Detailed Information on the
Transition to Teaching Assessment

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

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

Develop and complete an OMB-approved data collection package for consistent data-gathering from grantees, and use these results to produce stronger interim and final program evaluations.

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

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 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 all Transition to Teaching (TTT) participants, served by TTT grants first funded in 2006, 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) participants, served by TTT grants first funded in 2002, receiving certification/licensure within three years.

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) participants, served by TTT grants first funded in 2004, receiving certification/licensure within three years.

Explanation:Measure reflects percentage of program participants who receive certification/licensure within three years.

Measure: Percentage of Transition to Teaching (TTT) participants, served by TTT grants first funded in 2006, receiving certification/licensure within three years.

Explanation:Measure reflects percentage of program participants who receive certification/licensure within three years.

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 three years.

Explanation:Measure reflects percentage of program participants who become teachers of record in a high-need school in a high-need LEA for three years.

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 three years.

Explanation:Measure reflects percentage of program participants who become teachers of record in a high-need school in a high-need LEA for three years.

Measure: Percentage of Transition to Teaching (TTT) teachers of record, served by TTT grants first funded in 2006, who teach in high-need schools in high-need LEAs for three years.

Explanation:Measure reflects percentage of program participants who become teachers of record in a high-need school in a high-need LEA for three years.

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

Explanation:Measure reflects cost per program participant for those who become teachers of record in a high-need school in a high-need LEA for three years.

Measure: Cost per participant who teaches in a high-need school in a high-need LEA for three years (2004 cohort).

Explanation:Measure reflects cost per program participant for those who become teachers of record in a high-need school in a high-need LEA for three years.

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

Explanation:

Measure: Cost per participant receiving full certification/licensure (2004 cohort).

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Department of Education's Transition to Teaching program has a clear purpose. It is designed to recruit and retain highly qualified mid-career professionals (including paraprofessionals) and recent graduates of an Institution of Higher Education 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 2001 (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: Studies conducted by The New Teacher Project (Hiring, Assignment, and Transfer in Chicago Public Schools (2007), Hiring, Assignment, and Transfer in Portland Public Schools (2007), Hiring, Assignment, and Transfer in Milwaukee Public Schools (2007), and Missed Opportunities (2003)); Richard Ingersoll (Understanding Supply and Demand Among Mathematics and Science Teachers (2006), and Why Do High Poverty Schools have Difficulty Staffing Their Classrooms with Qualified Teachers (2004)); Schools and Staffing Survey 2003-2004 (2006).

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 to Teaching program requires a high level of commitment. Participants must agree to work in a high-need school in a high-need local educational agency 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 State educational agencies to create or expand alternative routes to certification and the FY 2004, FY 2006, and FY 2007 competitions, which included a competitive priority for local educational agencies to review and improve hiring practices.

Evidence: Title II, Part C of ESEA - Transitions to Teaching; Section 2313 Title II, Part C of ESEA, Section 2313; FY 2004, FY 2006, and FY 2007 Transition to Teaching Notice Inviting Applications.

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

Explanation: Transition to Teaching has been able to target both the population and districts the program is intended to reach. However, there are some design issues the Department addressed in its reauthorization proposal that, if enacted, should enhance the effectiveness of the program. The proposal addresses both applicant and participant eligibility. Regarding applicant eligibility, the statute requires that all applicants be a high-need local educational agency or in partnership with such a local educational agency. The current definition of a high-need local educational agency, which includes both poverty and teacher qualification criteria, is somewhat restrictive and complicated, and makes ineligible some districts that face significant challenges in recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers. The Administration's reauthorization proposal would simplify the definition of a high-need local educational agency, make additional rural districts eligible, and eliminate the criteria related to teacher qualifications, which are cumbersome to implement. Regarding participant eligibility, the proposed reauthorization language would increase the number of individuals who are eligible to participate in Transition to Teaching-funded projects by allowing individuals who hold a teaching certificate or license in one subject to seek a second certification in those subjects local educational agencies have identified as high need, such as special education or English-language acquisition. Under the current statute, individuals already certified are ineligible. Although the primary purpose of Transition to Teaching should continue to be to attract new people into teaching, the ability of grantees to allow a small number of their participants to seek a second certificate would provide them more flexibility in meeting the high-need subject needs of the local educational agencies they serve. The limitation in current law is not a program flaw, but easing it would permit the program to fill a somewhat broader purpose. Finally, the proposed reauthorization language would also clarify and simplify the definition of a high-need school. Despite these design issues, which the Department has addressed in its reauthorization proposal, the program has been successful in targetting the intended populations and districts. These design issues have not limited the efficiency or effectiveness of the program.

