Transition to Teaching Program Evaluation: An

Interim Report on the FY 2002 Grantees

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
Policy and Program Studies Service

PREPARED BY:

Meredith Ludwig
Amy Bacevich
Andrew Wayne
Maggie Hale
Kazuaki Uekawa

American Institutes for Research

Washington, D.C.

2007
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED01CO0026/0021 with the
American Institutes for Research. Margery Yeager served as the contracting officer’s representative. The views
expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official
endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings
Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Doug Mesecar
Acting Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Alan Ginsburg
Director

Program and Analytic Studies Division

David Goodwin
Director

May 2007

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to
reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: Transition to Teaching Program Evaluation: An
Interim Report on the FY 2002 Grantees, U.S. Department of Education; Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development; Policy and Program Studies Service, Washington, D.C., 2007.
Copies of this report may be ordered in the following ways:
Mail. Write to:
ED Pubs
Education Publications Center
U. S. Department of Education
P. O. Box 1398
Jessup, MD 20794-1398
Fax. Dial 301-470-1244.
Telephone (toll-free). Dial 877-433-7827 (877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call
800-872-5327 (800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a
teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-877-576-7734.
Electronic mail. Send your request to: [email protected].
Online. Order a copy of the report at: www.edpubs.org. This report may also be downloaded from the Department’s
Web site at www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title.
Alternate formats. Upon request, this publication is available in alternate formats such as Braille, large print, or
computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852
or 202-260-0818.
This report contains Web site addresses for information created and maintained by private organizations. This
information is provided for the reader’s convenience. The U.S. Department of Education is not responsible for
controlling or guaranteeing the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information. Further,
the inclusion of information or a Web site address does not reflect the importance of the organization, nor is it
intended to endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered.
 CONTENTS

2007........................................................................................ .I
THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION UNDER CONTRACT NUMBER ED01CO0026/0021 WITH
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH. MARGERY YEAGER
SERVED AS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE. THE
VIEWS EXPRESSED HEREIN DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE
POSITIONS OR POLICIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. NO
OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENT BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION IS INTENDED OR SHOULD BE INFERRED....................II
THIS REPORT IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. AUTHORIZATION TO
REPRODUCE IT IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS GRANTED. WHILE
PERMISSION TO REPRINT THIS PUBLICATION IS NOT NECESSARY,
THE SUGGESTED CITATION IS: TRANSITION TO TEACHING
PROGRAM EVALUATION: AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE FY 2002
GRANTEES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; OFFICE OF
PLANNING, EVALUATION AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT; POLICY AND
PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., 2007...............II
COPIES OF THIS REPORT MAY BE ORDERED IN THE FOLLOWING
WAYS:............................................... .......................................II
MAIL. WRITE TO:.................................... ..................................II
ED PUBS
EDUCATION PUBLICATIONS CENTER
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
P. O. BOX 1398
JESSUP, MD 20794-1398.................................................. ...........II
FAX. DIAL 301-470-1244...........................................................II
TELEPHONE (TOLL-FREE). DIAL 877-433-7827 (877-4-ED-PUBS). IF
877 SERVICE IS NOT YET AVAILABLE IN YOUR AREA, CALL
800-872-5327 (800-USA-LEARN). THOSE WHO USE A
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE FOR THE DEAF (TDD) OR A
TELETYPEWRITER (TTY) SHOULD CALL 1-877-576-7734. ..............II
ELECTRONIC MAIL. SEND YOUR REQUEST TO:
[email protected]........................................ .......................II
ONLINE. ORDER A COPY OF THE REPORT AT: WWW.EDPUBS.ORG.
THIS REPORT MAY ALSO BE DOWNLOADED FROM THE
DEPARTMENT’S WEB SITE AT
WWW.ED.GOV/ABOUT/OFFICES/LIST/OPEPD/PPSS/REPORTS.HTML#
TITLE............................................................................ ............II
ALTERNATE FORMATS. UPON REQUEST, THIS PUBLICATION IS
AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATE FORMATS SUCH AS BRAILLE, LARGE
PRINT, OR COMPUTER DISKETTE. FOR MORE INFORMATION,
PLEASE CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT’S ALTERNATE FORMAT
CENTER AT 202-260-0852 OR 202-260-0818................................II
THIS REPORT CONTAINS WEB SITE ADDRESSES FOR INFORMATION
CREATED AND MAINTAINED BY PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS. THIS
INFORMATION IS PROVIDED FOR THE READER’S CONVENIENCE.
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR

