
taught by HQTs were not evenly distributed across school level or school poverty status. In each
year, classes in elementary schools were more likely to be taught by HQTs than classes in
secondary schools. The gap was four percentage points in 2004-2005 (93.0% versus 89.0%) and
two percentage points in 2005-2006 (97.7% versus 95.8%).
Table 2. Percentage of Core Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers
2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Total
86.5% 90.6% 92.2% 94.2% 95.0% 95.9% 96.7%
Elementary
na 93.0 94.0 95.9 96.5 97.1 97.7
High-
na 89.6 90.4 93.5 94.9 96.3 97.0
poverty
Low-
na 95.0 95.8 96.6 97.5 97.6 97.7
poverty
Secondary
na 89.0 90.9 93.0 93.9 94.9 95.8
High-
na 84.6 85.7 88.7 89.6 92.5 94.1
poverty
Low-
na 91.9 93.8 95.4 96.0 96.5 97.2
poverty
Source: Compiled by CRS based on U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Reports,
various years.
Also in each year, classes in low-poverty schools were more likely to be taught by an HQT than
classes in high-poverty schools. In 2004-2005, there was a five percentage point gap between
high-poverty and low-poverty schools at the elementary level (89.6% versus 95.0%) and a six
percentage point gap at the secondary level (84.6% versus 91.9%). By 2009-2010, these gaps had
narrowed to less than one percentage point at the elementary level (97.0% versus 97.7%) and to
three percentage points at the secondary level (94.1% versus 97.2%).
19 NCLB required that states submit these data starting in the 2002-2003 school year; however, according to ED,
“several states reported that they did not have the mechanisms to accurately report these data the first year, … [so] the
2003-04 data will serve as the baseline.” U.S. Department of Education Issue Brief, A Summary of Highly Qualified
Teacher Data, May 2008, available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/resources.html. The data for 2003-2004
were not disaggregated in a manner comparable to later years.
Congressional Research Service
11
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Teacher Quality Issues for Congress
The current funding authority for the ESEA expired after FY2007.20 Legislative action to
reauthorize and amend the ESEA, along with the HQT requirements, has been previously
undertaken by Congress. Legislative proposals have been forwarded and important action has
taken place in the committees of jurisdiction in both chambers. Several reauthorization proposals
would amend the HQT requirement to make accommodations for certain teachers or schools.
Proposals address issues including multiple subject matter teachers, the definition of subject
matter, middle school teachers, and rural, urban, and poor schools.
In addition to legislative action, Congress is concerned with issues raised by the Secretary’s
recent offer to waive certain NCLB requirements, including some associated with teacher quality.
In exchange for these waivers, state and local educational agencies must commit to reforming
their teacher evaluation systems, among other reforms. This may result in additional focus being
placed on teacher performance as opposed to teacher qualifications. The remainder of this report
will discuss issues raised by these waivers as well as other issues of interest to Congress as it
considers reauthorizing the ESEA.
Multiple Subject Teachers
Although the analysis in this report indicates that less than one in five teachers cover more than
one subject, those who did teach more than one subject were much less likely to be HQT. Among
multiple subject teachers in this analysis, half did not meet the HQT standard. This small group—
fewer than six percent of all teachers—may present a large problem for schools and states
attempting to meet the 100% HQT requirement. Solutions have been proposed for certain kinds
of schools (such as rural and hard-to-staff schools, discussed below); however, some proposals
seek to address the problem for teachers in all schools generally. These amendments would allow
teachers teaching multiple subjects to demonstrate knowledge in one subject area using the
existing methods and provide a second method for other subject(s) taught. For example, multiple
subject teachers who are HQT in one of their subjects could be given a certain amount of time to
accumulate coursework equivalent to an academic minor in the subject(s) for which they lack
sufficient knowledge.
Definition of Subject Matter
The issue of multiple subject teachers is in part created by the definition of subject matter in
NCLB. Specifically, section 9101(11) of the statute states that, “The term ‘core academic
subjects’ means, English, reading and language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages,
civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.” As mentioned earlier, ED
addressed issues related to science and social studies teachers in its nonregulatory guidance.