Evidence: ESEA Title II, Part A, Sec. 2102(3) - To be a high-need LEA, an LEA must serve an area with not fewer than 10,000 children from families with incomes below the poverty line; or with not less than a 20 percent child poverty rate; AND have either a high percentage of teachers not teaching in the subjects or grade levels that the teachers were trained to teach or have a high percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional, or temporary certification or licensing. Administration proposed reauthorization amendments for the Transition program (2007).

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

Explanation: This program targets high-poverty districts and districts that have difficulty recruiting highly qualified teachers, particularly to teach high-need subjects. Only those that meet the definition of a high-need local educational agency are eligible to apply or serve as partners. The Transition to Transition statute includes a "supplement not supplant" requirement. Section 2313(h)(2) contains a requirement that program funds "shall be used to supplement, not supplant, State and local public funds expended for teacher recruitment and retention programs, including programs to recruit teachers through alternative route programs." This language largely ensures that the program does not fund activities that grantees would otherwise carry out on their own.

Evidence: ESEA Section 2312 (Definitions of an eligible participant, high-need LEA, and high-need school).

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: The Department has developed the following three long-term performance measures: (1) the percentage of Transition to Teaching participants who become teachers of record in high-need schools in high-need LEAs; (2) the percentage of Transition to Teaching participants receiving certification/licensure within three years; and (3) the percentage of Transition to Teaching teachers of record who teach in high-need schools in high-needlocal educational agencies for three years.

Evidence: Annual Performance Report data for these measures are available in November of each year.

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

Explanation: The Department has set clear baselines and ambitious targets for all three long-term performance measures. The program has set specific quantified targets for all three long-term performance measures for each grant cohort. The Department anticipates that in 2011, for example, (1) 85 percent of the 2006 Transition to Teaching program cohort will become teachers of record in high-need schools in high-need local educational agencies; (2) 50 percent of the 2006 cohort will have received certification/licensure within three years; and (3) the percentage of 2006 cohort teachers of record who have taught in high-need schools in high-need local educational agencies for three years will increase from the baseline, which will be set in 2010, by at least 1 percent. The Department has based these targets on baseline information and performance trends from previous cohorts. While these targets are attainable, they are also ambitious because meeting these targets will require significant improvement in grantee performance. For the 2002 cohort, the program application specified that grantees receiving five-year awards (the maximum project period) not use program funds to recruit and hire teachers after the end of the 2005-2006 school year. This was to ensure that the grantees would provide all Transition to Teaching teachers with at least one year of intensive follow-up support. Therefore, the number of new participants and new teachers of record from the mid-career and recent college graduate participant categories would decrease in the later years of the grant. However, there may have been a slight increase in teachers of record in the later years of the grants due to paraprofessionals, who take longer to prepare, and other participants experiencing unexpected delays in placement being placed as teachers of record. The 2008 performance target for this measure for this cohort reflects a similarly small expected marginal increase.

Evidence: Data are collected each year through the program's annual performance reporting process. FY 2002 program application notice.

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 and two efficiency measures. The three annual performance measures are the same as the long-term indicators: (1) the percentage of Transition to Teaching participants who become teachers of record in high-need schools in high-need local educational agencies; (2) the percentage of Transition to Teaching participants receiving certification/licensure within three years; and (3) the percentage of Transition to Teaching teachers of record who teach in high-need schools in high-need local educational agencies for three years. The two efficiency measures are: (1) the cost per participant who teaches in a high-need school in a high-need local educational agency for three years; and (2) the cost per participant receiving certification/licensure.