iii
 CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
CONTROLLING OR GUARANTEEING THE ACCURACY, RELEVANCE,
TIMELINESS, OR COMPLETENESS OF THIS OUTSIDE INFORMATION.
FURTHER, THE INCLUSION OF INFORMATION OR A WEB SITE
ADDRESS DOES NOT REFLECT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
ORGANIZATION, NOR IS IT INTENDED TO ENDORSE ANY VIEWS
EXPRESSED, OR PRODUCTS OR SERVICES OFFERED.....................II
EXHIBITS.................................................... .............................V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................... ................1

iv
 EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1. PERCENTAGE OF GRANTEES REPORTING TARGET

GROUPS AND
PERCENTAGE OF YEAR 3 PARTICIPANTS FROM EACH TARGET
GROUP........................................... ..........................................4
EXHIBIT 2. NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS TARGETED, TOTAL
APPLICATIONS RECEIVED, AND TOTAL APPLICANTS DETERMINED
AS ELIGIBLE AS REPORTED BY FY 2002 TTT GRANTEES FOR THE
THIRD PROJECT YEAR, BY TARGET GROUP ..................................4
EXHIBIT 3. TTT TEACHERS’ CHOICE OF PREPARATION PATHWAY
WITHOUT TTT.......................................................................... ..6
EXHIBIT 4. NUMBER OF TTT PARTICIPANTS WHO WERE NEW
TEACHERS
OF RECORD IN HIGH-NEED SCHOOLS IN HIGH-NEED LEAS,
BY GRADE LEVEL AND YEAR AND SUBJECT AREA IN 2002,
2003 AND 2004.............................................. ...........................7
EXHIBIT 5. PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPANTS WHO BECAME
TEACHERS
OF RECORD IN 2002 AND 2003 AND THEIR RETENTION STATUS,
BY YEAR ENTERING THE TTT PROJECT (2002 AND 2003)...............8

v
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Congress established the Transition to Teaching (TTT) program to serve high-need schools in
high-need districts (local education agencies or LEAs).1 The program is authorized under Title II,
Part C, Subpart 1, Chapter B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended
by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (Pub. L. No. 107-110). The purposes of TTT are
“(a) to recruit and retain highly qualified mid-career professionals (including highly qualified
paraprofessionals), and recent graduates of an institution of higher education, as teachers in
high-need schools, including recruiting teachers through alternative routes to certification; and (b) to
encourage the development and expansion of alternative routes to certification under State-approved
programs that enable individuals to be eligible for teacher certification within a reduced period of
time, relying on the experience, expertise, and academic qualifications of an individual, or other
factors in lieu of traditional course work in the field of education.”

This report presents the findings of the TTT interim evaluation—an effort to gather data to
describe to Congress the progress at the three-year interim point of five-year grants awarded in
FY 2002.

Four primary data sources were used as the basis for the report:

• An online Annual Performance Report (APR) to document project-level characteristics

and outcomes was developed and administered in 2004–2005, covering the third year of
project activities;

• Eight case studies of FY 2002 projects were conducted in 2004–2005;

• A survey of participants from the first three project years who were hired as teachers of
record during that time period was conducted in 2005–2006; and

• Interim reports submitted by grantees in the FY 2002 cohort in 2005 were the basis for a
review of objectives, progress made, and challenges in the first three years.

Data from the 2003–2004 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) were also used to compare
the characteristics, teaching assignments, perceptions and future plans of TTT teachers and teachers
in the workforce with less than three years of experience.

1
A “high-need” local education agency (LEA) is defined as an LEA: that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from
families with incomes below the poverty line; for which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the
agency are from families below the poverty line; and for which there is a high percentage of teachers not teaching in
the academic subjects that the teachers were trained to teach; or for which there is a high percentage of teachers with
emergency, provisional, or temporary certificates or licensing.

