CRS Report for Congress
Teacher Quality and Quantity: Proposals
in the 105 Congress
Updated December 3, 1998
James B. Stedman
Specialist in Social Legislation
Education and Public Welfare

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Policymakers are concerned about the quality and quantity of elementary and secondary
school teachers. Efforts to raise curriculum standards and student performance standards
are increasing the knowledge and skills that teachers are expected to have. Concurrently,
projections of enrollment growth and increased attrition from teaching due to retirements
are generating concerns about a substantial increase in future demand for teachers. This
report provides background on the issues of teacher quality and quantity. It reviews relevant
legislative proposals that were made in the 105th Congress and action on those proposals.
It describes the new teacher programs enacted in the Higher Education Amendments of 1998
and the class size reduction/teacher hiring program included in the FY1999 omnibus
appropriations legislation. There will not be further updates to this report.

Teacher Quality and Quantity: Proposals
in the 105 Congressth
The 105 Congress considered a broad array of proposals responding generallyth
to two issues of teacher quality and quantity. Some of the legislative interest was
prompted by the expiration of the funding authority for the Higher Education Act
(HEA). Title V of that legislation authorized a large number of programs focused on
precollege teaching; only one of these authorities was funded for FY1998. The
Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244) repeal the Title V programs
and add new ones to improve preservice teacher training and teacher recruitment.
In other major action regarding teachers, the FY1999 omnibus appropriations
legislation (P.L. 105-277) includes $1.2 billion for the hiring of teachers to reduce
class size.
Policymakers are concerned about the quality and quantity of elementary and
secondary school teachers. Efforts to raise curriculum standards and student
performance standards are increasing the knowledge and skills that teachers are
expected to have. Concurrently, projections of enrollment growth and increased
attrition from teaching due to retirements are generating concerns about a substantial
increase in future demand for teachers. The current and anticipated need for more
teachers, and for more highly qualified teachers, may be exacerbated by efforts to
reduce class size.
The process of preparing, recruiting, licensing, compensating, testing, and
structuring the working conditions of the elementary and secondary teaching force
is primarily the responsibility of states and localities. Nevertheless, the federal
government provides a wide array of support for teachers.
Many of the proposals that were before the 105th Congress could be placed in
one of two groups depending upon their focus: (1) proposals that sought primarily
to improve the quality of teachers through such steps as reform of teacher education
and strengthening of recruitment incentives, or (2) proposals that principally
addressed the issue of teacher quantity by supporting the hiring of new teachers.
Among the issues raised by proposals in the first group was the effectiveness of their
approaches to reforming teacher education. Issues involving the second group of
proposals included the consequences for student achievement and teacher quality of
substantial federal support for teacher hiring, particularly in an effort to reduce class

Recent Legislative Action.........................................1
Introduction ................................................... 1
The Quality and Quantity Issues....................................2
Teacher Quality.............................................2
Teacher Quantity............................................4
Crosscutting Concerns........................................4
Class Size Reduction.....................................5
Current Federal Role Supporting Precollege Teachers....................6
Selected Proposals Before the 105 Congress..........................8th
Improving Teacher Quality....................................9
Enacted Provisions and Selected Proposals....................9
Selected Issues Raised by These Proposals....................15
Increasing the Number of Teachers.............................17
Enacted Provisions and Selected Proposals...................17
Selected Issues Raised by These Proposals....................21
Concluding Observations.........................................24

Teacher Quality and Quantity: Proposals
in the 105 Congress
Recent Legislative Action
The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (H.R. 6), signed into law on
October 7, 1998 (P.L. 105-244), add new programs to the Higher Education Act
(HEA) to support improvements in the training of prospective teachers and in the
recruitment of qualified individuals to teaching. The omnibus appropriations
legislation for FY1999 (H.R. 4328), which was signed into law on October 21, 1998
(P.L. 105-277), includes $1.2 billion for the hiring of new teachers in order to reduce
class size. In other major action, the Congress approved H.R. 2646, a bill to amend
the new education individual retirement accounts, to which was added support for
state teacher tests and merit pay programs for teachers. The President vetoed that bill
on July 21, 1998. All of these enacted provisions and legislative proposals are
described below in the section on Selected Proposals Before the 105th Congress.
Policymakers at all levels are increasingly concerned about the quality and
quantity of elementary and secondary school teachers. Ongoing efforts to raise
curriculum standards and student performance standards are increasing the subject
matter knowledge and pedagogical skills that teachers are expected to have.
Concurrently, projections of student enrollment growth and increased attrition from
the teaching force due to retirements are generating concerns about a substantial
increase in future demand for teachers. In addition, the current and anticipated need
for more teachers, and for more highly qualified teachers, may be exacerbated as
policymakers undertake or propose initiatives to reduce class size.
Proposals to address teacher quality or quantity may concentrate on a number
of broad aspects of teaching, such as the following: preservice teacher education
(preparation of prospective teachers); inservice training (professional development
for current teachers); teacher recruitment; induction (the process for introducing new
teachers to teaching); licensure (licensure and certification are used interchangeably
in this report to refer to the process of granting the license to teach); teacher testing;
and general working conditions (including compensation, tenure, as well as the
organization and management of schools and classrooms).The 105 Congressth
considered a broad array of proposals responding generally to the two issues of
teacher quality and quantity. This report analyzes two groups of proposals:

!proposals that sought primarily to improve the quality of teachers through such
steps as reform of teacher education and strengthening of recruitment
incentives, and
!proposals that principally addressed the issue of teacher quantity by supporting1
the hiring of new teachers.
Some of the legislative interest in the 105th Congress was prompted by the
expiration of the funding authority for the HEA. Title V of the HEA under prior law
authorized a large number of programs focused on precollege teaching (see
discussion below). This entire array of programs was repealed and new programs
enacted in its stead.
This report provides analysis of the teacher quality and quantity issues, a brief
overview of the current federal role supporting elementary and secondary school
teachers, and a review of the proposals considered by the 105th Congress in each of
the groups listed above. This report describes legislative action on these proposals
during the 105th Congress.
The Quality and Quantity Issues
The elementary and secondary education teaching force is large; in 1995, there
were an estimated 2.6 million public school teachers and 380,000 private school
teachers. 2
Teacher Quality
Teacher quality may be defined by, and measured by, the level of education a
teacher has completed, the teacher’s tested ability level, or the teaching credentials
he or she has earned, among other characteristics. In particular, concern about the3
quality of current teachers has centered, in part, on the extent to which teachers are
currently teaching “out-of-field,” that is, providing instruction in subjects in which
they have relatively little preparation and academic background. One analysis, which
considered the extent to which secondary school students were being taught an
academic subject by teachers who had neither a college major or college minor in that
subject, found, for example, that over a quarter of all public secondary school
students enrolled in math classes, and that over half of public school students in

This report does not cover proposals for the education and training of individuals providing1
educational services outside of the K-12 level, such as individuals being trained in early
childhood education or entering the early child care profession.
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Projections of2
Education Statistics to 2007. Washington, 1997. Table 32. (Hereafter cited as NCES,
Boe, Erling E. and Gilford, Dorothy M., eds. Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality:3
Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases. National Research Council. Washington, 1992.
p. 33. See also, The Problem of Improving Teacher Quality While Balancing Supply and
Demand, by Mary M. Kennedy, included in this volume.