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: The Department has established clear baselines and set ambitious targets for each annual performance and efficiency measure. The Department has developed specific quantified annual targets for the Transition to Teaching program's annual performance measures for at least the next two years for each grant cohort. The Department expects that in 2009, (1) 85 percent of the 2004 Transition to Teaching program cohort and 79 percent of the 2006 cohort will become teachers of record in high-need schools in high-need local educational agencies; (2) 50 percent of the 2004 cohort and 40 percent of the 2006 cohort will have received certification/licensure within three years; and (3) the percentage of 2004 cohort teachers of record who have taught in high-need schools in high-need local educational agencies for three years will increase from the baseline, which will be set in 2008, by at least one percent. Meeting these targets will require significant improvement in grantee performance. The Department has based these targets on baseline information and performance trends from previous cohorts. As specified in the requirements in the FY 2002 program application, 2002 grantees were not to use program funds to recruit and hire teachers after the end of the 2005-2006 school year (after the end of the second-to-last project period). For this cohort, the percentage of participants who became teachers of record increased slightly from 2006 to 2007 because of the placement of paraprofessionals, who take longer to prepare, and some participants were still finding positions after delays in placement. The 2008 performance target for this measure for this cohort reflects a similarly small expected marginal increase. While these targets are attainable, they are also ambitious.

Evidence: Data are collected annually through the program's annual performance reporting process. FY 2002 program application notice.

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: The Department encourages grantees to submit complete and accurate performance 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. The Department reviews performance data and grants continuation awards based on successful performance. Further, the Department provides grantees an opportunity to update and/or verify performance data through a data verification process at the end of each fiscal year.

Evidence: Program closing date notices, applications, annual performance reports, and interim project evaluations. Joint Annual Project Directors and Evaluators meeting. Ongoing grantee monitoring and periodic site 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: The Department, through a competitive process, selected and contracted with an independent entity to conduct the mandated interim evaluation of the Transition to Teaching program for the 2002 cohort. The evaluation provided data on the progress and success of each of the program's major components: recruitment and selection; preparation leading to certification; hiring and placement of teachers; and retention and support strategies. The methodology included collection and analysis of project-level characteristics and outcomes for all grantees through an online Annual Performance Report (APR); a survey of teacher participants using a systematic sampling; case studies of eight 2002 projects to provide in-depth information on project implementation; and interim evaluation reports submitted by each 2002 grantee that provided information on the success in achieving program and project objectives. In addition, the evaluation drew on items from the National Center for Education Statistics Schools and Staffing Survey (2003-2004) (SASS), a nationwide random sampling of teachers, for comparison of program data with SASS items. Department staff have used information provided in the program evaluation to make changes in grant competition notices in order to clarify and strengthen key elements of the program; develop a set of evaluation questions for subsequent program evaluations; shape the content of annual project directors meetings; and provide technical assistance. The Department contracted with another independent entity to conduct the mandated interim program evaluation of the 2004 cohort. The methodology employed will provide information about the effectiveness of each 2004 project's implementation and progress toward meeting program and project objectives. The program evaluation will analyze the data provided by all 2004 grantees in their annual performance reports and individual interim project evaluation reports. However, the scope of this evaluation has been limited by resource constraints. The Department requires grantees to conduct individual evaluations to demonstrate the effectiveness of their projects after the third and fifth years of the grant awards, at which time independent program evaluations are conducted. The data collection methodology for the interim evaluation report for the 2002 cohort went through OMB clearance, in addition to extensive Transition to Teaching staff and Department review, to ensure accurate, clear, and well-substantiated results. The interim evaluation report methodology for the 2004 cohort will undergo a similar review to ensure that the report is also of high quality.

Evidence: PPSS study: Transition to Teaching Program Evaluation: An Interim Report on the FY 2002 Grantees (2007). The 2004 cohort interim evaluation report will be available in September 2008.

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: While resource needs are presented in a complete and transparent manner in the budget request for the Transition to Teaching program, performance-planning and budget-planning processes are not explicitly integrated. Resources are not explicitly tied to annual and long-term goals or a strategic plan, and the effects of funding and other policy changes on performance outcomes are unclear.

Evidence: FY 2009 Budget request.

