Detailed Information on the
Transition to Teaching Assessment

Addressing administrative and statutory obstacles, such as restrictive poverty and teacher requirements and inadequate financial incentives.

Developing a comprehensive database of well-defined, key data points to refine the data collection process and ensure the availability of more reliable and comparable program performance data.

Presenting program performance information to the public in a more transparent manner and using that information to guide management improvements.

Using the Transition to Teaching comprehensive database of well-defined, key data points to inform technical assistance to grantees and funding recommendations.

Measure: Percentage of all Transition to Teaching (TTT) participants, served by TTT grants first funded in 2002, who become teachers of record in high-need schools in high-need LEAs.

Explanation:Measure reflects percentage of program participants who assume primary instructional responsibility in these particular classroom settings. Due to a change in the measure definition, previous targets did not correspond with 2003-05 "actual data" so those targets have been removed.

Measure: Percentage of all Transition to Teaching (TTT) participants, served by TTT grants first funded in 2004, who become teachers of record in high-need schools in high-need LEAs.

Explanation:Measure reflects percentage of program participants who assume primary instructional responsibility in these particular classroom settings.

Measure: Percentage of Transition to Teaching (TTT) teachers of record, served by TTT grants first funded in 2002, who teach in high-need schools in high-need LEAs for at least three years.

Explanation:Measure reflects percentage of program participants who become certified through TTT and who become teachers of record in a high-need school in a high need LEA for at least three years.

Measure: Cost per participant who teaches in a high-need school in a high-need LEA for at least three years (2002 cohort).

Explanation:

Measure: Cost per participant receiving full certification/licensure (2002 cohort).

Explanation:

Measure: Percentage of Transition to Teaching (TTT) participants, served by TTT grants first funded in 2004, receiving certification/licensure within three years.

Explanation:Targets increased to reflect revised baseline data, which was revised as a result of efforts to better ensure consistency and accuracy of data.

Measure: Percentage of Transition to Teaching (TTT) participants, served by TTT grants first funded in 2002, receiving certification/licensure within three years. (New measure, added February 2007)

Explanation:This new measure refines a previous measure to more accurately assess the performance of the program in meeting legislative intent. The measure was changed from percentage of "teachers" receiving licensure to the percentage of "participants" to better measure the program's ability to assist eligible candidates in becoming certified teachers.

Measure: Percentage of Transition to Teaching (TTT) teachers of record, served by TTT grants first funded in 2004, who teach in high-need schools in high-need LEAs for at least three years. (New measure, added August 2007).

Explanation: 

Measure: Cost per participant who teaches in a high-need school in a high-need LEA for at least three years (2004 cohort). (New measure, added August 2007).

Explanation: 

Measure: Cost per participant receiving full certification/licensure (2004 cohort). (New measure, added August 2007).

Explanation: 

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Department of Education's (ED) Transition to Teaching program has a clear pupose. It is designed to recruit and retain highly qualified mid-career professionals (including paraprofessionals) and recent graduates of an Institution of Higher Education (IHE), as teachers in high-need schools in high-need school districts and to encourage the development and expansion of alternative routes to certification.

Evidence: Section 2311 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: A substantial number of school districts with teaching openings are experiencing difficulty in finding qualified candidates to meet their hiring needs. This problem is especially troublesome in the high-need subjects of mathematics, science, and special education, and is most acute in America's high-poverty districts and schools. Traditional teacher preparation programs are not producing sufficient numbers of qualified teachers to meet these hiring needs. Adding to this hiring difficulty is the fact that while there are numbers of individuals interested in teaching in high-need districts (mainly urban), inefficient district hiring processes result in many accepting teaching positions in suburban schools or not entering teaching at all. There also continues to be a problem in retaining teachers in these schools. According to research, one-third of teachers leave the profession within five years. High levels of attrition are particularly acute in the highest need areas, both academically and geographically, where one-half of new teachers leave within their first five years. In schools where effective induction and mentoring programs are offered, teachers are less likely to move to other schools or leave teaching.

Evidence: Schools and Staffing Survey 1999-2000 (2002) The New Teacher Project??Missed Opportunities (2003) ED Report: The Secretary's Annual Report on Teacher Quality (2004) Research by Richard Ingersoll (Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: an Organizational Analysis --- 2004, and Why Do High Poverty Schools have Difficulty Staffing Their Classrooms with Qualified Teachers???2004)

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: There are other Federal, State and local programs that include the recruitment of mid-career professionals into teaching and/or the preparation of participants for teacher certification. However, Transition to Teaching is unique in developing models for and spurring efforts to create accelerated teacher preparation programs that lead to certification, provide support in the classroom, and encourage recent college graduates, mid-career changers, and highly qualified paraprofessionals to teach in high-need schools and subject areas. The structure of the Transition program requires a high level of commitment. Participants must agree to work in a high-need school in a high-need LEA for at least three years. In order to recruit, support and retain these participants as highly qualified teachers, the program encourages and supports innovative teacher preparation programs, fosters new and expanded alternative routes to certification, and promotes streamlining of district hiring and personnel practices. This was particularly evident in the program's FY 2004 grant competition, which had a competitive priority for SEAs to create or expand alternative routes to certification and for LEAs to review and improve hiring practices.