physical science classes had such teachers. Another analysis, found that, in 1993-94,4
21% of high school teachers teaching academic subjects had neither a major or
minor in their main teaching subjects; in specific subject areas, this percentage of
teachers was, for example, 28% for mathematics and 18% for science. It should be5
noted that this measure of quality (out-of-field teaching) is partly a reflection of
teacher assignment practices.
There is a growing recognition that the success of nearly any effort to improve
the academic performance of U.S. students depends critically upon their teachers’
mastery of subject matter knowledge and their ability to teach it. As a result,6
teachers’ capabilities in the classroom and their impact on student performance are
increasingly considered integral components of teacher quality. Further, concern
about teacher quality takes on more urgency as states and local school districts raise
curriculum content and student performance standards in different subject areas.
This changes expectations about what teachers need to know and be able to do in the
Factors that have been identified by different analysts and policymakers as
contributing to the quality problem include the following: the abilities of individuals
entering teaching; poor preservice education; limited, ineffective professional7
development; compensation systems that do not reward good performance;
organization of schools that militates against effective teaching; teacher assignment

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Out-of-Field4
Teaching and Educational Equality. NCES 96-040 by Richard M. Ingersoll. Washington,
1996. This study was based on the U.S. Department of Education’s 1990-91 Schools and
Staffing Survey.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. Doing What Matters Most:5
Investing in Quality Teaching. November, 1997. Data cited are from the 1993-94 iteration
of the Schools and Staffing Survey.
See, for example: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. What Matters6
Most: Teaching for America’s Future. New York, 1996. (Hereafter cited as National
Commission, What Matters Most.)
For example, some analyses have found that the college entrance examination scores of7
individuals who enter teaching are somewhat lower than those of individuals who do not
prepare to teach. See, for example: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for
Education Statistics. Out of the Lecture Hall and Into the Classroom: 1992-1993 College
Graduates and Elementary/Secondary School Teaching. NCES 96-899. Washington, 1996.
p. 20-22.

practices; and state tenure laws that are viewed by many as unduly protecting poorly
performing teachers.8
Teacher Quantity
Concurrently, there are warnings of a potential shortage of teachers during the
next decade, precipitated by large projected increases in student enrollment and an
anticipated surge in retirements from an aging teaching force. Overall, public school
enrollment is expected to rise by over 4% between 1997 and 2007, an increase fueled
primarily by projected growth at the secondary school level of about 13%. Further,9
the average age of public school teachers has grown sharply and more teachers will
be eligible to retire. In 1993-1994, the average age was 43, nearly 3 full years higher
than it was in 1987-1988. Based on data such as these for public and private10
elementary and secondary education, some projections have been made that, during
the next decade, 2 million teachers will have to be hired to keep up with enrollment
growth and higher teacher attrition rates.11
Crosscutting Concerns
Teacher quality and quantity are inextricably linked; actions to address one have
consequences for the other. Of particular concern are possible negative interactions.
For instance, tightening licensure requirements in order to improve teacher quality
may make it difficult for districts to find enough teachers who meet the higher
standards. When school districts struggle to meet their need for teachers, they may
circumvent quality standards by such steps as hiring teachers under emergency
certification procedures. This interaction is particularly evident in efforts to reduce
class size.

For background on these issues, see: National Commission, What Matters Most; Corcoran,8
Thomas B. Helping Teachers Teach Well: Transforming Professional Development.
Consortium for Policy Research in Education. RB-16-June 1995; Kelley, Carolyn and
Odden, Allan. Reinventing Teacher Compensation Systems. Consortium for Policy
Research in Education. FB-06-September 1995; LaRue, Andrea Holland. The Changing
Face of Teacher Tenure. Report presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of
Doctor of Jurisprudence and Masters of Public Affairs. The University of Austin. August

1996. Online: [http://www.aft.org/research/reports/tenure/laruep.htm]

NCES, Projections, Table 1.9
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. America’s10
Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1993-1994. NCES 97-460. Washington, 1997. Table

2.2. p. 10. (Hereafter cited as U.S. Department of Education, America’s Teachers.)

National Commission, What Matters Most, p. 8; statement by Terry Dozier, special11
advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Education, before the House Subcommittee on
Postsecondary Education, Training, and Lifelong Learning, July 15, 1997. Online:
[http://www.ed.gov/offices/OLCA/dozier2.html]. November 14, 1997. See also, Kronholz,
June. Teacher Retirements Portend Acute Shortage. The Wall Street Journal, July 24,


Class Size Reduction. Initiatives to reduce class size are increasingly popular;12
many states and localities are considering or implementing their own reductions in
class size, and, as described below, the Administration included a class size reduction
program in its FY1999 budget request and the omnibus appropriation for FY199913
includes funding for such action. These efforts have been prompted partly by a belief
that reduced class size will improve student performance. This specific issue is
addressed in a latter section of these report.
The impact on the demand for teachers resulting from large scale reductions in
class size may be substantial, and may have direct consequences for teacher quality.
The experience to date with the class size reduction initiative in California is
informative in this regard. As perhaps the most prominent effort to reduce class size
currently underway, the California class size reduction program, created as a result
of 1996-1997 budget legislation, provides local school districts with funds to help
them reduce class size in the early elementary grades to not more than 20 students,
from an average that was over 28 in all grades. The initial year’s funding for the
program was $771 million in operational funding which paid for teacher
compensation, furniture, instructional materials, and supplies; and $200 million for
facilities. Funding for the second year consists of $1.5 billion for operational
expenditures (facilities funding can be drawn from each participating districts’
operational funds that remain after operational expenses are met). Participating

Class size is a measure of the number of students in a class. Often, average class sizes12
are calculated separately for teachers with self-contained classes (typically, elementary
school teachers who teach an array of subject to a single class) and for those in
departmentalized classes (typically, secondary school teachers who teach a subject to several
classes of students). For the latter, the average size of all of the classes taught by each
individual teacher may be determined, and then an average taken of those class size averages
across all departmentalized teachers. Generally, special emphasis teachers (such as those
teaching the disabled, or those teaching specific subjects at the elementary school level, such
as music or art) are excluded from the calculation of class size since the number of students
they work with at any one time is often unusually small (e.g., special education teachers) or
unusually large (e.g., physical education teachers). Class size is distinct from pupil-teacher
ratios. Those ratios are most frequently calculated by dividing the number of enrolled
students by the number of full-time equivalent teachers (full-time teachers plus an estimate
of the full-time equivalent of part-time teachers), regardless of the kinds of classes taught
or whether a teacher’s duties are non-instructional. Partly as a result of including the full
breadth of the teaching force, the pupil-teacher ratio is almost always lower than the average
class size. For example, the size of the class taught by the average public school teacher in

1993-1994 was 23.2 at the elementary school level and 23.7 at the secondary school level.