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

Explanation: The Department corrected strategic planning deficiencies by creating long-term and efficiency measures. The Department tracks data for these measures through Annual Performance Reports. The Department has refined its data collection through the use of a data verification process that provides grantees the opportunity to update and/or verify their performance data and budget expenditures at the end of each fiscal year. The Department is also providing professional development opportunities in order to increase the capacity of program staff to analyze project data.

Evidence: Annual Performance Reports, Program performance measures and targets information. Professional Development included a seminar in evaluation provided by the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP).

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: The Department collects timely and credible data from grantees through annual performance reports and requires grantee evaluations after the third and fifth year of funding. At the end of each fiscal year, the Department provides grantees with the opportunity to update and/or verify their performance data and budget expenditures through a data verification process. These data are entered into a database for program analysis. Department managers use the Annual Performance Reports and grantee evaluations to monitor grantees for potential project implementation problems, identify promising practices, decide which grantees require additional monitoring, and plan site visits. Department staff give priority for monitoring site visits to those projects that demonstrate weaknesses in their reporting and those projects that demonstrate innovative approaches to program implementation. The Department also uses performance information as the basis for decisions on continuation funding.

Evidence: Annual Performance Reports, TTT task tracker, interim grantee evaluations during the third year of the 5-year grant, 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: Department managers and program partners (grantees) are held accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results. Department managers and staff working on the program have performance agreements that hold them accountable for meeting performance goals related to improving performance and timeliness of actions (e.g., for collecting and analyzing performance data, encouraging evaluations of the program, and ensuring that implementation actions are completed by the established deadlines). Department managers monitor grantees for project implementation and performance results as measured by both performance and project measures. Managers monitor through frequent e-mail and phone communication, site visits, and review of annual performance reports and interim project evaluations. Grantees are required to submit annual performance reports that include specific, measurable, time-framed project objectives; annual budget information; and interim evaluations in the third year. Assessment of this information is used to determine grantee progress toward meeting established program goals and objectives. Continued funding is contingent on demonstrating satisfactory progress. In addition, grantees are subject to Federal audits.

Evidence: ED employee EDPAS agreements; Grantee applications, annual performance reports, interim evaluation reports, site visit reports; Grant Administration and Payment System (GAPS) draw down reports; and Grantee official files, which are subject to Federal audits.

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

Explanation: Funds are obligated within the timeframes set out by Department schedules and are used for the intended purposes. Program staff review budget expenditures through grantee performance reports, including Forms ED524 and ED524B and GAPS. In addition, staff ensure that all costs conform to requirements in EDGAR and the applicable cost principles in Office of Management and Budget Circulars. Findings from grantees' Single Audit Reports are forwarded by the Department's post-audit group to appropriate Transition to Teaching program staff. These procedures help ensure that funds are spent for intended purposes and in line with objectives set forth by grantees in their applications.

Evidence: GAPS annual outlay reports, GAPS performance monitoring reports, GAPS drawdown reports (periodic and year-end spending reports), grantee single audit reports.

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: Department information technology improvements, including e-Reader and e-Applications, have enhanced program management efficiencies and cost effectiveness by streamlining submission of grant applications and allowing for on-line and telephone grant technical review, eliminating the need for technical reviewers to travel. In conjunction with the online application technical review process, the Department utilizes the services of a logistics contractor, freeing program staff to concentrate on management of the Transition to Teaching program. The Department utilized the government-wide grants application portal grants.gov for its 2006 and 2007 grant competitions and will continue to use this portal for future competitions. In addition, the Department has established two efficiency measures and set clear baselines and ambitious targets: (1) cost per program participant who teaches in a high-need school in a high-need local educational agency for at least three years; and, (2) cost per program participant receiving full certification/licensure.

