TheStatus of theTeaching Profession2003The Status of the Teaching Profession 2003 3 30,000 25,000 20,000 1997–98 Number of First-Year Teachers by Credential Status,1997–98 to 2002–03

The StatusTeaching

Profession 2003Summary Report

of the

The Center for the Future of Teaching and LearningCalifornia State University, Office of the ChancellorPolicy Analysis for California EducationUniversity of California, Office of the PresidentWestEd

Research conducted by SRI International

This report was produced by The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning in consultation with our co-sponsors— California State University, Office of the Chancellor; Policy Analysis for California Education; University ofCalifornia, Office of the President; and WestEd.

The report is based on research conducted by SRI International of Menlo Park, CA.

Funding for this initiative was generously provided by:• Clarence E. Heller Charitable Foundation• The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation• The James Irvine Foundation• Walter S. Johnson Foundation• Stuart Foundation•

Editorial and design by KSA-Plus Communications of Arlington,VA.

Promotion by Stone’s Throw Communications of Manhattan Beach, CA.

Copyright © 2003.All rights reserved.

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning133 Mission Street, Suite 220Santa Cruz, CA 95060www.cftl.org

1The Status of the Teaching Profession 2003

■ The state needs but does not yet have a systemof teacher development that ensures that allwho enter the classroom have the knowledgeand skills they need to get their students toreach the academic standards the state has set.

■ The existing distribution of teachers is hor-ribly unfair — the students who live in ourpoorest communities, the children most inneed of our best teachers, are assigned toteachers who are the least prepared to meettheir needs.

There is no shortage of complications andnuances associated with ensuring that every stu-dent is taught by a teacher who is prepared toteach, and whose working conditions are con-ducive to learning. But making the system fair isnot a question of nuance but rather of politicalwill and commitment.

Sacramento Bee columnist Peter Schrag has writ-ten powerfully about the question of fairness in hisnew book, Final Test:The Battle for Adequacy inAmerica’s Schools. He looks at several states includ-ing California, where he describes how the state’spoorest children are assigned underqualified teach-ers or face a steady flow of unqualified substitutes.He raises the question of whether California will

provide all of its students with schools and teachersadequate for them to meet the standards the statehas set for all its students.This is, he argues, theultimate test of a society.

We agree.

In the last several years, state policymakers haveattended seriously to making schools better, tostrengthening the teaching force.The publicschools would be far worse without their efforts,and they deserve credit. But their efforts tostrengthen teaching have largely been program-matic rather than systemic, more like fingers in thedike than taming the river.

The state and the federal government haveraised the stakes for students and schools, and thosestakes have gone up far faster than the incrementalimprovements in California schools. Just as thestate has put in place a connected system of stan-dards and accountability for students, it needs asimilarly systemic approach to enhancing the qual-ity and capacity of its teaching force.

We believe the response needs to be muchgreater than previous efforts to improve teachingand must involve the broader public moredeeply. If all of us in California are going to have

California has gone through political upheaval,and now new leadership is facing enormous fiscalproblems.There is a palpable public demand formore responsive government, and a cacophony ofvoices clamoring to be heard in a system wherethe rules of governing are in flux.

While this profound change has produced greatuncertainty, there is a continued consensus for bet-ter educating California’s children, all of them.Wewould argue that the issue demands the kind oflong-term investment of resources and leadershiptypically devoted to highways and water supplies.It requires a state response as intense and sustainedas California offers without hesitation when thereare wildfires or earthquakes or floods.

For the past several years, we have been issu-ing annual reports on California’s teaching force.Much of what was in those reports focused onwhat was a growing shortage of qualified teach-ers and how our most prepared teachers weredistributed unevenly across the state.The short-age has eased, but the maldistribution of under-prepared teachers still is very bad.This year, weare deliberately blunt to make sure we are clear.We hope readers take from this report at leasttwo points:

California’s Need: Renewed Commitment to Good TeachingThe creation and maintenance of a much stronger teaching force that actually

can ensure that all students succeed is what Californians repeatedly demand

and politicians routinely vow to deliver. But without significant changes in the

way teachers are prepared, nurtured and professionally sustained, California

students will get far less than the education they need to succeed.