The pupil-teacher ratio for the fall of 1993 was 18.9 and 15.1 at the public elementary and
secondary levels, respectively.
Reportedly, class size reduction initiatives are being implemented, or are under13
consideration, in 20 or more states. (Viadero, Debra. Small Classes: Popular, But Still
Unproven. Education Week. February 18, 1998. (Hereafter cited as Viadero, Small

school districts are to certify that they have provided their teachers with staff training
on topics related to effective instruction in smaller classes.14
In the initial year of the program, some 18,400 teachers were hired, 115% more
than the number that would have been needed to compensate for normal teacher
attrition and enrollment growth. According to several analyses of the initial year,15
teacher quality may have suffered in the drive to satisfy the greater demand for new
teachers. Approximately one-fourth of the individuals hired did not have a teaching
credential. As one analysis concluded: “Desperation hiring has brought in new
teachers who are less experienced, less qualified and less skilled, on average, than
those of previous years. The teachers on emergency permits have bachelor’s degrees
and passed the minimum competency test, but most have no teaching experience or16
preparation.” It remains to be seen what impact these characteristics will actually
have on the quality of classroom practice and student performance.
Current Federal Role Supporting Precollege Teachers
The process of preparing, recruiting, licensing, compensating, testing, and
structuring the working conditions of the elementary and secondary teaching force
is primarily the responsibility of states and localities. Nevertheless, the federal
government provides a wide array of support for teachers. Prior to the 105th
Congress, the federal aid that was specifically targeted on elementary and secondary
school teachers focused on inservice training, with some additional funding for
preservice training and recruitment. Further, under several federal programs, local
school districts were able to use federal funds to hire teachers and instructional
specialists. The 105th Congress has shifted this balance regarding the focus of
federal efforts. It enacted new programs in the HEA primarily addressing teacher
preparation and recruitment, and appropriated $1.2 billion for hiring new teachers.
These new initiatives are described below in the section on Selected Proposals
Before the 105th Congress.
Overall, although federal aid for precollege teachers comes from multiple
federal agencies, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is the primary source. Next
to the class size reduction initiative in the FY1999 appropriation legislation, the
largest of the programs administered by ED is the Eisenhower Professional
Development program (Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA)). The Eisenhower state grant program ($335 million for FY1999) allocates

For descriptions of the California program, see, for example: Illig, David C. Early14
Implementation of the Class Size Reduction Initiative. California Research Bureau. 1997;
California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Class Size Reduction. Policy Brief. February 12,

1997. (Hereafter cited as California Legislative Analyst’s Office, Class Size Reduction.)

California Legislative Analyst’s Office, Class Size Reduction, p. 12.15
McRobbie, Joan. Class Size Reduction: A One-Year Status Check. Thrust for16
Educational Leadership. September, 1997.
Online: [http://www.wested.org/policy/class_size/leadership.htm]. See, also, California
Legislative Analyst’s Office, Class Size Reduction.

funds to states for activities by state educational agencies (SEAs), local educational
agencies (LEAs), and institutions of higher education (IHEs) to strengthen the
elementary and secondary teaching force in core academic subjects.
The HEA authorizes some assistance for teachers. The HEA Title IV student
aid programs provide assistance to prospective teachers; also borrowers under the
Federal Perkins Loans (HEA Title IV) are eligible for loan forgiveness for
performing certain kinds of service, including teaching at high poverty schools.
New teacher loan forgiveness was added to the HEA by the Higher Education
Amendments of 1998 (see description in a section below). Prior to its 1998
reauthorization, the HEA authorized in its Title V a wide array of programs
addressing elementary and secondary school teacher training. Nevertheless, only 1
of its 17 separate funding authorities was funded in FY1998 — the Minority Teacher
Recruitment program ($2.2 million). As already noted, the new HEA programs17
replace the previous programs in Title V.
Other teacher programs in ED are the personnel preparation program ($82.1
million for FY1999) and state improvement program ($35.2 million for FY1999) of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These programs support
preservice and inservice training, respectively, for teachers working with disabled
students. Also, the Bilingual Education Act’s professional development program
($50 million for FY1999) funds preservice and inservice activities for teachers
working with limited English proficient students. Federal funds also support the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards ($18.5 million for FY1998; the
level for FY1999 is not yet available) which is creating an assessment process to
certify on a voluntary basis teachers across the country who meet high standards.
ED programs that are not primarily targeted on teachers may fund significant
amounts of inservice training; the exact level of this spending is not known. These
include the Title I program of the ESEA (aggregate appropriation of $7.7 billion in
grants to LEAs for FY1999) which supports compensatory education for
disadvantaged students, and the Innovative Education Program Strategies state grant
program, ESEA Title VI ($375 million for FY1999), which can be used for a wide
array of education reform-related activities.
Other ED programs may also provide federal support for the hiring of teachers
and instructors, although not usually general classroom teachers. Among them are
the ESEA Title I program, and the ESEA Magnet Schools program (assisting local
school districts establishing special schools and programs to desegregate student
enrollment voluntarily).
Other relevant programs are the responsibility of many different federal
agencies, such as the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and Energy (DOE), as
well as the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Many of
these programs are focused on providing professional development opportunities for

CRS Report 97-449, Title V of the Higher Education Act: Educator Recruitment,17
Retention, and Development, by James B. Stedman.

current teachers. For example, the NSF administers the Teacher Enhancement
Program, conducted collaboratively with DOE national laboratories. This program
supports training opportunities, including summer workshops and support activities
during the school year, for elementary and secondary mathematics and science
teachers. NSF is also funding Statewide Systemic Initiatives, Urban Systemic
Initiatives, and Rural Systemic Initiatives. Under these programs, participants work
to strengthen and reform science, mathematics, and technology education by
providing standards-based instruction aligned with the curriculum, professional
development for teachers, and assessments. Other examples of relevant programs
include Educational Workshops at NASA field centers; these workshops provide
elementary and secondary school teachers with the opportunity of interacting directly
with NASA scientists in research and development projects.
Selected Proposals Before the 105 Congressth
In this section, selected proposals in the 105 Congress addressing the qualityth
and quantity of elementary and secondary school teachers are reviewed. Two major
groups of proposals are considered below:
!proposals with a primary focus on improving teacher quality through reform
of teacher education and enhancement of teacher recruitment; many of the
proposals in this group sought to amend the HEA; and
!proposals principally addressing the teacher quantity issue by supporting the
hiring of new teachers; the quality of teachers hired was also a concern of
these proposals.
These groupings are intended to bring together relatively similar kinds of
proposals with similar focuses. Nevertheless, the distinctions between proposals in
one group and those in the other are not always clear cut. For example, proposals to
support alternative routes for highly qualified individuals to teacher certification are
considered below in the section on efforts to increase teacher quality, although such
efforts are likely to also increase the number of teachers available for the classroom.
For each group, brief summaries of individual proposals are provided and key
issues related to the proposals are analyzed. Proposals on which there was
legislative action are described at the beginning of each of the sections below,
beginning with those enacted into law.18

Resolutions expressing the sense of the House or Senate regarding teacher preparation,18
recruitment, and hiring are not covered below, e.g., the following amendments added to
S.Con.Res. 86 (Senate FY1999-2003 budget resolution): amendment 2225 (DeWine)
concerning enactment of legislation focusing on teacher training and alternative
certification, and amendment 2229 (Feinstein) concerning federal support for state and local
education goals including teacher recruitment and certification.