A “high-need” school is defined as a school which is: located in an area in which the percentage of students from
families with incomes below the poverty line is 30 percent or more; or located in an area with a high percentage of
out-of-field teachers; within the top quartile of elementary schools and secondary schools statewide, as rated by the
number of unfilled, available teacher positions at the schools; located in an area in which there is a high teacher
turnover rate; or located in an area in which there is a high percentage of teachers who are not certified. Accessed on
Oct. 23, 2006 from the Web at http://www.teach-now.org/Federal_Section/Transitions-to-Teaching/TTT_e.asp.
 EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
The resulting report brings together data from all of these sources to describe the overall
implementation picture of the FY 2002 grantees, describing each component of the TTT projects:
recruitment and selection, preparation, certification, placement, support while teaching, and
retention.

TTT grantees are a microcosm of the alternate routes implemented in approximately

600 program sites in 48 states and the District of Columbia (Feistritzer, 2006). Of the 92 FY 2002
TTT grantees whose progress at the third year of project activity were analyzed in this evaluation,
fully half were institutions of higher education (IHEs), 25 percent were LEAs, 17 percent were state
departments of education (SEAs), and 7 percent were nonprofit organizations.2 Nearly two-thirds of
FY 2002 grantees (60 percent) had a local (rather than statewide or regional or national) focus. 3 All
TTT grantees focus on serving the needs of high-need schools in high-need LEAs, as defined in the
legislation (see footnote 1). A relatively small proportion of all LEAs working with FY 2002
TTT grantees were urban (26 percent); 69 percent were described as rural by the TTT projects.

TTT projects recruit from one or more target groups, as spelled out in the authorizing
legislation, addressing the needs of school districts and schools that have met the “high-need”
designation. In most TTT projects, participants become teachers simultaneously with their
“enrollment” in the project; however, some projects require course completion and even a lengthy
internship prior to becoming a teacher of record.

TTT projects offer flexibility to participants as they complete state teacher certification
requirements. The approaches used by various projects are structured to meet the NCLB standards for
approved alternate route projects; thus, TTT teachers are considered highly qualified teachers,
according to NCLB guidelines. Projects seek applicants who meet the content knowledge provisions
outlined for all teachers in NCLB. In the FY 2002 projects that focus on paraprofessionals, some
individuals are matriculating to earn their first bachelor’s degree, but nearly all other participants
already have an earned bachelor’s.

Preparation for teaching is a primary concern, once participants are selected. Some
participants enroll in academic courses through local IHEs; others participate in seminars and
professional development activities where they demonstrate competencies. Online courses and online
mentoring components are incorporated in a number of TTT projects. While much of the content is
similar to what a typical teacher studies in preparation for her role, in some TTT projects, the
emphasis at the beginning of preparation is on the craft of teaching and on classroom management.
Many TTT projects require a student teaching experience during the summer prior to teaching or for
an entire year. About 40 percent of teachers participating in TTT projects (FY 2002) reported they
had a student teaching experience.

2
Eligible applicants for TTT awards are: a state education agency (SEA); a high-need LEA; a for-profit or nonprofit
organization that has a proven record of effectively recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers, in a
partnership with a high-need LEA or an SEA; an institution of higher education (IHE) in a partnership with a
high-need LEA or an SEA; a regional consortium of SEAs; or a consortium of high-need LEAs.
3
The Department uses these definitions for projects of different scope: national or regional projects that serve
eligible high-need LEAs in more than one state; statewide projects that serve eligible high-need LEAs statewide or
eligible high-need LEAs in more than one area of a state; and local projects that serve one eligible high-need LEA or
two or more eligible high-need LEAs in a single area of a state.

2
 EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
Once hired and teaching, participants in TTT projects find an array of supports available to
them. Some TTT projects create and implement mentoring and other induction programs; in others,
participants gain access to induction programs currently in place and supported by the state or
district.

Interim Report Findings

The findings from this interim report underscore the ways in which the TTT grantees
(and the program) have addressed three key NCLB policy issues related to this federal grant program.
Based on one project year’s performance report and interim evaluations of varying depth and detail,
this report stops short of a comprehensive program evaluation, because grantees continue to make
improvements and changes to their projects and many expected to have a no-cost extension year.