2 The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning

a better life economically and culturally, then weneed schools that deliver a high-quality educationfor all California students.That will only happenif we have a teaching force up to the challenge.

This brief report is based on a much longerreport of substantial new research commissioned byThe Center for the Future of Teaching andLearning and conducted by SRI International.Thatlonger document — The Status of the TeachingProfession 2003: Research Findings and PolicyRecommendations — is available on our Web site atwww.cftl.org.

The new research is particularly timely in lightof the additional pressures being applied to schoolsto do considerably more with far fewer resources.The research takes a fresh look at the state’s teach-ing force, its size and distribution. It examines howteachers are prepared, how they are ushered intothe profession and the professional training theyreceive while in the classroom.The researchincludes extensive data analysis, a survey of educa-tors and a series of case studies that followed care-fully selected individual teachers throughout the2002–03 school year.

We issued similar comprehensive researchreports in 1999 and 2001, and less extensiveupdates in 2000 and 2002. Our consistent goal hasbeen to provide policymakers and opinion leaderswith the best and most reliable data on criticalissues regarding the state’s teaching force.

What follows is a brief summary of the newresearch and recommendations designed particularlyfor California’s opinion leaders and policymakers,including our new governor.

The Pipeline Was BeginningTo WorkThe number of public school teachers in Cali-fornia has grown quickly in the past decade as thestudent population swelled and the state cut theclass size in elementary schools. Last school year,there were nearly 310,000 teachers, up from221,000 10 years earlier.

And last year, there were about 37,300 teacherswho were “underprepared,” teachers who had notyet met California’s qualifications for even a prelim-inary teaching license.We contend that a basic cre-dential is only a starting point for becoming anaccomplished professional ready to help all of his or her students meetrigorous academicstandards.

The 37,300underprepared teach-ers represent about 12percent of the stateteaching force, aboutone in every eightteachers.This numberis down from the pre-vious school year,when the state had41,713 underpreparedteachers, and that isgood news.And it alsoappears from prelimi-nary data from thecurrent (2003–04)school year that thenumbers of teachers

on emergency licenses is down considerably. It canbe said that the flood waters are receding, but notwithout the caution that these waters are still wellabove flood stage, particularly in our poorestschools.

A mix of factors makes it difficult to predictwhether this number will continue to go downand how fast. It can be argued that the state’s trou-bled economy may make teaching more attractivefor a time. It can also be argued that new federalrequirements will make it more difficult for schooldistricts to hire underprepared teachers in thefuture.We also know that the growth in the num-ber of students has peaked, although it is importantto note that some districts will continue to expand.

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

21–24

2,954

33,474

Age Distribution of Teachers in California, 2002–03

025–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60–64 65–69 70–90

42,052

31,222 30,546

33,985

42,773

39,890

16,654

3,521976

Cal

ifo

rnia

tea

cher

s

Source: CDE (2003), SRI analysis

Age


30,000

25,000

20,000

1997–98

Number of First-Year Teachers by Credential Status,1997–98 to 2002–03

15,000

10,000

01998–99 1999–2000 2000–01

Fully credentialed first-year teachers

Underprepared first-year teachers

Source: CDE (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003), SRI analysis

2001–02

26,012

5,000

Nu

mb

er o

f te

ach

ers

25,542

23,271

25,845

2002–03

21,418

16,206

45,000

40,000

35,000

1997–98

Number of Underprepared Teachers by Participation in Intern and Preintern

Programs,1997–98 to 2002–03

30,000

25,000

10,000

1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01

Intern program participants

All other noncredentialed


2001–02

34,487

20,000

35,440

40,58142,427

2002–03

41,713

37,311

15,000

0

5,000

Nu

mb

er o

f te

ach

ers

Preintern program participants

But, on the other hand, the demographics of theteaching force temper optimism about the supply ofteachers. More than a third of California’s teachersare age 50 or over and approaching or eligible forretirement.And, unfortunately, the state has no wayof measuring how many relatively young teachersquit teaching for other careers, or of predicting howthat attrition rate is likely to change.