Improving Teacher Quality
This section provides brief overviews of selected legislative proposals
introduced in the 105 Congress to address broadly the improvement of the qualityth
of the elementary and secondary teaching force. The major activities supported by
these proposals generally involved reform of teacher education programs and
financial incentives to attract highly able individuals to teaching. Inservice training
was addressed by some of these bills, as well. Many of the proposals considered
below would have amended HEA Title V or some other title in the HEA.
Proposals that addressed preservice or inservice education of teachers by
targeting a particular subject area or skill are not considered here. Among such
proposals are the following: S. 839 (Bingaman) and H.R. 2065 (Morella) to fund
preservice and inservice training in information technology, and H.R. 2614
(Goodling), S. 1596 (Coverdell), and H.R. 2646 (Senate-passed version) to improve
reading instruction partly through professional development activities.19
Enacted Provisions and Selected Proposals. The following descriptions
necessarily omit many important details. They identify the specific funding level, if
given, for the initial year of each program. When substantially similar or identical
bills were introduced in both the House and Senate, they are described together in the
order in which they were introduced. Proposals on which there was legislative action
are described first and in greater detail. There was no action on most of these
P.L. 105-244 — Higher Education Amendments of 1998. The Higher
Education Amendments of 1998, as signed into law, authorize several new programs
to reform teacher preparation in higher education institutions and increase teacher
recruitment efforts. These amendments also newly authorized loan forgiveness for
individuals teaching in high poverty schools. These various provisions are described
Title II of HEA, as newly amended, authorizes Teacher Quality Enhancement
Grants for States and Partnerships. There are two main components to this title —
an array of three grant programs to improve teacher preparation programs at higher
education institutions and to recruit highly able individuals to teaching; and a set of
broad-based teacher education accountability requirements.
The three grant programs include state grants, partnership grants, and teacher
recruitment grants. The statute authorizes $300 million for FY1999 and such sums
as necessary for the 4 succeeding fiscal years. The annual appropriation is divided
among the three programs as follows: 45% for state grants, 45% for partnership
grants, and 10% for recruitment grants. The FY1999 omnibus appropriations
legislation includes $75 million for this authority.
State Grants. These are one-time, 3-year competitive grants awarded to the state
governor unless state constitution or law designates another person, entity, or agency

See CRS Report 97-972, Reading Instruction: New Federal Initiatives, by Wayne Riddle.19

as responsible for teacher certification and preparation. Participating states must
provide a matching amount in cash or kind from non-federal sources equal to 50%
of the amount of the federal grant. Examples of the activities for which state grant
funds must be used include holding teacher preparation programs accountable for the
academic and teaching qualifications of the teachers they prepare; reforming teacher
certification; and supporting the recruitment of teachers.
Partnership Grants. These are one-time, 5-year grants awarded competitively20
to partnerships that must include a partner institution, a school of arts and sciences
at a higher education institution, and a high need local educational agency.21
Partnerships must match from non-federal sources 25% of the partnership grant in
the first year, 35% in the second, and 50% in each succeeding year. Examples of the
activities for which these grants must be used are: holding teacher preparation
programs accountable for the academic and teaching quality of the teachers they
prepare; providing preservice clinical experience to teacher candidates; and providing
professional development opportunities. Partnerships may also support such
activities as teacher recruitment and leadership training to principals and
Teacher Recruitment Grants. These are one-time, 3-year grants awarded
competitively to states or to the partnerships eligible for partnership grants. States
and partnerships have the same matching requirements for these grants as they have
under their separate grant programs (see descriptions above). Recruitment grant
funds must be used for either of the following: teacher education scholarships, as
well as support services to help recipients complete college and stay in teaching (each
year of scholarship assistance requires a year of teaching in high need LEAs), or
activities enabling high need LEAs and schools to recruit highly qualified teachers.
Other Grant Program Requirements. Among other requirements, the new HEA
Title II requires that any LEA or school that benefits from activities under the title
must, upon request, provide parents of students with information about the subject
matter qualifications of students’ classroom teachers.
Further, each state receiving a state grant must report annually on progress
toward certain specified objectives, such as raising the academic standards required
for entering teaching; increasing the pass rate on initial certification assessments;
increasing the percentage of secondary school classes in core subjects taught by

A partner institution is a public or private higher education institution with a teacher20
training program that (1) has either an 80% or higher pass rate by its graduates on state
qualifying assessments for new teachers, or is ranked among the highest performing
programs in the state; or (2) requires its students to participate in intensive clinical
experience, meet high academic standards, and either complete an academic major (in the
subject in which the student intends to teach if preparing to teach at the secondary level, or
in the arts and sciences if preparing to teach at the elementary level) or otherwise
demonstrate competence.
A high need LEA is one that is serving an elementary or secondary school in an area with21
a high percentage of individuals from families in poverty, a high percentage of out-of-field
secondary school teachers, or a high teacher turnover rate.

teachers with academic majors in those or related fields, or who are able to
demonstrate competence through subject tests or classroom performance in core
subjects; increasing the percentage of elementary school classes taught by teachers
who have academic majors in the arts and sciences or who can demonstrate
competence through high levels of performance in core subjects; and increasing the
number of teachers able to apply technology to the classroom.
Each partnership that receives a partnership grant must include an evaluation
plan in its application. That plan must include objectives and measures that are
similar to those on which states must report, with the inclusion of an objective to
increase teacher retention in the first 3 years of teaching. Failure to demonstrate
progress (by the end of the second year of state grants and recruitment grants and the
third year of partnership grants) can lead to termination of the grant.
General Accountability Provisions for Teacher Preparation. Certain
accountability provisions included in the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
Program are likely to affect nearly all teacher education programs in the country, not
just the programs receiving funding under this program. Beginning within 2 years
of enactment of the legislation, each state receiving funds under the HEA is required
to prepare an annual report card on the quality of its teacher preparation programs,
including such information as the pass rate on each of the assessments used for
teacher certification (disaggregated and ranked by teacher preparation program) and
the extent that certification requirements are waived, particularly in high and low
poverty districts and in different subject areas.
Beginning within 18 months of enactment, any higher education institution with
a teacher preparation program that enrolls students aided under the HEA must release
an annual report that includes such information as the latest annual pass rate of
graduates on certification assessments and whether the program has been designated
as low-performing (see below) by the state.
As a condition of continued receipt of HEA funds and within 2 years of
enactment, a state must have established a procedure for identifying low-performing
teacher preparation programs and for providing them with technical assistance. Any
higher education institution with a teacher preparation program that has lost state
approval or financial support because of its designation by the state as a low-
performing programs is ineligible for any professional development funding from
ED, and cannot accept or enroll in its teacher preparation program any student
receiving assistance under HEA Title IV.
Loan Cancellation for Teachers. As amended by P.L. 105-244, the HEA newly
provides for cancellation of subsidized and unsubsidized Federal Family Education
Loans and Direct Loans for individuals who teach on a full-time basis in eligible low-
income public or private nonprofit elementary or secondary schools for 5 years.
Secondary school teachers must teach in a subject that is relevant to their academic
major; elementary school teachers must demonstrate that they have knowledge and
skills in reading, writing, math, and other areas of the elementary curriculum. A
maximum of $5,000 can be canceled for each borrower after the fifth year of
teaching. Only loans made to new borrowers on or after October 1, 1998 can be

H.R. 2646 (as passed by the Congress). As passed by the Congress (conference
report approved June 18, 1998 by the House and June 24, 1998 by the Senate) and
vetoed by the President (July 21, 1998), the Education Savings and School
Excellence Act of 1998, legislation to expand the new education individual22
retirement accounts, includes language supporting teacher testing and merit pay for
teachers. It amends the Eisenhower Professional Development program (ESEA Title
II) to provide that 50% of any funds appropriated for this program in excess of the
amount appropriated for FY1999 is to be awarded among states that administer a test
of every elementary and secondary school teacher in the state every 3 to 5 years, and
that have a teacher compensation system based on merit. This provision would no
longer apply if the annual appropriation for the Eisenhower program exceeds $600
million or every state has an eligible teacher testing and merit pay program. Further,
the legislation provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, all federal
education funds (not defined) can be used by states to implement a teacher test or
establish a merit pay program.23
H.R. 1435 (Clay). Among other provisions, this bill amends HEA Title IV to24
provide borrowers with the option of canceling their federally supported higher
education student loans (both FFELs and DLs) if they teach full-time in public
schools with over 30% low-income enrollment in ESEA Title I-eligible LEAs, or
teach full-time in math, science, foreign language, bilingual education or SEA-
designated shortage fields.
H.R. 2228 (Miller of California)/S. 1484 (Bingaman). The Teaching
Excellence for All Children Act of 1997 (H.R. 2228) and the Quality Teacher in
Every Classroom Act (S. 1484) share many basic features; several of their differences
are also noted here. They amend HEA Title IV to provide loan cancellation similar
to that in H.R. 1435. In contrast to that bill, though, H.R. 2228 conditions
forgiveness upon teachers having demonstrated the knowledge and skills necessary
for effective teaching; and S. 1484 requires that borrowers have graduated in the top
25% of their college class or have scored in the top 20% on the Graduate Record
Examination or the state’s teacher licensure exam, and that they have a liberal arts
major — secondary school teachers must have majored in the subject they teach.
Both bills require any IHE receiving federal funds for teacher training to meet
nationally recognized accreditation standards or have at least 90% of its graduates
entering teaching pass state assessments for new teachers on their first try (S. 1484
also requires that an IHE ensure that its graduates have a liberal arts degree in
addition to having completed teacher education courses). Both would fund
partnerships of LEAs and nonprofit entities including IHEs to serve schools with
greater than 30% low-income enrollment. The partnerships would support activities