Increasing the pool of highly qualified teachers by recruiting nontraditional candidates

into teaching

Each TTT grantee specifies the target population it plans to recruit and sets recruitment
targets for the grant overall and for each project year: most projects target more than one applicant
group. Recruitment strategies and information dissemination about the project are key, because the
populations being targeted may be uncertain about how to become a teacher and may not be aware
that there are (within their state) many alternative routes to meeting state teacher certification
requirements. Also, with its focus on high-need schools in high-need LEAs, TTT projects face more
of a challenge to identify unfilled positions and recruit and place individuals with the appropriate
credentials for these positions.

TTT grantees reported they learned that the most powerful way to reach people is by
“word of mouth,” that is, informal and formal presentations by project administrators and
presentations by TTT participants in schools and IHEs. TTT teachers, in turn, agreed that the
approach through which they gained the most information was by “word of mouth.” Targeted
recruitment efforts for specific populations were highly recommended by TTT grantees; however,
more costly measures, such as TV advertising, were not as productive because, while the level of
interest received was high, many of those expressing interest were not qualified. Web site content
was found to be very valuable to prospective participants. Disseminating full information about the
project and the expected commitment proved effective, according to participants, as was establishing
a reputation as a strong project.

As a cohort, the TTT FY 2002 grantees were highly successful in attracting a large number of
applicants for targeted positions in the third project year: TTT grantees set targets to hire nearly 4,000
teachers and they reported receiving applications from 14,000 prospective candidates. One unique
aspect of a TTT project is that it may have more than one recruiting period in a calendar year and be
serving two or more cohorts of participants in one year.

TTT projects also report generally succeeding in finding placements in high-need schools in
high-need districts for eligible participants, however, they reported many challenges associated with
this process, including budget shifts that reduced positions, changing state requirements, competition
from other routes to teaching, some negative views toward alternate routes, and a lack of LEAs in
their areas that meet the program standard for high-need. As a result, in their three-year interim

3
 EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
evaluations, many grantees recalled that the challenge of meeting recruiting and placement goals for
those specific districts was felt each year.

Overall, in the first three years of the grant, the FY 2002 grantees have facilitated the hiring
of an estimated 7,000 new teachers. Projects gradually ramped up in terms of the number hired, with
a fairly large jump from year 1 to year 2.

The following tables describe the level of recruitment for the grantee cohort of FY 2002 as a
whole, highlighting three findings: TTT grantees tend to recruit more than one type of participant;
midcareer professionals make up the largest portion of teachers recruited and hired through the
TTT grantee projects; and TTT recruitment efforts yield many more applicants than are eligible to
become highly qualified teachers (see Exhibits 1 and 2).

Exhibit 1. Percentage of Grantees Reporting Target Groups and

Percentage of Year 3 Participants from Each Target Group
Percentage of Total
Percentage of Grantees Year 3 Participants From Each
Target Group of Grantees Targeting This Group Target Group
Midcareer professionals 87 59
Paraprofessionals 52 14
Recent college graduates 79 27
Exhibit reads: Eighty-seven percent of FY 2002 grantees targeted midcareer professionals, and fifty-nine percent of
participants were midcareer professionals. Not shown in this exhibit is the small percentage that target one of the
three groups alone; 4 percent of TTT FY 2002 projects target paraprofessionals exclusively.
Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004–05.

Exhibit 2. Number of Participants Targeted, Total Applications Received,

and Total Applicants Determined as Eligible as Reported by FY 2002 TTT
Grantees for the Third Project Year, by Target Group
Percentage
Goal Number of of Ratio of
(Number of Number of Applicants Applicants Eligible
Target Group Participants Applications Determined Determined Applications
of Grantees to Recruit) Received as Eligible as Eligible per Slot
Midcareer
2,022 8,513 5,467 64 2.7 to 1
professionals
Paraprofessi
781 1,642 1,068 65 1.4 to 1
onals
Recent
college 893 4,075 3,062 75 3.4 to 1
graduates
Exhibit reads: Across all FY 2002 grantees, the total number of individuals from the midcareer target
group sought was 2,022; 8,513 applications were received; 5,467 applicants (64 percent of the total
applications received) were determined to be eligible through the selection and screening process. The
ratio of eligible applications per slot was 2.7 to 1 in the third project year.
Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004–05.