A year ago, we reported that slightly more thanhalf — 53 percent — of all first-year teachers in thestate were teaching without having obtained a basicteaching credential in 2001–02.The percentage offirst-year teachers who were underprepared declinedto 42 percent in 2002–03. And more of those under-

prepared teachers were enrolled in intern programsdesigned to help them get a teaching credential.

However, just as the pipeline for producing moreprepared teachers is showing signs of improvement,there are signs of trouble. Budget constraints at col-lege campuses, for example, are restricting the num-ber of slots for potential teachers.

The federal No Child Left Behind act generallyrequires new teachers to be “highly qualified”; andall teachers to be “highly qualified” by 2005.Todeal with this law, California has defined as “highlyqualified” all credentialed teachers and thoseunderprepared teachers who are enrolled in anintern program.

If California is to have a fully qualified andeffective teacher for every student, we see theneed to distinguish between those teachers whoare fully prepared and those who are underpre-pared. Fully prepared teachers have demonstratedknowledge of the subject matter or grade they aregoing to teach, have demonstrated that they pos-sess teaching skills and have had a substantialopportunity to practice their teaching skills underthe guidance of a veteran teacher.These threebasic elements make up the foundation for whatshould become a strong California system ofteacher development.

4

30%

25%

20%

15%

0–30% minority

Distribution of Underprepared Teachers by Percentageof Minority Students, 1997–98 to 2002–03

10%

5%

0%31–60% minority 61–90% minority 91–100% minority

4 4 4 45 5

87

87

8 8

1312

13

11

1413

23

25

27

20

26

23

Ave

rag

e p

erce

nt

of

facu

lty

wit

ho

ut

full

cred

enti

als 1997–98

1998–99

1999–2000

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03


30%

25%

20%

15%

0–25% free orreduced-price lunch

Distribution of Underprepared Teachers by StudentPoverty Level, 1997–98 to 2002–03

10%

5%

0%26–50% free or

reduced-price lunch51–75% free or

reduced-price lunch76–100% free or

reduced-price lunch

65

6 67

8 8 89

89 9

121213

11

1413

19

2122

17

22

19A

vera

ge

per

cen

t o

f fa

cult

y w

ith

ou

t fu

ll cr

eden

tial

s 1997–98

1998–99

1999–2000

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03


Support for the Credentialed

Terry is a first-year fourth-grade teacher in amagnet program. He graduated from a pri-vate university with an education degree andhas his initial teaching credential.

Terry has a mentor, a seasoned teacher at hisschool, with whom he meets every week.“She’s observed my class a couple of timesand lets me know what she’s noticed,” Terrysays. “It is nice to have someone here whoappreciates you because you’re in here aloneevery day.” He also has another mentorassigned to him through the state’s BeginningTeacher Support and Assessment Program.

Distribution:A Matter of EquityBut while the overall number of underpreparedteachers is going down, the bigger issue is whereCalifornia’s underprepared teachers are teachingand which students they serve.

Underprepared teachers are a statewide phe-nomenon, but not one that is universal. Indeed,about half of California schools in 2002–03 employfewer than one teacher in 20 who is underprepared.