CRS Report 97-852, Education Savings Accounts for Elementary and Secondary22
Education, by Bob Lyke.
For a related proposal to permit all federal education funds to be used for teacher hiring,23
see the description of S. 1590 in the subsection below on Increasing the Number of
Teachers. Also, during consideration of H.R. 2646, an amendment to amend the HEA to
include a loan forgiveness program for teachers was defeated.
Although this proposal does not have a focus on teacher quality, it is included here24
because its loan forgiveness provisions are largely duplicated in other bills which do.

to improve such areas as teacher recruitment and induction (activities occurring in
the initial years of teaching to introduce the new teacher to the career).
Both bills amend the ESEA to condition receipt of ESEA funds on public
schools informing parents of the qualifications of their children’s teachers and
ensuring that teachers meet certain knowledge and skill requirements. Teachers for
whom these qualifications are waived in order to respond to emergency teacher
shortages must, within 3 years, demonstrate the necessary knowledge and skills for
effective teaching.
H.R. 2495 (Hinojosa). Among other provisions, the Higher Education for the
Twenty-First Century Act amends Title V to authorize a $350 million (FY1999) grant
program for IHEs or consortia of IHEs and LEAs to train teachers and counselors in
technology, train bilingual education teachers, recruit minorities into teaching and
counseling, and instruct teachers in ways to raise students’ academic achievement.
It also authorizes a $35 million (FY1999) grant program to counsel students about
career and college opportunities, establish community partnerships (LEAs and other
entities such as businesses) to increase college access, and provide inservice training
to counselors. The bill also amends HEA Title IV to authorize loan forgiveness for
certain services, including teaching at low-income schools.
H.R. 3085 (Woolsey). The Partnership for Professional Renewal Act of 1997
adds a grant program to Title V to fund partnerships between IHEs and individual
elementary and secondary schools. These partnerships support individuals being
prepared to teach as well as provide professional development to teachers at
participating schools.
H.R. 3440 (Roemer). Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification Act of 1998
authorizes competitive, matching grants to partnerships that recruit mid-career
changers with degrees related to the subjects they would be teaching and recent
recipients of bachelor’s degrees in areas related to the subjects they would be
teaching. Partnerships are also to help develop new teacher licensing policies that
are based on subject matter knowledge. Each partnership is to be composed of the
state agency responsible for teacher certification and low-income LEAs. The initial
year’s authorization is $15 million.
H.R. 3881 (Gallegly). The Teacher Investment and Enhancement Act would
increase the size of a full-time secondary school teacher’s Lifetime Learning tax
credit for qualified higher education tuition and related expenses incurred for25
courses of instruction directly relevant to the subject taught by the teacher.
S. 1169 (Reed)/H.R. 3115 (Millender-McDonald). The Teacher Excellence in
America Challenge Act of 1997 authorizes a $100 million (FY1999) program
supporting partnerships involving IHEs that have teacher education programs,
elementary or secondary schools, and LEAs. Among other activities, these
partnerships would create and support professional development schools (schools

For information on this tax credit, see CRS Report 97-915, Tax Benefits for Education in25
the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, by Bob Lyke.

operated in close cooperation with IHEs), strengthen teacher preparation programs
at IHEs, and provide inservice training. IHEs participating in the partnerships must
be accredited by a national accrediting agency or provide a program determined by
the U.S. Secretary of Education to be at least equal in quality to accredited programs.
S. 1201 (Frist)/H.R. 2698 (McCarthy of New York). These similar bills —
America’s Teacher Preparation Improvement Act — would amend Title V to extend
the Minority Teacher Recruitment from current law; and authorize a grant program
for IHEs establishing partnerships with other entities such as LEAs and schools. The
initial funding authorization (FY1998) would be $237.5 million under H.R. 2698 and
$235 million under S. 1201. The partnerships must strengthen teacher preparation
programs and support enhanced induction processes for new teachers. They may
establish preparation programs for nontraditional students (e.g., paraprofessionals and
career changers) and recruit teachers for urban and rural areas.
S. 1209 (Kennedy)/H.R. 2852 (Kildee). This is the Clinton Administration’s
Title V reauthorization proposal. It permits continuation awards to Minority Teacher
Recruitment grantees. Among other provisions, it authorizes a $30 million (FY1999)
program of grants to “Lighthouse Partnerships” that include “lead” IHEs with
exemplary teacher programs, “partner” IHEs with teacher programs, SEAs, and
LEAs, for such activities as disseminating information about lead institutions’
programs, subgrants to partner institutions for program improvement, and joint
activities with LEAs to improve teacher preparation. IHEs must be preparing
teachers for urban and rural areas with concentrations of low-income children. The
bill authorizes a $37 million (FY1999) program for partnerships of IHEs with teacher
education programs and LEAs to recruit new teachers into “underserved areas” (high
poverty LEAs) through the awarding of scholarships with teaching service payback
requirements to individuals with “high potential to be effective teachers,” support26
services for scholarship recipients, and services during the induction period, with
special consideration to projects to increase participation of minorities and the
disabled in teaching.
S. 1261 (Frist). This legislation would add the Teacher Investment Act to HEA
Title IV to fund 2-year scholarships, with a teaching service payback requirement, for
individuals with outstanding academic achievement who have completed at least half
of the requirements for graduation from IHEs with programs preparing students for
teacher licensure.
S. 1741 (DeWine). The Teacher Quality Act of 1998 authorizes competitive,
matching grants to LEAs for the establishment of teacher training facilities for
elementary and secondary school teachers. LEAs must enter into partnerships with
nongovernmental organizations to establish these facilities. Each grant is to be