Evidence: Technical assistance contractor deliverables. Efficiency Measures: For the 2002 cohort, the marginal cost per program participant receiving full certification/licensure decreased from $16,084 to $10,959 over five years. The marginal cost per retained teacher of record in the 2002 cohort decreased from $49,023 to $17,705 over three years. For the 2004 cohort, the marginal cost per program participant receiving full certification/licensure decreased from $16,592 to $13,943 over three years. Baseline cost data for retained teachers of record in the 2004 cohort were collected in 2007, and cost savings will be determined in October 2008. For the 2006 cohort, baseline data for both efficiency measures will be collected in 2008.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Transition to Teaching program staff have collaborated with three other Department programs (Troops-to-Teachers, English Language Acquisition National Development, and Indian Education Professional Development) that focus on teacher preparation in an effort to develop similar performance measures, including common cost measures. For example, the Troops-to-Teachers program uses one of the same efficiency measures as Transition to Teaching, the cost per participant placed. Lessons from the Transition to Teaching program's data system and marginal cost analysis have also been disseminated to other Department programs and have had some impact on those programs' management. For example, the Department is using the Transition to Teaching program's data analysis model to inform data collection and analysis for the Teaching American History and School Leadership programs.

Evidence: OESE, OII, and OELA Joint Budget and Performance Integration (BPI) Milestone for the third quarter of FY 2007 (June 25, 2007).

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Agency-wide internal controls audits have not identified deficiencies in the financial management of this program. Program staff reviews budget expenditures through grantee performance reports and GAPS.

Evidence: ED internal controls audits, ongoing monitoring grantee information in GAPS.

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

Explanation: The program uses a spreadsheet, which is updated weekly, to track all its activities. Communication with Transition to Teaching grantees has been enhanced through the use of an online listserv and a periodic newsletter. In addition, the program has provided technical assistance to grantees through joint meetings for project directors and evaluators, resources supplied directly to grantees, and information made available on the Transition to Teaching webpage. Program officers provide timely and appropriate technical assistance to meet the individual needs of grantees.

Evidence: Transition to Teaching online newsletter, task tracker, annual meeting notebook.

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 the Department's 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 notice; U.S. Department of Education website; OMB-approved application package; Grants.gov.

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

Explanation: The Department maintains information on grantee activities through annual performance reports, interim project evaluations, site visits, regular email and phone communication, an annual joint project director and evaluator meeting, and technical assistance activities. Program staff reviews budget expenditures through grantee performance reports and GAPS.

Evidence: GAPS, Annual Performance Reports, Interim evaluation reports, Annual Project Directors and Evaluators 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: The Department collects grantee performance data on the Transition to Teaching program's GPRA measures through annual performance reports and provides grantees an opportunity to update and/or verify the data at the end of the fiscal year. Annual program performance plan targets and achievement data for each cohort are currently available on the Transition to Teaching website. Additionally, for each GPRA performance and cost efficiency measure, aggregated program data as well as disaggregated grantee performance data are available on the Transition to Teaching website. In 2007, the Transition to Teaching program published an interim program evaluation report of the 2002 cohort.

Evidence: Department's TTT website http://www.ed.gov/programs/transitionteach/performance.html; Annual Performance Reports; PPSS study: Transition to Teaching Program Evaluation: An Interim Report on the FY 2002 Grantees (2007).

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

Explanation: The program has three long-term performance measures for the 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007 grant cohorts. The FY 2002 and FY 2004 grant cohorts have shown improvement each year in all applicable long-term measures and are making progress toward meeting the program's long-term performance goals. By FY 2008, the long-term goals for the 2002 cohort are to have 75 percent of all participants becoming teachers of record in high-need schools in high-need local educational agencies, 65 percent of all participants receiving certification/licensure within three years, and 75 percent of Transition to Teaching-funded teachers of record retained for three years. In FY 2007, 75 percent of the 2002 cohort had become teachers of record in high-need schools in high-need local educational agencies, 50 percent of all participants had received certification/licensure within three years, and 75 percent of Transition to Teaching-funded teachers of record had been retained for three years. By FY 2009, the long-term goals for the 2004 cohort are to have 85 percent of all participants becoming teachers of record in high-need schools in high-need LEAs and 50 percent of all participants receiving certification/licensure within three years. The long-term retention target for the 2004 cohort will be based on data first received in 2008. In FY 2007, 83 percent of the 2004 cohort had become teachers of record in high-need schools in high-need LEAs, and 42 percent of all participants had received certification/licensure within three years.