Students who are poor or minority, studentswho are in special education or who are notnative speakers of English are still far more likelyto have an underprepared teacher. If these stu-dents are to become fully educated contributorsto the state’s economy and culture, then we needto make sure they have teachers who are able to


25%

20%

15%

1998–99

Distribution of Underprepared Teachers by Percentageof English Language Learners, 1998–99 to 2002–03

10%

5%

0%1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

5

8

12

20

Mea

n p

erce

nt

of

un

der

pre

par

ed f

acu

lty

in a

sch

oo

l

0 to less than 6% ELL

6% to less than 20% ELL

20% to less than 40% ELL

40% to 100% ELL

Source: CDE (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003), SRI analysis

2002–03

7

9

14

21

7

9

13

21

7

9

13

19

7

8

11

16

Waiting Tables to Teaching English

Jose grew up speaking Spanish at home andlearning English in school. He earned a bache-lor’s degree in creative writing from a localpublic university. He moved from waitingtables to substitute teaching and then startedas a full-time middle school teacher in 2002–03,teaching English language learners.

Jose became a classroom teacher withoutany formal teacher training. He has no men-tor and is not eligible for the beginningteacher program because he does not have apreliminary teaching credential. Despite hislack of experience, the school made him chairof the English learners department.

After school, he goes to class three nights aweek, taking four classes. He’s not sure thatthe classes help much, and he finds themmostly theoretical at a time when he needspractical knowledge. It will take him 18months to earn his teaching credential.

He is frustrated that he has no time and theschool has no resources for instructionalmaterials. "My biggest frustration is not hav-ing the appropriate text," Jose says. "Thereare new state-adopted books but they won’tor can’t buy them."

take them there. If this were a military operation,it would be as if it were sending the rawest, least-trained recruits to face the most formidable battlewhile its most experienced troops were kept largelyout of the fray.

Although the numbers are getting somewhatbetter, the distribution of teachers still is unfair andunjust. Consider:

■ Students in schools with large minoritypopulations are five times as likely to faceunderprepared teachers as students inschools with low percentages of minoritystudents.


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%


70%

30%

61%

39%

58%

Distribution of Prepared and Underprepared NewTeachers by School Poverty Level

10%

0%

42%

51%49%




First- and second-year teachers with full credentials

First- and second-year teachers without full credentials

Firs

t- a

nd

sec

on

d-y

ear

teac

her

s


25%

20%

15%

0–30% minority

Underprepared Special Education Teachers by PercentMinority Student Population, 1998–99 to 2002–03

10%

5%

0%31–60% minority 61–90% minority 91–100% minority

45

6 6 67

9

111110 10

1314

1514

13

21

23 2322

Ave

rag

e p

erce

nt

un

der

pre

par

ed s

pec

ial e

du

cati

on

fac

ult

y

1998–99

1999–2000

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03


■ Students in high-poverty schools are nearlythree times as likely to face underpreparedteachers as students in low-poverty schools.

■ Students in the lowest-achieving schools,measured by the state’s Academic PerformanceIndex, are 4.5 times more likely to faceunderprepared teachers than students in thehighest-achieving schools.

■ Students in schools with the highest percent-age of students who are learning English aremore than twice as likely to face underpre-pared teachers as students in schools wherethere are few students learning English.

■ Special education students in schools withsubstantial minority populations are nearlyfour times as likely to face teachers who areunderprepared — let alone trained in specialeducation — as special education students inlow-minority schools.

Percentage of Teachers Who Are Underprepared, by Assignment

2001–02 2002–03

Elementary 12% 10%

All Secondary 10% 10%

Math 14% 15%

Physical Science 11% 13%

Life Science 10% 12%

English 8% 8%

Social Science 6% 6%

Special Education 18% 18%Source: CDE (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003), SRI analysis

7

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

01994–95

Special Education Enrollment in California K–12 Public Schools

Source: CDE (2003)

1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

English Language Learners in California K–12 Public Schools

Source: CDE (2003)

1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

0

Banking to Teaching Math

Sean took a teaching job in 1998, leaving a large bankwhere he trained tellers. He has been teaching for fiveyears without a teaching credential. He is still a preintern,still has not passed state subject competency tests. Heteaches middle school math and science and for threeyears — his second, third and fourth years of teaching —was chair of the math department. He majored in socialstudies at a public university.

An African American who grew up in the suburbs, hechooses to teach in an urban setting. Most of his studentsare Latino. He loves children but does not hold high expec-tations for them, or believe he can get them to meet stateacademic standards.