Evidence: Title II, Part A of ESEA -Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund;Title II, Part C of ESEA - Transition to Teaching, Section 2313 Title II, Part C of ESEA, Section 2313 FY 2004 Transition to Teaching Notice Inviting Applications

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Generally, Transition to Teaching has been able to target both the population and districts that the program is intended to reach. However, there are some significant design issues ED is discussing that, if addressed through priorities, regulation, or statutory change, can enhance the effectiveness of the program. They are as follows: A statutory requirment which holds that applicants must be either a high-need Local Education Agency (LEA) or in a partnership with such an LEA, may be overly restrictive. The requirement prevents many districts from applying for Transition to Teaching grants because they do not meet the poverty and teacher requirements, even though they face significant challenges in recruiting and placing "Highly Qualified Teachers" (HQT, as defined by NCLB) . While the statute helps target the program to high-need schools in high-need districts, the restrictiveness of the criteria may, in the future, severely limit districts with legitimate challenges. In addition, there are existing State alternative certification barriers that limit the flexibility and innovativeness of Transition grants. Many of these State certification systems require participants to meet burdensome requirements even when they are participating in alternative certification programs. This issue could possibly be addressed in future Transition to Teaching grant competitions or by changes to the program to statute, with the objective of either reform strategy to incentivize States to streamline their alternative certification systems.

Evidence: From ESEA Title II, Part A, Sec. 2102(3)--To be a high-need LEA, the LEA to meet both poverty and teacher criteria: Serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with incomes below the poverty line; or For which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line; AND For which there is a high percentage of teachers not teaching in the subjects or grade levels that the teachers were trained to teach; or For which there is a high percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional, or temporary certification or licensing.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: This program is highly targeted on high-poverty districts and districts that have difficulty recruiting highly qualified teachers and particularly to teach high-need subjects. Only those applicants who meet the definition of a high-need LEA are eligible to apply.

Evidence: Program Grant Application guidance and requirements.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: ED has developed three long-term performance measures. They are: (a) The percentage of all Transition to Teaching (TTT) participants who become teachers of record in high-need schools in high-need LEAs; (b) The percentage of TTT participants receiving certification/licensure within three years; and, (c) The percentage of TTT teachers who teach in high-need schools in high-need LEAs for at least three years.

Evidence: Annual Performance Report data for these measures is annually available in November.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: ED has set ambitious targets for all three long-term performance measures.

Evidence: Data are collected annually through the program's annual performance reporting process.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: ED has established three annual performance measures. In addition, ED has established two efficiency measures.

Evidence: Data are collected annually through the program's annual performance reporting process.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: ED has set ambitious targets for all three annual performance measures.

Evidence: Data are collected annually through the program's annual performance reporting process.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: ED encourages grantees to submit these data through closing date notices, technical assistance, and grantee meetings. Transition to Teaching grantees collect data on performance measures and report these data through the Annual Performance Reporting process. ED then reviews performance data and grants continuation awards based on successful performance.

Evidence: Program applications and reports. Annual Project Director meetings. Periodic ongoing grantee monitoring visits.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: ED, through its Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) unit, has contracted with an independent entity to conduct an evaluation of the Transition to Teaching program that will provide outcome data related to purposes of the grant program. ED also requires grantees to conduct individual evaluations to demonstrate the effectiveness of their projects after the third and fifth years of the grant awards.

Evidence: PPSS study: The Evaluation of the Transition to Teaching Grant Program 2002 Cohort (to be published in fall 2006). The program used criteria for selecting an independent evaluator through technical proposal ratings.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Without appropriate program outcomes data, it is not yet possible to link the budget request to accomplishment of such goals. Budgeting is not currently linked to long-term goals and/or a strategic plan.

Evidence: N/A.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: ED has addressed deficiencies by creating long-term and efficiency measures, which will be tracked through annual performance reports. ED will continue to refine its data collection and analysis strategies for Transition to Teaching.

Evidence:  

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: TTT collects timely and credible data from grantees through annual performance reports and requires grantee evaluations after the third and fifth year of funding. Annual Performance Reports are used to alert program staff to potential implementation problems with a grantee and to inform the program's work plan for the year. TTT staff also use performance information as the basis for decisions on continuation funding and monitoring site visits. Monitoring site visits are prioritized to those projects that demonstrate weaknesses in their reporting and those projects that demonstrate innovative approaches to program implementation.

Evidence: Annual Performance Reports, TTT work plan, interim evaluation after the third year of the 5-year grant, periodic ongoing grantee monitoring site visit reports.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Transition to Teaching managers are held accountable for tracking program performance. ED managers are subject to EDPAS, which links employee performance to relevant Strategic Plan goals and is designed to measure the degree to which a manager contributes to improving program performance. Grantees are required to develop project evaluation plans that include specific, measurable, time-framed objectives. Grantees are held accountable through project monitoring and annual performance reports that are reviewed by program managers. Assessment of this information is used to evaluate grantee progress towards meeting established program goals and objectives. Continued funding is contingent on demonstrating satisfactory progress.