Bringing increased flexibility to the teacher preparation system by encouraging the

creation and expansion of alternative routes or pathways to teacher certification and lowering
barriers of time and cost of preparation, while raising standards and program rigor

4
 EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
At the time of the awarding of these grants, nearly three-quarters of states had already at least
one approved alternate route. The rest were expected to follow suit, stimulated by the NCLB
expectation that states eliminate all emergency or provisional certificate and waiver programs
(Feistritzer, personal communication, 2006). Approximately one-third of the TTT FY 2002 awards
were provided to entities seeking to build on existing programs (under state-approved alternate
routes) and approximately two-thirds of the awards went to entities initiating new programs. As a
federal grant program, TTT has enhanced and sustained the approved alternate routes in states, and,
in some states and districts, it has been the source of the first alternate route option for those entering
teaching and the first program.

Participants in TTT projects report that financial incentives offered, an employment

guarantee, and support while obtaining certification are the three most attractive features of TTT
projects. Through the TTT grant, projects were able to offer financial incentives, which could include
scholarship or tuition reimbursement of up to $5,000 for the grant period for those committing to
teach in high-need schools in approved high-need school districts for at least three years. This
assistance is compelling for many individuals who do not have the resources to return to school and
want to remain continuously employed while preparing to be certified.

TTT teachers who became teachers of record during the first three years of the FY 2002 grant
primarily reported they made the decision to become a teacher because of their desire to work with
young people (64 percent). TTT teachers also reported they perceived the project to add value
through its requirements for study, and more than two-thirds said they felt well prepared to teach
their subject area. TTT teachers reported that their projects followed through on their commitments.
Still, these teachers experienced challenges in their first few months of teaching, noting that the
administrative, classroom management, and time demands of teaching were very challenging. These
challenges, it should be noted, are similar to the ones experienced by many new teachers.

Like teachers in the workforce today, about half of the TTT teachers who have been teaching
in the first three years of these grants reported they planned to stay in teaching for as long as they
were able. These teachers also suggested that, while working conditions and administrative-related
issues could be a factor in a decision to leave teaching, they were anticipating the level of these
challenges would be moderate with respect to their long-term teaching plans.

Twenty percent of TTT teachers indicated they would not have entered teaching, if the TTT
option were not available in their area. Among targeted groups, paraprofessionals were least likely to
say they would not have taught without the TTT alternative (14 percent) compared to recent college
graduates (22 percent) and midcareer professionals (24 percent). Teachers who were born in the
1980s were much more likely to say they would have simply not taught if TTT were not available.
Incentives were the top-ranked influence on a participant’s decision to participate in TTT; for those
who placed this as the top influence, if TTT was not available, they indicated they would have
chosen a traditional program. Finally, teachers of social studies and foreign languages were least
likely to have expected to find another alternate route and most likely to have simply not taught.
No pattern was discernible for mathematics or science teachers (see Exhibit 3).

5
 EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
Exhibit 3. TTT Teachers’ Choice of Preparation Pathway
Without TTT

Exhibit reads: Thirty-three percent of TTT teachers reported they would have participated
in a traditional teacher education program if the TTT project had not been available.
Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005–06.

Improving the retention rate of new teachers by supporting strong mentoring programs
and induction and including a three-year teaching commitment in high-need schools in
high-need districts as part of the program requirements

Over the first three years of the FY 2002 grants included in this evaluation, an estimated
7,000 participants were hired to teach and were working in areas designated by school districts of
greatest need: middle and high school and in the subject areas of science, mathematics and special
education. TTT projects have been generally able to increase the number of participants recruited and
hired in each project year (see Exhibit 4). The largest percentage of TTT teachers were hired to teach
mathematics (21 percent) and special education (21 percent).

6
 EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
Exhibit 4. Number of TTT Participants Who Were New Teachers
of Record in High-Need Schools in High-Need LEAs,
by Grade Level and Year and Subject Area in 2002,
2003 and 2004

1,125
High 1,099
405
688
Middle 670
260 2004
235 2003
Elementary/Middle 131
37 2002
Grade Level 922
Elementary 763
363
592
General 409
232

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Num ber of Participants

903
Special Education 881
359
505
Mathematics 612
208
492
Science 419
185 2004
270
English Language Arts 291 2003
104
423 2002
Subject Area ESL 330
66
186
Social Studies 121
38
55
Foreign Language 42
46

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Num ber of Participants

Exhibit reads: In 2004, 1,125 new teachers of record were hired in participating LEAs for
high school placements.
Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004–05.