As a new teacher, he had no mentor because hewas on an emergency permit during his first twoyears on the job. His teaching is well thought of, hesays, because his classes are orderly. "If you havea classroom that looks like they’re learning, thenyou’re considered a great teacher," Sean says. "I could be teaching them how to cook frogs, but if they’re sitting there, they’re not talking and theydo what you tell them to do, then you’re a goodteacher. I don’t think anyone who has visited myclassroom has actually taken a look at what I’mteaching, how I’m teaching it and if the kids aregetting it."

Nu

mb

er o

f st

ud

ents

Nu

mb

er o

f st

ud

ents


credential.We have found a number of school dis-tricts, for example, are telling uncredentialed teach-ers they risk losing their jobs if they do not get abasic teaching credential.

Over the past decade, higher education institu-tions have significantly increased the numbers ofprospective teachers they prepare to meet theincreased California demand. But many, often asubstantial majority, of the prospective teachers theyare preparing are indeed already teaching.

The reality is that these teachers, particularly inour poorest communities, are teaching full timeduring the day and taking courses at night and onweekends to prepare them to teach. By the timethey qualify to do traditional student teachingunder the supervision of a veteran teacher, thesenovices have already been running their own class-rooms, often for several years.

No matter how you cut it, California studentsmost in need of good teaching are still the leastlikely to see it.

And throughout California, students are morelikely to face underprepared teachers in particularsubjects.Although the numbers are improvingslightly, high school students are more likely to faceunderprepared teachers in math and science thanthey are in English or social studies, despite moredemand in today’s economy for deeper understand-ing of math and science.

One place where the numbers are not gettingbetter is special education. In 2002–03, 18 percent ofspecial education teachers did not have even a basiccredential, let alone training in teaching special needsstudents.That is up from 14 percent in 1999–2000.

For the past several years, we have reported onthe large number of California schools with per-

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

1997–98

1,293

325

264

Special Education Credential Production,1997–98 to 2001–02

Inte

rn a

nd

pre

limin

ary

cred

enti

al

Source: CTC (2003), SRI analysis

01998–98 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

Interns

Out of State Prepared

Prelim In State

1,617

359

298

1,550

288

275

1,325

441

388

1,265

492

584

centages of underprepared teachers so high — above20 percent — and concluded that the schools havelittle or no capacity to improve their academic per-formance.These schools must spend a disproportion-ate amount of time recruiting and hiring new teach-ers.They also must train new teachers while they areteaching, and find it difficult to provide professionaldevelopment when at least one in five teachers inthe school lacks even basic training.The number ofthese schools with little hope has dropped fromabout 1,900 in 2000–01 to about 1,400 two yearslater. But these schools served 1.4 million students.

Preparing New TeachersThe requirements of the federal No Child LeftBehind act and the easing of California’s teachingshortage are applying additional incentives forprospective and underprepared teachers to obtain a

0% 90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%

Basic instructional techniques 41%37%

Perceived Effectiveness of Teacher Preparation

10%

Reinforced subject-matter knowledge

Needs of school population (e.g., ELLs)

Use of studentassessment data

Adequately

A lot

Source: SRI survey of California teachers (2003), SRI analysis

36%27%

40%20%

34%14%

21%17%Adapting instructionfor students with IEPs


California’s intern program, where underpreparedteachers who have passed initial subject matter testsand are taking teaching courses, is particularly chal-lenging.Too often, these interns are forced to choosebetween preparing to teach their students andpreparing for their own university classes.

While underprepared teachers scramble to meetbasic credentialing requirements, state budget cutsare making it more difficult for them to find andpay for the courses they need.And the state haseliminated nearly all of the programs that providedfellowships or relieved teachers of paying back stu-dent loans if they teach in low-performing schools.