Evidence: Annual performance reports, TTT website, program performance measures and targets.

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

Explanation: The program has three annual performance measures for each grant cohort, and all cohorts have shown improvement in each of the program's annual performance measures. During the past two years, the FY 2004 cohort met or exceeded all three performance targets, and the FY 2002 cohort met or exceeded two out of three performance targets. While the 2002 cohort failed to meet the most recent target for participants receiving certification or licensure within three years, it made progress from the previous year. Baseline performance data for the FY 2006 cohort were collected in 2007. Baseline data collection for the FY 2007 cohort is scheduled for October 2008.

Evidence: Annual Performance Reports, TTT website, program performance measures and targets.

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

Explanation: The program has two efficiency measures for each grant cohort: the cost per certified participant and the cost per retained participant. Available data show that the program has demonstrated, to a large extent, improved efficiencies in achieving program goals. The FY 2002 cohort of grantees showed progress in 2007 from the baselines set for both measures in 2006: The cost per retained participant fell from $26,465 to $17,705, and the cost per certified participant fell from $11,190 to $10,959. The cost per certified participant in the FY 2004 cohort rose slightly from $13,163 in 2006 to $13,943 in 2007. The Department set a baseline for the cost per retained participant in the FY 2004 cohort in 2007. Data for the cost per retained participant for the 2006 cohort will first be available in 2009.

Evidence: Annual Performance Reports, TTT website, program performance measures and targets.

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

Explanation: The Transition to Teaching program has similar performance to the Troops-to-Teachers (Troops) program in measures of percentage of teachers placed, percentage of teachers retained, and the cost per participant placed in a teaching position. Troops is a Federal program that assists in the certification and placement of former members of the military services as teachers of record in high-need LEAs. Other programs that focus on teacher preparation (for example, English Language Acquisition National Development, Indian Education Professional Development, and Teacher Quality Enhancement) currently do not have sufficient data available for measures that are similar to those used in the Transition to Teaching program, limiting the comparisons that are possible at this time. On the measure of retention, data collection on the Pathways to Teaching Careers Program, a private program funded by the Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund to recruit paraprofessionals, emergency certified teachers, and Peace Corps Fellows into high-need districts, shows that 81 percent of those surveyed remained in teaching at least three years after completing the program. In addition, two analyses of the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and its supplement, the Teacher Followup Survey (TFS) provide retention data on beginning teachers. One reports that 67 percent of all beginning teachers were retained after three years and an earlier analysis reports a retention rate of 71 percent for newly prepared teachers. The retention data for the Transition to Teaching program compare favorably to both the Pathways program and the SASS data with retention rates of 75 percent for the 2002 cohort and 80 percent for the 2004 cohort (based on the most recent year of data).

Evidence: Troops to Teachers FY 2008 Program Performance Plan, TTT FY 2008 Program Performance Plan, Troops to Teachers and TTT Cohort Data Analysis, and relevant ESEA sections and EDGAR regulations. Studies conducted by Richard Ingersoll (Is There Really a Teacher Shortage? (2003) and Turnover among Mathematics and Science Teachers in the U.S. (2000)), and The Urban Institute (Absence Unexcused: Ending Teacher Shortages in High-Need Areas (2001)). Teach for America website http://www.teachforamerica.org/mission/our_impact/our_impact.htm

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

Explanation: The 2007 independent report on the FY 2002 grantee cohort found that the program has been generally successful in recruiting qualified nontraditional participants and placing them in high-need schools in high-need districts. The report noted that grantees were highly successful in attracting applicants for targeted positions and were generally succeeding in finding placements in high-need schools in high-need districts for eligible participants, despite challenges associated with budget shifts that reduced positions, changed state requirements, competition from other routes to teaching, and some negative views toward alternate routes. In addition, the report found that projects provided various kinds of support, including mentoring, to newly hired participants and demonstrated relatively high one-year and two-year retention rates consistent with the most recent studies of beginning teacher mobility. The program's high retention rates are particularly notable since Transition to Teaching participants work in high-need schools in high-need districts.

Evidence: PPSS study: Transition to Teaching Program Evaluation: An Interim Report on the FY 2002 Grantees (2007).