The term teaching service payback is used in this report to describe a requirement,26
imposed on recipients of grants, scholarships, or fellowships, to provide teaching service in
exchange for their assistance. This is contrasted with loan forgiveness for teaching which
provides borrowers with an opportunity to reduce or cancel their debt by providing teaching

awarded in the amount of $4 million (matched dollar for dollar by each LEA). The
initial year authorization is $8 million.
S. 1742 (DeWine). Alternative Certification and Licensure of Teachers Act of
1998 establishes a state formula grant program to support implementation of new or
expanded alternative teacher certification programs, evaluation of such programs,
staff training to assist teachers entering teaching through such programs, recruitment
for alternative certification, and creation of reciprocal arrangements among states
regarding teacher certification. The initial year’s authorization is $15 million.
Selected Issues Raised by These Proposals. The primary focus of many of
these proposals was preservice teacher education. Somewhat lesser attention was
paid to teacher recruitment and inservice training. Reform of preservice education
was being widely sought because of strong criticism of its overall quality. For
example, the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future concluded
that, in comparison to education in other professions and to teacher education in other
countries, teacher education in the United States “has historically been thin, uneven,
and poorly financed.”27
As a result, one of the most critical aspects of these proposals is how they
intended to generate reform of teacher education. Nearly all of these proposals
funded partnerships that link IHEs with other entities, principally LEAs. In some
instances the partnerships included individual schools, as well as businesses. The
partnership requirement appears to be part of an effort to ensure that the faculty and
the content of teacher education programs are closely tied to the needs of teachers in
the classroom. As a result, partnerships might influence the content and delivery of
teacher education. Nevertheless, partnerships by themselves might have only a
marginal impact on teacher education programs which are subject to myriad other
influences, such as the policies of their own higher education institutions, state level
policies, and their faculties’ abilities and willingness to undertake change.
Some of the proposals under consideration would have taken other steps to
generate reform. Several would have required participating IHEs to have teacher
preparation programs that are accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting
agency or that can demonstrate certain outcomes. Among the purposes of such a
requirement is to bring all teacher education programs eligible for federal funding up
to a set of standards applied nationally. The National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future made accreditation by the National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE) part of its recommendations for teacher education
programs, noting that “NCATE’s quality standards, ..., are demanding, but not
beyond the reach of any school of education genuinely committed to preparing
excellent teachers for the classrooms of a new century.” NCATE, the only teacher28

National Commission, What Matters Most, p. 14.27
National Commission, What Matters Most, p. 70.28

education accrediting agency currently recognized by ED, accredits 532 of 1,33629
state-approved teacher education institutions in the United States.30
A requirement for national accreditation was controversial, generating resistance
particularly from the teacher education programs, schools, and departments not
currently accredited. At present, institutionwide accreditation is an eligibility
requirement for participation in HEA programs; accreditation of specific programs
is not. Among the concerns raised about such a requirement were its costs and its
potentially adverse consequences for teacher education programs at small liberal arts
colleges and selective universities. A debate in this area was not something new.3132
Proposals to hold schools of education or their host institutions accountable for
the performance of education graduates on certification assessments was also
controversial. As described above, the new teacher provisions in the HEA address
this kind of accountability. Among the issues raised by this approach include how
to measure and compare each institution’s performance given that certification
assessments and the standards for determining passage of those assessments can vary
significantly from state to state. Further, the question of what consequences were to
be applied to institutions not meeting the requirement was debated as well.
Deliberation over other features of these proposals addressing other issues also
occurred. For example, primarily in an effort to attract highly able individuals to
teaching, loan forgiveness for teaching was to be expanded under some of the
proposals and was included in the reauthorized HEA (see above); scholarships with
a teaching service payback requirement were proposed and included in the
recruitment component of the new Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants. Available
research suggests that initiatives such as these, particularly loan forgiveness, are

A new organization to accredit teacher education programs — the Teacher Education29
Accreditation Council — has been established. It is expected shortly to apply to ED for
recognition as an accrediting agency. See: Bradley, Ann. Alternative Accrediting
Organization Taking Form with Federal Assistance. Education Week. January 21, 1998.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. State Approved Teacher30
Education Institutions & NCATE: A State by State Analysis. November 14, 1997.
Ballou, Dale and Podgursky, Michael. Reforming Teacher Training and Recruitment:31
A Critical Appraisal of the Recommendations of the National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future. September 15, 1997. Online: [http://www.psrf.org/doc/v174_art.html].
For example, in 1995, the membership of the American Association of Colleges for32
Teacher Education (AACTE) debated whether to change the criteria for membership in the
Association to require that all members be NCATE accredited. After a heated debate over
the impact of the proposal on the AACTE’s membership and the merits of the NCATE
accreditation process, the proposal was rejected by a 3 to 1 margin. Of the 720 institutions
that were members of AACTE at the time, some 200 were not NCATE accredited.
(Bradley, Ann. Teacher Training Group Trounces NCATE Mandate. Education Week.
February 22, 1995.)

likely primarily to reward individuals who would have taught anyway.33
Nevertheless, the research evidence is limited and relatively dated.
Based on this research, it appears that certain features of loan forgiveness and
service payback scholarships are keys to their effectiveness. These features include
the amount of assistance provided and the “buy out” terms (that is, the conditions
under which the beneficiary can avoid providing service). With regard to loan
forgiveness, it is possible that loan debt among college students has increased
sufficiently in recent years that the prospect of loan forgiveness will induce
individuals to consider teaching who otherwise would not, and keep them in teaching
at least as long as necessary to forgive their debt. Further, in an effort to make these
provisions more attractive, the portion of a borrower’s debt forgiven for each year of
teaching might be set relatively high, thereby, requiring fewer years of teaching to
cancel the debt. In addition, there may also be other steps that could be taken to
increase the effectiveness of loan forgiveness. For example, information might be
widely and systematically disseminated early in students’ college years concerning
the availability and conditions of the forgiveness.
The more targeted nature of service payback scholarships may increase their
effectiveness. The primary purpose of such programs is teacher recruitment, in
contrast to loan programs to which loan forgiveness for teaching is added.
Scholarship recipients will be aware from the inception of their involvement that
teaching service is required. The effectiveness of such payback programs might be
strengthened if a substantial amount of scholarship aid is provided annually. At the
same time, the number of years of service required will directly affect the program’s
attractiveness; a relatively long service requirement may create a disincentive for
Increasing the Number of Teachers
The 105 Congress had before it a number of proposals for broad efforts toth
support local school districts’ hiring of new teachers. These responded to concerns
about enrollment growth and projected increases in attrition from the teaching force.
At the same time, some also reflected a widespread belief that reducing class size has
a positive effect on student performance, and that, in contrast to other uses of federal
resources, funds devoted to class size reduction are more likely to have a direct effect
on students in the classroom. These proposals also sought to address the
compensation of teachers, as well as teacher testing, in an effort to improve teacher
Enacted Provisions and Selected Proposals. The following descriptions
necessarily omit many important details. They identify the specific funding level, if
given, for the initial year of each program. When substantially similar or identical
bills were introduced in both the House and Senate, they are described together in the

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. The Experience With Loan33
Forgiveness and Service Payback in Federal and State Student Aid Programs. Report by
Jim Stedman, LTR83-2037, January 27, 1983; Westat, Inc. Loan Forgiveness in
Postsecondary Education: A Review of Recent Legislation and Relevant Literature. 1993.

order in which they were introduced. Proposals on which there has been legislative
action are described first and in greater detail.
P.L. 105-277 — Omnibus FY1999 Appropriations . This legislation includes
$1.2 billion for FY1999 primarily intended for the hiring of new teachers to reduce
class sizes in the early grades. From the appropriation, $6 million is reserved for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and the outlying areas. The remainder is distributed among
the states based on either state shares of ESEA Title I, Part A funding (based
primarily on numbers of children 5-17 years old living in poverty and levels of state
per pupil expenditure), or state shares of ESEA Title II funding (based on school
aged population and the distribution of Title I, Part A funding), whichever share
would provide the state with a larger amount. All of the state allocation must be
distributed to LEAs — 80% on the basis of the distribution of children 5-17 living
in poverty and 20% on the basis of enrollments of students 5-17 enrolled in public
and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools. No award can be made to
an LEA if the size of the allocation is less than the starting salary for a new teacher
in that district; such an LEA can form a consortium with at least one other LEA and
receive funds for reducing class size.
Funds can be used for: (1) recruiting, hiring, and training certified teachers,
including special education teachers and teachers of children with special needs
(teachers certified through state and local alternative routes are included among
eligible teachers); (2) testing the academic content knowledge of new teachers and
meeting state certification requirements consistent with HEA Title II (see above); and
(3) providing professional development consistent with HEA Title II. But, only 15%
of the district’s allocation can be used for activities listed under (2) and (3) above.
The legislation appears to suggest that class size reduction efforts must be focused
on grades 1-3, unless class size in those grades has been reduced to 18 or fewer34
children. At that juncture, the local district is authorized to make further reductions
in class size in those grade levels, reduce class size in kindergarten or other grades,
or provide professional development and other activities improving teacher quality.
These funds must supplement, not supplant, state and local funds that would
otherwise have been spent for these activities. Further, no funds may be used to
increase teacher salaries. Each state receiving funds must report on activities
supported; each school benefitting from these funds or an LEA serving such school
must report annually on student achievement that results from hiring new highly
qualified teachers.