Five years ago,the California leg-islature passed a lawto set higher stan-dards for newteachers, to requirethem to pass acomprehensive per-formance assess-ment in addition togoing through aformal inductionprogram. But thestate’s budget situa-tion has forced thedeferral of thismore rigorousassessment system.Although the statehas set high stan-dards for both stu-dents and teachers,the system of help-ing new and veteranteachers reach theseexpectations is onlife support.

Although universities in California haveincreased the production of teachers, there hasbeen little growth in the preparation of teachersof special education, a field where there is a sig-nificant shortage. It is likely that the state willcontinue to offer emergency teaching permits tounderprepared teachers of special education forsome time to come.

InductionTeaching, like many professions, is difficult to enterwithout guidance. California developed one of themost robust induction programs in the nation tousher new teachers into the classroom, providingthem with mentors and support. But the $86-million-a-year Beginning Teacher Support andAssessment program was designed for a time whenalmost all new teachers completed their prepara-tions and had a credential before they startedteaching, not for today’s reality.

For those new teachers who start with a creden-tial, this program provides assistance that many newteachers see as valuable. However, the many whoare underprepared — the majority of whom serveCalifornia’s neediest students — are not eligible.Some may work in a school where a mentor is pro-vided, but at many of the schools where theseunderprepared teachers work, there is a decidedshortage of accomplished teachers to serve as men-tors, reducing the likelihood that new teachers willget the help they need.And, consistent with the restof the research, we found that the least preparedteachers were getting the least support.

0% 90%70%60%50%40% 80%30%20%

Helped understanding ofschool/district processes

58%

43%

Contributions of Induction Support Activities to Teaching

10%

Improved classroommanagement

Increased effectiveness at promoting student learning

Increased knowledge ofinstructional techniques


57%

53%

52%

44%Increased skills to meetdiverse students’ instructional needs

Increased knowledge ofassessment techniques

Deepened grasp of subject matter

Improved ability to adaptinstruction for studentsIEPs

34%

31%

100%

Percent of teachers with five or fewer years of experience

Our new research found that most new teachersdo not meet often or regularly with their mentorand most of the conversations between new teacherand mentor are about meeting the paperwork needsof the schools rather than the instructional needs of


students. For example, only about a third of newteachers reported monthly talks with mentorsabout the needs of students, and only about one infive were invited into their mentor’s classrooms toobserve veteran teaching.

$250

$200

$150

$100

$50

2000–01

222

State Allocations for Certain Professional Development Programs, 2000–01 to 2003–04

$02001–02 2003–03 2003–04

210.9

Mill

ion

s o

f d

olla

rs

Source: CDE (2003), UCOP (2003)

61.7

147.5

California Professional DevelopmentInstitute (CPDI)

Peer Assistance and Review (PAR)California Subject Matter Project (CSMP)

Total

AB 466: Mathematics and Reading ProfessionalDevelopment Program

0% 90%70%60%50%40% 80%30%20%

Increased effectiveness atpromoting student learning

Teacher Reports on the Contribution of Professional Development

10%

Increased knowledge ofinstruction techniques

Deepened subject-matterknowledge

Improved ability to use curriculum framework

Improved ability to identifyinstructional goals


Improved ability to usedata to plan instruction

Increased knowledge ofassessment techniques

Improved effectiveness in using textbooks andmaterials

Improved skills to meetstudents’ instructionalneeds

7%

100%

Improved classroom management

Increased confidence withparent interaction

Increased ability to adaptinstruction for studentswith IEPs

22%

7% 22%

8% 32%

13% 36%

16% 37%

16% 41%

17% 33%

17% 43%

18% 37%

18% 44%

22% 42%

22% 45%

Somewhat

A lot

From our case studies, we found confirmationof what we have seen previously — the rookieteachers were routinely thrown into the most chal-lenging classrooms, including those with high con-centrations of learners of English and special edu-cation students.Again, the students who need thebest teachers get those who are the least prepared.