TTT teachers have been generally assigned to teach in the field in which they are seeking
certification but at least 20 percent overall reported they have also been assigned to teach subjects
outside of their main teaching area. Eighty percent or more of TTT teachers in the first three years
reported their certification matched their main teaching assignment.

Calculating a three-year retention rate for TTT teachers was not possible for this interim
evaluation, because the data were not available at the time of the grantee reports. However, data for
the first two groups of teachers hired in 2002 and 2003 were available and show that the retention
rate is relatively high, even with some attrition in a single year or over two years. Seventy-four

7
 EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
percent of those who entered the project in 2002 were still teaching in 2004 (see Exhibit 5). As a
comparison to this retention rate, the most recent national estimates (from SASS data in 1999–2000)
indicate 29 percent of first-time teachers either changed schools at the end of the year (15 percent) or
left teaching (14 percent) (Smith and Ingersoll, 2004). These analyses also found that beginning
teachers comparable to the TTT teachers in high-poverty schools were “less likely than their
counterparts in medium-poverty schools to move after a year but were more likely to leave teaching
(16 percent as opposed to 9 percent)” (Smith and Ingersoll, 2004). Additional research on mobility
was recently released which complements these findings (Marvel et al., 2006).

The importance of TTT support and mentoring to new teachers was explored, especially in
light of research that shows a combination of supports can be significant in reducing teacher turnover
(Smith and Ingersoll, 2004). Retention rates were not found to be associated with the number of
years over which TTT projects provided mentoring assistance. The percentage of TTT teachers
reporting they had a mentor (63 percent in the surveyed year) was slightly lower than that reported by
other new teachers in the workforce (approximately 70 percent) (SASS, 2003–04). This was likely
due to two factors. First, all TTT projects did not provide the same kind of support to new teachers,
thus mentoring was not a universal component. Second, in many TTT projects mentoring support
was the responsibility of the district and was not provided for all years. Thus in any given year, some
TTT teachers were participating in a mentoring program, while others were not. This variability may
have affected the perception of some TTT teachers who reported some dissatisfaction with the
quality and quantity of mentoring and this feeling was reinforced by the reports of project directors
who found it difficult to ensure a high quality of this and other supports when they were depending
upon existing induction programs administered by districts in their states.

Exhibit 5. Percentage of Participants Who Became Teachers

of Record in 2002 and 2003 and Their Retention Status,
by Year Entering the TTT Project (2002 and 2003)

Entered project in
2002, still teaching 94%
in 2003

Entered project in
2002, still teaching 74%
in 2004

Entered project in
2003, still teaching 87%
in 2004

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Participants

Note: TTT projects may enroll more than one cohort of participants in a given project year.
Exhibit reads: Ninety-four percent of participants who entered the TTT project in 2002 and
became teachers of record in 2002 were reported to still be teaching in 2003.
Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004–05.

8
 EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
Challenges and Lessons Learned
In their approaches to facilitating recruitment, selection, preparation, hiring, placement,
certification, and support while teaching, TTT grantees have developed approaches that might differ
with respect to recruitment strategies, involvement of school principals and district administrators,
number and background of participants, and the nature and extent of support. Still, TTT grantees
report that they share certain challenges in starting up and sustaining these components in alternate
routes to certification.

Recruitment. The most critical challenge identified by grantees was that of recruitment,
which was cited by almost one-third of the grantees. This category encompasses attracting qualified
participants to teaching and to committing to a placement in high-need LEAs for three years.
Recruitment was complicated by external factors, such as changes in state or district certification
policies that affected alternate route participants, isolation of rural school districts, labor market
conditions in some cities, competitive programs in the region, and the expense of living and working
in urban districts. TTT projects attract many applicants with their focused recruitment efforts, but
applicants are not all eligible and there is some attrition over time.