This is clearly not congressional intent as expressed in a letter (November 20, 1998) to34
U.S. Secretary of Education Riley, from Senator James Jeffords, chair of the Senate Labor
and Human Resources Committee, and Representative William Goodling, chair of the House
Education and the Workforce Committee. They state: “We would also like to clarify that,
despite arguably conflicting language in the new law, it was and is clearly our intent that
local educational agencies have the flexibility to hire teachers in grades other than 1-3, in
order to reduce class size. This issue was strongly debated during the negotiations and the
final legislation does not require school districts to hire teachers only in the early grades.”
(emphasis in original)

ED has announced that these funds will enable schools districts to hire over
30,000 new teachers for school year 1999-2000. States can first receive these funds
beginning July 1, 1999.35
The original class size reduction proposal from the Clinton Administration is
described immediately below.
Clinton Class Size Reduction Proposal and Related Bills — S. 1708
(Daschle), S. 2209 (Murray), H.R. 3876 (Clay), H.R. 4169 (Forbes). In his FY1999
budget proposal, President Clinton called for funding of a class size reduction
initiative to reduce the average class size in grades 1 through 3 from 22 students to36

18 students. The overall purpose appeared to be improved student performance,

particularly in reading. Under this initiative, federal funds would be awarded to
states on the basis of the allocation of ESEA Title I funds (a formula based primarily
on counts of children in poverty); within states, high poverty districts would receive
the same share of these class size reduction funds as they do of Title I funds and the
remaining funds would be distributed on the basis of districts’ class size. Districts
would be required to match the federal funds on a scale ranging from 10% to 50%,
depending upon the poverty of the district. For the initial year of this proposal, the
President would provide $1.1 billion in funds to be generated from a future
settlement against tobacco companies. When fully implemented in 2005, this
initiative is projected to have cost a total of $12 billion ($7.3 billion over the first 5
years) and have supported the hiring of 100,000 new teachers.
In addition to using these funds to pay salaries of new teachers, up to 10% of the
funds could be used to train teachers in successful methods of teaching reading and
in ways of instructing smaller classes; to provide mentors to new teachers; to provide
incentives for teachers who teach in high poverty schools; and to raise standards by
initiating more rigorous testing programs for new teachers and raising the
requirements for licensure. Any participating state would be required to implement
“basic skills” tests for new teachers. The selection of these tests rests with the states.
Further, states and local school districts would have to ensure that teachers hired
under this initiative were fully certified or progressing satisfactorily toward
certification. Finally, districts would be held accountable for achieving improvement
in reading performance in each school within 3 years of receiving these funds. If they
failed to do so, they would be required to take corrective action. Subsequent failure
to improve reading achievement could result in loss of funding. Districts would also

U.S. Department of Education. Vice President Gore Announces $1.2 Billion to Begin35
Hiring 100,000 Teachers in Local School Districts. October 22, 1998. Downloaded
October 23, 1998 from: www.ed.gov/PressReleases/.
U.S. Department of Education. A National Effort to Reduce Class Size: Smaller Classes36
with Qualified Teachers. January 26, 1998. Online:
[http://www.ed.gov/inits/ClassSize/]. This document describes the class size proposal in
general terms.

be required to publish an annual report containing information on achievement, class
size, and teacher qualifications.37
In general, the focus and provisions of Title II of S. 1708, S. 2209, H.R. 3876,
and H.R. 4169 appear similar to those of the President’s proposal. As a result, they
are not described separately here. During House debate on the Dollars to the
Classroom Act (H.R. 3248), Representative Martinez offered a substitute amendment
(Class-Size Reduction and Teacher Quality Act) that would have authorized $20.8
billion in funds over the next 10 years to reduce class size in grades 1-3. It was
defeated by a vote of 190 ayes and 215 noes.
H.R. 3157 (Paxon). The Teachers in the Classroom Act would fund the hiring38
of new elementary and secondary school teachers. Based on its findings, this
legislation appears to support such hiring in order to address the growing demand for
teachers due to enrollment growth, and to improve student performance by reducing
class sizes. The annual authorization is $500 million for FY1999, rising in $50039
million increments to $2.5 billion by FY2003.
The U.S. Secretary of Education would be authorized to award grants, on the
basis of school age population, to state governors, who would, in turn, provide funds
to local school districts on the basis of their need to address overcrowded classes.
Districts could use these funds to hire elementary and secondary school teachers or
qualified instructional personnel as authorized under state law. Teachers hired with
these funds would be obligated to teach for at least 1 year. Federal funds provided
under this program would have to supplement, not supplant, non-federal funds that,
in the absence of these federal funds, would be used “for the education of students
participating in programs assisted under this Act.” To receive continued funding,40
participating districts would have to demonstrate an increased number of teachers in
the classroom. They would also have to review annually the performance of
individuals hired with these funds.
Up to 10% of the funds awarded to each governor could be used for a program
encouraging innovative teacher training programs, alternative certification, or the
hiring of nontraditional individuals as teachers. Finally, the bill provides that nothing

In a related proposal, the President has also called for a 10 year/$10 billion investment in37
expanding and improving school facilities. This proposal is designed to address demands
for classroom space generated by the class size reduction program. See: CRS Report 95-th
1090, School Facilities Infrastructure: Background and Funding in the 105 Congress, by
Susan Boren.
A total of 100,000 new teachers are expected to be hired under this program over the 538
year period of its authorization (Lazarovici, Laureen. Paxon Teacher Training Bill Hits
Tenure, Goals 2000. Education Daily. January 26, 1998).
According to information provided by Representative Paxon’s office, these funds are to39
be offset in the budget by eliminating funding for various current programs (e.g., Goals
2000), and agencies (e.g., National Endowment for the Arts), and by reducing departmental
administrative funding by 20% annually for ED and DOE.
It is not clear precisely what those non-federal funds would be.40

in this legislation “may be construed to provide tenure to personnel hired pursuant
to this Act.”41
H.R. 3986 (Schumer). The Student and Teachers Excellence in Education Act
would, among its provisions, establish a nonrefundable federal income tax credit for
full-time teachers of up to $2,000 a year; allow a deduction of up to $2,000 for
federal income tax purposes of the expenses paid by a teacher for receiving
certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards; and
authorize forgiveness of FFELs and DLs for public elementary or secondary school
S. 1590 (Coverdell). In its title IV (Testing and Merit Pay for Teachers), the
Better Opportunities for Our Kids and Schools Act provides that, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, states may use federal education funds (not defined) to
assess the performance of every elementary or secondary school teacher, to establish
a merit pay program, or to hire elementary or secondary school teachers who are
certified to teach.
Selected Issues Raised by These Proposals. Although a number of issues
were debated concerning these proposals, the analysis here focuses on three: the
evidence that reducing class size will raise students’ academic achievement, the costs
of hiring new teachers, and the impact on teacher quality.
Effects on Student Achievement of Class Size Reduction. The research
literature on class size reductions has been punctuated by caustic battles among
analysts contending over the impact of reducing classes on academic achievement.42
Substantially different interpretations of the research literature continue to be used
in policy debates over class size reduction. Nevertheless, the generally positive
findings from Tennessee’s Project STAR (Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio), a
longitudinal study of the effects of class size reduction in grades K through 3, have