0% 90%70%60%50%40% 80%30%20%

Certified to teach ELL students

47%

24%

Support for Teaching English Language Learner Students

10%

Adequate training related to second-language acquisition

Access to a language development specialist

Access to resources for ESL instruction


40%

30%

29%

A teacher’s aide whospeaks one or more of the languages spoken bymy ELL students

I speak one or more of thelanguages spoken by my ELL students

Access to resources in theappropriate non-English language(s)

16%

11%

100%

Percent of teachers reporting support

Professional DevelopmentTwo years ago, our report noted that too much ofthe professional development — training — forteachers seemed insufficiently focused and teach-ers did not place a great deal of value on it.Wealso noted the increased attention policymakers

were giving professional development and sug-gested the future may be more promising.

Indeed, our new survey of teachers finds themreporting receiving more of the kinds of profes-sional development that educational researchfinds most effective.Within the curriculum areas

Bethany is in her second year teaching seventh andeighth graders with mild to moderate learning dis-abilities — special education. She is an internteacher, teaching without a credential while takingthe courses required to earn the certificate sheneeds.

She earned a bachelor’s degree in psychology froma public university and began substitute teaching inher last year of college. She believes she was notprepared to be a teacher when she started teach-ing. "I wish I knew what to do," she says. "I don’tknow everything. I didn’t know what the kids werecapable of learning. I didn’t know what type ofwork I should be giving to the kids. I wish I wouldhave had more structure. I didn’t even knowwhere to start asking questions so it was prettymind boggling at first, for a few months actually."

Wrestling with Special Education

where training is offered, they now are morelikely to say professional development hasbecome more focused on subject matter, that it builds on their experience and promotes col-laboration, and that it is more likely to be fol-lowed up.


But, just as these improvements are noted andthe stakes increased on schools and teachers, thestate has had to dramatically scale back its invest-ment in professional development.And, as the statemakes cuts, local school districts also have had tocut professional development dollars. Particularly incombination, these budget reductions threaten theprogress of the past two years.

There are many venues for professional devel-opment beyond those provided by the state, includ-ing training provided by districts, schools and pri-vate companies.The state has been increasinglyfocused on teacher proficiency in two core subjects— literacy and mathematics.This focus has beenparticularly useful for the newest teachers but seenas less useful for more experienced teachers and forthose who teach other subjects required for highschool graduation and admission to the state’s col-leges and universities.

Special education teachers, for example, havebeen particularly left out.They have been givenvery little guidance on how to get students with

special needs to meet the state’s academic standards,even though special education students are expectedto meet those standards.

And regular classroom teachers have been givenvery little training in how to help the special edu-cation students or English learners in their classes,even though nearly nine in 10 teachers report hav-ing special education students or English learnersin their classes.

Recommendations There is a simple truth for California: If we are goingto get all of our students to achieve much more, weneed to invest in a teaching force that has the knowl-edge, skills and support to meet their needs.

Our full research report includes detailed rec-ommendations that are designed to meet the goalswe have been pursuing for several years (see boxabove).We urge our education leadership and policycommunities to continue to strengthen the teacherworkforce as a first step in restoring excellence toCalifornia’s public education system.

GoalsFor a number of years, we have asked policymakers to focus on five clear goals that we believe areambitious but absolutely necessary for our children:

■ Every student will have a fully prepared and effective teacher.

■ Every district will be able to attract and retain fully qualified, effective teachers.

■ Every teacher will work in a safe, clean facility conducive to learning; have adequate materials with which to teach; and have the guidance and support of a capable leader.

■ Every pathway into teaching will provide high-quality preparation and be based upon California'sstandards for what students and teachers should know and be able to do.

■ Every teacher will receive high-quality support as he or she begins teaching, as well as the continuing professional development to ensure that he or she stays current in his or her field.

Educational excellence and opportunity shouldnot be beyond reach of any child.With this inmind, we offer a summary of our major recom-mendations to strengthen teaching here, and pro-vide greater detail in the full report.With theserecommendations we keep in mind the fact that anew governor has just taken office and the statefaces a continuing budget crisis. But these recom-mendations also reflect pressing and immediateneeds in our schools, including the development ofteachers who deal with key areas — those whoteach special education, who teach learners ofEnglish, and who teach mathematics and science.