Selection. Some grantees reported receiving applications from individuals who were not
adequately qualified and found it necessary to refine the participant selection process. A few projects
instituted candidate screeners. Others established extensive selection and placement processes
through which district administrators and IHE faculty were involved. By taking steps to be more
selective and setting higher standards for entry, the grantees were also establishing a reputation as a
selective program, which, it was believed, would eventually facilitate both recruitment and hiring.

Retention. A number of participants were unhappy with the working conditions in high-need
schools, and still others who were eligible, would not commit to the project because they wanted to
select the location where they would work and did not find the needs of specific types of LEAs
compelling. Still others signed up originally, but then left because of difficulty in maintaining their
performance, balancing work and course commitments, and financial considerations. Projects
reported that participants felt LEAs in rural locations were simply harder to access, and they were not
able to recruit as well for these districts or attract mentors, so instead focused on preparing training
components that could be conveniently delivered.

Definition of High-Need LEAs Provided in the Authorizing Legislation. One quarter of

the grantees cited problems with meeting the TTT program constraints regarding the definition of
high-need LEA and high-need schools in terms of the level of poverty and the highly qualified
teacher requirement. In their applications, TTT projects identified the districts that would meet the
requirements and then worked with the program office if any changes were requested (e.g., adding an
LEA to the list). Besides finding the districts and schools within the definition, some TTT projects
found that their participants wanted to teach in other schools and districts that did not meet the
definition, resulting in some attrition. Other projects reported that some high-need LEAs dropped out
of their arrangement or had fewer openings than anticipated. As a result, projects maintained an
ongoing discourse with the TTT program office about the LEA definition.

Grantees responded to the challenges they faced in meeting their objectives in many different
ways; three key methods were mentioned in 60 percent of grantee responses: (a) networking and
collaborating with LEAs, agencies, projects and schools; (b) providing more or improving

9
 EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
professional development and support; and (c) increasing recruitment efforts, including more targeted
efforts to reach individuals who were eligible.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Transition to Teaching grant program supports a wide variety of alternate route
approaches which exist within the broader population of state-, district- and university-provided
options for those wishing to become teachers. As the data on the third project year activities were
being collected through the APRs, the case studies, and the interim reports, it became clear that
changes were being made to improve on the approaches. In conjunction with project monitors and
through participation in grantee meetings, project management received support, particularly in the
areas of recruitment and evaluation. Still, some lessons learned and challenges faced in the first
three years of operations indicate the potential for some changes and new directions for the TTT
program as a whole. Some of these are more appropriately addressed to the Congress as it plans for
reauthorization of NCLB and considers options to strengthen the TTT program within the Office of
Innovation and Improvement (OII).

1. In deliberations leading to reauthorization, consider giving the program office (OII)

the authority to award shorter planning grants to prospective entities. Awarding
one-year planning grants to entities planning to create new alternate routes would allow
them the time to develop a business plan, pilot effective recruitment approaches, and
obtain formal commitments from participating LEAs. Many FY 2002 projects indicated
that the first year was a start-up and planning year, in terms of operations. Recruitment
takes time and substantial resources and the yield is small each year considering the effort
made. During this planning year, TTT projects could be asked to establish more of a
“business plan” and finalize the targeted number of participants based on numbers of
teachers needed. This planning year could also include project mentoring by program
staff to establish the groundwork for evidence-based evaluations. There is some
precedent for this option. For example, in the PT3 grant program, initial catalyst grants
were awarded. Many of the IHE programs awarded these used the period to build strong
models planning the integration of technology in teacher preparation programs and
courses.

2. Use discretionary funds now available to OII and TTT to invest in the
documentation and dissemination of effective practices for alternate route projects.
Just as the FY 2002 grants were awarded, ED also produced a book of promising
practices for alternate routes and established a national clearinghouse to gather annual
data and provide access to policy and research reports. These information dissemination
activities have proved valuable to many in this field. Four years later, and with the
accumulated experience of the more than 100 grantees being documented, it makes sense
to consider establishing a clearinghouse function within the program’s Web site or within
the ED’s labs and centers that focuses on effective components of alternate routes.
Through such a resource, alternate route project directors and evaluators would be able to
find, for example, research studies on induction (including the latest data from the
Institute of Education Sciences [IES] study on induction programs) and descriptions of
effective induction activities in TTT projects, along with evidence about their success.