Although, this language does not preclude teachers hired with funds provided under this41
legislation from securing tenure under state law, it has been characterized as a prohibition
of the granting of tenure to teachers hired with these funds (Peterson, Molly. Representative
Paxon Proposes Hiring 100,000 Teachers, Cutting Federal Bureaucracy. LEGI-SLATE
News Service. January 8, 1998. Online: [http://legiweb.legislate.com/n/news/980108.htm]).
The debate has been carried on in numerous works. See, for example: Glass, Gene V.,42
et al. School Class Size: Research and Policy. 1982; and Educational Research Service.
Class Size: A Summary of Research. 1978. Glass et al. concluded: “The relationship of
class size to pupil achievement is remarkably strong. Large reductions in school class size
promise learning benefits of a magnitude commonly believed not within the power of
educators to achieve.” (p. 50) Educational Research Service concluded: “There is general
consensus that the research findings on the effects of class size on pupil achievement across
all grade levels are contradictory and inconclusive.” (p. 68)

helped lead many analysts and policymakers to the following conclusions concerning
class size reduction:43
!enrollment in the early grades in classes of 15 or fewer students may have a
positive impact on students’ academic achievement compared to enrollment
in substantially larger classes;
!minority students, in particular, may benefit from smaller classes; and,
!the benefits students experience from a reduction in class size may persist into
later grades, albeit at somewhat reduced levels.
In keeping with these findings, the funding including in P.L. 105-277 and other
proposals are targeted to the early grades. But the degree of reduction in average
class size likely to be achieved may be less than the literature suggests may be
necessary for substantive achievement gains.44
Costs of Teacher Hiring. Nevertheless, even assuming that national efforts to
reduce class size do lead to some degree of improvement in student achievement, it
must be asked whether the gains achieved are worth the cost of the effort. That the
costs of hiring new teachers can be high is suggested by the aggregate levels of
funding in the President’s proposal ($12 billion over a 7-year period) and in H.R.
3157 ($7.5 billion over a 5-year period) that would be used to hire 100,000 teachers
(a number equal to 3-4% of the current teaching force).
The funds required to hire a new teacher are only a portion of the total costs that
are, and will be, associated with that new teacher, particularly if that teacher is only
one of many being hired. These costs include the expenses involved in creating a
sufficient number of new classrooms to house the new teachers; providing staff
training to new teachers; and compensating teachers at higher levels as they gain

See, for example: Mosteller, Frederick. The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early43
School Grades. The Future of Children. Summer/Fall 1995; Word, Elizabeth R., et al. The
State of Tennessee’s Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) Project. Technical Report
1985-1990. 1990. Under Project STAR, teachers and students in participating schools were
randomly assigned to one of three different kinds of classes — small classes (13 to 17
students), regular size classes (22 to 25 students), and regular size classes with a teacher’s
aide. The study started with kindergarten and advanced a grade each year through the third
grade. In addition, students who participated where tracked over time to determine whether
the effects of small classes persisted into higher grades (Nye, Barbara A., et al. The Lasting
Benefits Study: A Continuing Analysis of the Effect of Small Class Size in Kindergarten
Through Third Grade on Student Achievement Test Scores in Subsequent Grade Levels:
Fifth Grade. Technical Report. Tennessee State University. 1992.)
Gene Glass, who as noted above did some of the original work synthesizing research on44
class size, has been quoted as characterizing the amount of achievement gain to be realized
by the size of the class size reduction under the President’s proposal as “very small.”
(Associated Press. Teachers, Parents Equate Smaller With Better Classes. As printed in the
Washington Times. February 9, 1998.)

experience and move up the pay scale. The decision by school districts to use federal
funds to hire more teachers is a step with long-term financial consequences.45
Increasingly, analyses of class size reduction have focused on the benefits
relative to the costs of such initiatives. Many of them conclude that there are equally
or more effective reform strategies that cost substantially less money in the short-
term and, in particular, over the long-term. Slavin, for example, identifies one-on-46
one tutoring by certified teachers for at-risk first and second graders, peer tutoring,
and cooperative learning, as among intervention strategies that can raise performance
by larger amounts at a fraction of the cost.
Effects on Teacher Quality. The potential impact on teacher quality of a major,
nationwide hiring of teachers is also a significant concern. To address this issue, for
example, the funds provided by P.L. 105-277 can be used to hire only certified
teachers. The experience in California suggests that finding enough teachers who
meet regular certification standards can be a difficult task. At the same time, some
would argue that certification, as currently awarded, offers no substantial assurance
of teacher quality. Permitting the hiring of teachers recruited to teaching through
alternative routes would open the potential pool of teachers, but, in the view of some
analysts, such provisions could threaten teacher quality as well.47
The proposals described above would also seek to address the quality issue in
some other ways: annual performance review of the teachers, testing of new
teachers, and performance assessments of current teachers. With regard to testing,
current state efforts to test teachers as a condition of the granting of certification also
may not constitute much of a gauge of teacher quality. As asserted by the National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, the testing required for certification
“are little more than multiple-choice tests of basic skills and general knowledge,
widely criticized by educators and experts as woefully inadequate to measure
teaching skills. Furthermore, in many states the cutoff scores are so low there is no
effective standard for entry.”48

Hoff, David J. “Clinton’s 100,000-Teacher Plan Faces Hurdles.” Education Week.45
February 4, 1998.
See, for example: Slavin, Robert. Class Size and Student Achievement: Is Smaller46
Better? Contemporary Education. Fall, 1990; Tomlinson, Tommy M. Class Size and
Public Policy: The Plot Thickens. Contemporary Education. Fall, 1990; Levin, Henry M.,
et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Four Educational Interventions. Institute for Research on
Education Finance and Governance. Stanford University. May, 1984.
The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future asserts that, although “well-47
designed nontraditional routes” to teaching can be effective, there is concern that some
alternative routes provide inadequate levels of preparation and training for teacher
candidates with potentially adverse consequences for student performance. (National
Commission, What Matters Most, p. 53.)
National Commission, What Matters Most, p. 28.48

Concluding Observations
The 105 Congress considered a large number of proposals to address theth
quality of elementary and secondary school teachers and their overall quantity. It
enacted new programs to reform teacher preparation, and increase available funding
for recruiting and hiring new teachers. Fashioning a federal response to these issues
raised numerous questions concerning the appropriateness of such a response given
the traditional responsibility at the state and local levels for teacher preparation,
training, and hiring. Further, as was discussed earlier, some activities, particularly
the hiring of a significant number of new teachers, have substantial federal costs
associated with them. At the same time, the effectiveness of these efforts to address
either of these issues are weighed against their costs. Perhaps most significant is the
interplay between quality and quantity. As has been observed in this report, action
to address one issue may have consequences for the other, and some of those
consequences may be negative.