Preparing and Licensing Teachers■ The California Commission on Teacher

Credentialing should eliminate emergencypermits for special education teachers bySeptember 1, 2005.

■ The California Commission on TeacherCredentialing should use remaining preinternfunding to accelerate the progress of currentspecial education emergency permit holders.

■The governor and the Legislature should givehigh priority to the formal review of thequality and effectiveness of the teacher internprogram.

■ The California Commission on TeacherCredentialing and the State Board ofEducation should collaborate to align stan-dards for teacher development programs, per-formance assessments and accountabilitymeasures to ensure that programs for noviceteachers reflect the components of the state’sstudent academic achievement system.


About This DocumentThis summary report and the full reporton which it is based are available fordownload on our Web site at www.cftl.org.For information on purchasing printcopies from the Center, please call 831-427-3628. Discounts are available for bulkorders of single publications.

The Center is pleased to have otherorganizations or individuals share its mate-rials with their constituents.To requestpermission to excerpt part of this publica-tion, either in print or electronically, pleasewrite or fax:

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning

133 Mission Street, Suite 220Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Fax: 831-427-1612 E-mail: [email protected]

Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Teachers

■ The governor should include in his budgetfunds for the chancellor of the CaliforniaState University and the president of theUniversity of California to implementregional campus programs for preparing anadequate supply of teacher candidates forhigh-need geographic areas and teachingfields, including special education, Englishlanguage learning, mathematics and science.

■ The Legislative Budget Committees shouldevaluate existing statutory incentives forteacher recruitment and restore funding toefforts found to be the most effective.

Building Teachers’ Skill andKnowledge

■ The governor and the state superintendent ofpublic instruction should target a portion ofthe Mathematics and Reading ProfessionalDevelopment Program on training for specialeducation teachers to assist them in integrat-ing student academic standards and adoptedmaterials into their curricula.

■ The state superintendent of public instructionshould make high-quality, focused professionaldevelopment to help classroom teachers adaptcurriculum and instruction to accommodatestudents with special needs in the areas ofreading and mathematics a priority for theReading Implementation Centers in 2004.

Including All Curriculum AreasRequired for Graduation inTeacher Development

■ The state superintendent of public instruc-tion should develop and implement a teacherprofessional development cycle that addressesall subject matter content required for highschool graduation and college and universityadmission.

■ The governor should restore funding for theCalifornia Subject Matter Projects to reflectthe state’s professional development priorityareas.

Working toward BetterManagement of the State’sResources

■ The state superintendent of public instructionshould conduct a thorough review of theeducation code provisions related to teacherprofessional development to eliminate thoserequirements that are redundant or ineffective,and consolidate the remaining programs intoa professional development block grant.

■ The governor and the Legislature shouldestablish a state-level, independent organiza-tional structure to oversee and strengthen thestate’s teacher data collection and reportingsystem.

In addition, we urge the governor and the Legis-lature to give priority over the next two years to thedevelopment of a more comprehensive and coherentsystem of teacher development for the state:

■ Convene a working group to develop andrecommend to the governor and theLegislature specific steps needed to build onthe existing framework of teacher prepara-

tion, induction and professional developmentto establish a cohesive, accountability-basedsystem of teacher development.

■ The working group should give highest pri-ority to ensuring that the state’s programs forteacher preparation, induction and professionaldevelopment focus on a coordinated, consis-tent approach to providing the curriculumcontent knowledge and pedagogical skillsneeded to help all students, including specialeducation and English language learning stu-dents, meet the state’s academic standards.

133 Mission Street, Suite 220Santa Cruz, CA 95060

831-427-3628www.cftl.org

Documents

TheStatus of theTeaching Profession2003The Status of the Teaching Profession 2003 3 30,000 25,000 20,000 1997–98 Number of First-Year Teachers by Credential Status,1997–98 to 2002–03