Evidence: ED employee EDPAS agreements; Grantee evaluation plans; Monitoring by TTT staff. As an example of enforcement of program performance requirements, three grants from the 2002 cohort and one grant from the 2004 cohort were discontinued due to the grantees' failure to demonstrate satisfactory progress.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds are obligated within the timeframes set out by ED schedules and used for the intended purposes.

Evidence:  

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: ED information technology improvements, including e-Reader and e-Applications, enhance program management efficiencies and cost effectiveness by streamlining submission of grant applications and allowing for on-line and telephone grant review. Online review has enabled ED to utilize contractor services for the logistics of the application review process, thus freeing program staff to concentrate on management of the TTT program. TTT will utilize the government-wide grants application portal, grants.gov, for its 2006 grant competition. Additionally, the program has established two efficiency measures.

Evidence: 2002 competition - $1,083/application reviewed; 2004 competition - $1,179/application reviewed Efficiency Measures: (1) cost per program participant who teaches in a high-need school in a high-need LEA for at least three-year; and, (2) cost per program participant receiving full certification/ licensure.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Transition to Teaching program has collaborated with other ED offices in developing common measures for assessing the performance of all ED teacher quality programs. The other ED programs involved in this effort include: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Early Childhood Educator Professional Development, Mathematics and Science Partnerships, Troops-to-Teachers, Teaching of American History, Special Education Personnel Preparation, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants. In addition, TTT staff have kept in close contact with other ED program managers to enhance management practices and share teacher quality information.

Evidence:

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Recent agency-wide audits have not identified deficiencies in the financial management of this program.

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Communication with Transition to Teaching grantees has been enhanced through the use of an online listserv and periodic newsletter. In addition, the program has provided technical assistance to grantees through meetings for project directors, resources supplied directly to grantees, and information made available on the TTT webpage. Project officers provide timely and appropriate technical assistance to meet the individual needs of grantees.

Evidence: Transition to Teaching Work Plan

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: Grant information for potential applicants is published in hard copy and posted on the ED website. Experts from the field are used to score and rank applications, using a point system that is based on selection criteria published in the Federal Register and subject to public comment.

Evidence: Federal Register; U.S. Department of Education website; OMB-approved application package.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: ED maintains information on grantee activities through annual performance reports, site visits, regular email and phone communication, annual meetings, and technical assistance activities. Program staff reviews budget expenditures through grantee performance reports and the Grant Administration and Payment System (GAPS).

Evidence: Annual Performance Reports; National TTT Annual Project Director's Meetings; on-site and desk monitoring by program staff.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Currently TTT data are posted on the web in an aggregated format. Grantee level data are not available to the public. ED is exploring strategies to provide grantee level data from the PPSS evaluation. This information would complement the program-wide evaluation (see below). The Department (PPSS) contracted with AIR --- an independent, non-biased party --- to write eight case studies of TTT projects and, in the fall of 2005, posted a link to the case studies on its website.

Evidence: ED website; Annual Performance Reports; PPSS study: The Evaluation of the Transition to Teaching Grant Program 2002 Cohort (to be published in fall 2006); Contract with American Institutes for Research (AIR).

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program currently has three long-term performance measures for both the 2002 and 2004 cohorts of TTT grantees. Initial performance data for the 2002 cohort is promising, but due to a revised definition of "teacher of record", definitive conclusions may not yet be reached about program performance.

Evidence: TTT Performance Measures and Targets information.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program currently has three annual performance measures for both the 2002 and 2004 cohorts of TTT grantees. Initial performance data for the 2002 cohort is promising, but due to a revised definition of "teacher of record", definitive conclusions may not yet be reached about program performance.

Evidence: TTT Performance Measures and Targets information. PPSS study: The Evaluation of the Transition to Teaching Grant Program 2002 Cohort (to be published in fall 2006).

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: ED has established two efficiency measures for this program. Baseline data for the measures will be collected in 2006 and targets will subsequently be established.

Evidence: Efficiency Measures: (1) cost per program participant who teaches in a high-need school in a high-need LEA for at least three-year; and, (2) cost per program participant receiving full certification/ licensure.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While there are several programs that promote the recruitment, training, and retention of high-qualified teachers, there is not yet adequate data available to make comparisons between these programs. ED may consider a measurement of the performance and efficiency of other programs that fund the preparation of new teachers in order to be able to make a comparison across programs.

Evidence:

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: ED is conducting an evaluation of the Transition to Teaching program (through PPSS) that will provide outcome data regarding effectiveness. This evaluation includes an online reporting tool for project directors, a survey of participants who are currently teaching, and a report on eight site visits. However, data will not be available until 2006.

Evidence: PPSS study: The Evaluation of the Transition to Teaching Grant Program 2002 Cohort; Statute requirement