States were given the authority to determine whether teachers qualified to teach in one field of
science or social studies were qualified in other fields in those areas. Some have proposed
20 The NCLB authorized most ESEA programs through FY2007. The General Education Provisions Act (GEPA)
provided an automatic one-year extension of these programs through FY2008. While most ESEA programs no longer
have an explicit authorization, the programs continue to receive annual appropriations. Thus, the programs are
considered to be implicitly authorized.
Congressional Research Service
12
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
legislative solutions that would recognize “generalist” certificates in these and other areas as
proof of subject-matter knowledge.
Middle School Teachers
Many of the teachers found not to meet the HQT standard are teaching middle school students.
The problem posed by this group of teachers is that some have duties similar to elementary
teachers, while others are more like secondary school teachers. That is, some middle school
teachers work in so-called “self-contained” classroom settings where they are responsible for
teaching multiple subjects to the same group of students. Meanwhile, other middle school
teachers work in “departmental” settings, in which they teach the same subject to different groups
of students over the course of a single day. According to NCLB, middle school teachers are to be
treated like secondary school teachers with regard to demonstration of subject-matter expertise.
Thus, those teaching multiple subjects in self-contained classrooms must be certified to teach in
several subjects—or prove subject knowledge in each area by the other permitted means. The
proposals to recognize “generalist” certification mentioned above would remedy this problem.
Other proposals include expanding the allowable types of experience and forms of evaluation
permitted in state HOUSSE methods for veteran middle school teachers.
Rural Schools
The multi-subject issue just discussed is compounded in small, rural schools, which appear to
have an especially difficult time meeting the 100% HQT requirement.21 This analysis revealed
that only a small fraction (0.4%) of teachers benefit from the SRSA waiver. SRSA schools are
largely defined as those located in areas classified as “rural” according to the U.S. Census Bureau
locale codes. ED analysis has found the Census locale code classifications of rural areas to be at
best crude and in some cases grossly inaccurate.22 Some proponents suggest that rural schools get
extended time to meet the HQT deadline; however, others would provide this option only to
SRSA schools. Still other propose giving the Secretary the authority to waive the HQT
requirement for any rural school that could demonstrate that the requirement would impose an
undue hardship on the school because of population and geographic constraints.
Urban and Poor Schools
Research has shown that schools in poor neighborhoods and central city locations have higher
rates of underqualified teachers.23 Although no legislative amendments have been proposed to
address issues regarding urban or poor schools, some of the proposals presented here that concern
“hard-to-staff” schools could be adopted to relieve the burden imposed by the HQT requirement.
However, given the high turnover rates at these schools, short-term waivers and deadline
extensions may not provide sufficient relief. At the same time, such flexibility would weaken
21 Based on anecdotal evidence from ED monitoring visits provided during a February 27, 2006, phone conversation
with an ED official.
22 Douglas E. Geverdt, Review of NCES School Locale Tabulation and Analysis, U.S. Census Bureau, Technical
Memorandum, December 22, 2005.
23 Wuejin Lu, Teacher Quality: A National Survey of Secondary Public School Teachers Using SASS 1999-2000,
unpublished manuscript, and CRS analysis available from the author.
Congressional Research Service
13
Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
NCLB’s emphasis on securing highly qualified teachers in hopes of improving instructional
quality—especially for disadvantaged students attending schools in high poverty areas.
HQT Waivers
On September 23, 2011, the Administration announced that states would have the opportunity to
request, on behalf of school districts, flexibility regarding specific NCLB requirements, including
elements of HQT. Under this flexibility, an LEA that does not meet its HQT targets would no
longer have to develop an improvement plan and would retain flexibility in how it uses its Title I
and Title II funds. Additionally, a state granted this flexibility would be exempt from the
requirements regarding its role in the implementation of LEA improvement plans, including the
requirement that the SEA enter into agreements with LEAs on the uses of funds and the
requirement that it provide technical assistance to LEAs on their plans. States would not be
exempt from the requirement that they ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at
higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers. This
flexibility appears to extend the “good faith effort” waiver provided by the previous
administration. As with the accommodations made above, such actions would weaken minimal
qualification requirements that teachers are now expected to meet. Although, waiver requirements
pertaining to teacher evaluation systems are another approach toward promoting quality
instruction.
Author Contact Information
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
jkuenzi@crs.loc.gov, 7-8645
Congressional Research Service
14