10
 EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
3. Encourage OII and TTT grantees to collaborate at the state and district level about
policies regarding alternate routes. In their interim evaluations and in narrative APR
responses about promising practices and challenges, project directors indicated the
importance of working through policy differences that could affect their program options,
their targeted recruitment, and their success in producing certified teachers. For example,
a number of projects raised the concern that they might not be able to continue special
education options due to changes in certification requirements in their states. In addition,
a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Troops-to-Teachers
indicated that additional collaboration among alternate routes that share recruiting
populations might enhance recruitment success. Finally, in the case studies conducted for
this interim report, we learned that such collaboration might ameliorate the confusing
situation that sometimes faces applicants to teaching when there are competing routes, for
example, regarding requirements to become highly qualified, costs, and mentoring.
Project directors indicated that when they try to take advantage of existing mentoring and
induction components in their states and districts, they face challenges in providing a
high-quality program that is most closely related to the needs of their own project
participants and does not include duplicative components.

4. Use discretionary funds now available to OII to conduct a small-scale investigation

of the importance of the level of incentives to project participation. While the
incentives provided by TTT are helpful, they do not ameliorate the high and rising cost of
tuition at public and private colleges where most participants complete their academic
requirements. The program could be enhanced by more information on what level of
incentive is most appealing to participants and what makes sense given the cost of
recruiting and supporting participants through to certification. Through this study, ED
could explore some options, for example, removing the cap of $5,000 to allow flexibility
to projects recruiting from different populations with varying financial needs;
investigating the relationship between different levels of funding and participation; and
exploring whether professional development-type online programs are less expensive to
operate and to participate in.

5. In deliberations preceding reauthorization, reexamine the definition of high-need

LEAs and high-need schools. Project grantees reported several challenges in this regard,
most notably, they were able in some cases to identify many districts and schools that
needed teachers, but all of them did not meet the narrow definition. Projects reported
many more applications than expected, but some participants did not want to teach in
designated high-need schools, so they earned certification through the TTT route, but did
not make a commitment as to the school in which they would be teaching. ED could
examine the impact of the current definition on total number of participants hired and
retained and work with a group of experienced project directors to recommend additional
criteria to assist grantees and participants. There should be a way to develop an approach
so that unfilled teaching positions do not remain so and participants who wish to become
highly qualified through alternate routes are not turned away, without penalizing the
neediest schools.

11
 EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
Organization of the Report
This report begins with an overview chapter, and each subsequent chapter addresses a key
component of grantee activity.

Chapter I: Overview of TTT Grantees, Participants and Teachers. This chapter provides
an overview of TTT grantees and participants as they become teachers. Drawing on the APR for the
third project year and reporting on progress toward objectives and challenges from the interim
reports, project-level data are provided which illustrate the variation in grantee type, scope,
participating organizations, and budget.

Chapter II: Recruitment and Selection of TTT Participants. This chapter focuses on the
strategies and approaches that TTT projects implemented to recruit targeted participants, review their
qualifications, and the results of these efforts for the third project year, addressing the first policy
goal of the program: increasing the pool of highly qualified teachers by recruiting nontraditional
candidates into teaching.

Chapter III: Preparation and Certification. This chapter outlines the activities of TTT
projects as they prepare and support participants who are either serving as interns or as teachers of
record while attending classes and professional development seminars. This chapter addresses the
second policy goal related to breaking down barriers to teaching.

Chapter IV: Hiring and Placement of New Teachers. This chapter highlights the
accomplishments of TTT grantees regarding hiring and placement in high-need schools in high-need
LEAs and reviews the subject area assignments of these new teachers.

Chapter V: Mentoring and Other Supports for Newly Hired Teachers. The variety of
supports provided to teachers in TTT projects are described in this chapter, addressing the policy goal
of improving the retention rates of new teachers. In addition, the retention rates of TTT teachers in
the early years of the FY 2002 grantees are reported in this chapter.

Chapter VI: Teacher Satisfaction and Future Plans. In this chapter we report TTT teacher
data regarding their perception of TTT project preparation and support, along with the challenges
faced and their future plans regarding teaching.

Chapter VII: Conclusion. This chapter draws together the evaluation findings and identifies
potential refinements for the TTT program as well as questions for further investigation.

12