Serial No. 106-37



Printed for the use of the Committee on Education

and the Workforce













THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1999






The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives McKeon, Deal, Isakson, Martinez, Roemer, and Kind.

Staff present: Mary Clagett, Professional Staff Member; Sally Lovejoy, Senior Education Policy Advisor; D'Arcy Philps, Professional Staff Member; Michael Reynard, Media Assistant; Shane Wright, Legislative Assistant; Kirsten Duncan, Staff Assistant; Dan Lara, Press Secretary; Mary Ellen Ardouny, Minority Legislative Associate, Education; Marshall Grigsby, Minority Legislative Associate, Education; Mark Zuckerman, Minority General Counsel; June Harris, Minority Education Coordinator, and Roxana Folescu, Minority Staff Assistant, Education.




Chairman McKeon. [presiding] Good morning, ladies and gentleman. Welcome to this Subcommittee's fourth in a series of hearings focused on issues related to teacher quality. The topic of today's hearing is on developing and maintaining a high-quality teacher force.

Over the course of the last couple of weeks, we have had the opportunity to hear testimony on many aspects related to quality of teachers in this Nation. We have gained insight into the compelling research showing the strong correlation between teacher quality and student achievement. We have listened to teachers discuss how professional development, when done right, can have an amazing impact on their teaching ability, and we have reviewed the current role of the Federal Government in providing assistance to States and localities and improving their teacher force.

Today, we will focus on several different issues, including how teachers are recruited, hired, and retained. These are areas often overlooked when teacher quality is discussed, but as we will hear from our witnesses, they are critical components in ensuring that all of our students are taught by a qualified teacher. Insight into these areas will assist members of this Subcommittee as we move forward on working toward a bipartisan teacher quality bill.

I wish to thank each of our witnesses for taking time to be with us, and I look forward to their testimony. I also want to thank our ranking member, Mr. Martinez. He and I held a hearing in California on Monday, and it has been a great pleasure working with him on this bill and the Older Americans Act that we are also working on, on a similar timeline, and I just want to, again, express my appreciation to him for the opportunity of working with him.

And, at this time, I would yield to him for any statement he wishes to make.






Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, again, I want to join you in thanking the witnesses for coming today.

In these hearings that we have held, one thing is becoming apparent, that we are in a crisis in need of teachers and not only needing teachers but high-quality teachers. The number of school-age children is increasing rapidly. That, coupled with the teachers that are nearing retirement, means that there will be a teacher shortage of nearly two million teachers over the next decade.

Ordinarily, this would not be so troubling given all the bright, and dedicated young people who want to enter the teacher training programs every year. However, there are other factors at play. Besides the sheer number of teacher candidates that make this potential shortage a problem of great concern is the fact that there are many new teachers who are finding that they are ill-equipped to deal with today's increasingly challenging classroom situations, and many more are lured away by higher paying jobs. As a result, more and more high quality individuals are leaving the classroom within the first three years of teaching, especially in urban areas.

Now, while Congress can't mandate greater prestige or require higher salaries, we can provide schools and school districts with certain tools that will help them attract and retain highly qualified teachers. For instance, last year we reauthorized the Higher Education Act which raised the bar for new teachers and requires that teaching colleges prepare students to meet these higher standards. We also included incentives to draw more highly qualified teachers into at-risk school districts where they are critically needed.

This Subcommittee is currently in the process of drafting legislation which will build upon what was accomplished in the Higher Education Act and provide even greater resources to schools and districts in need of high-quality teachers. As Mr. McKeon just mentioned, in Los Angeles at North Ridge, we recently heard from a panel of expert witnesses on the importance of professional development and how we can, through this legislation, expand and improve on existing programs. We are hopeful that you, today, can provide us with similar insight as it relates to the recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers.

Again, we want to thank you for coming today, and I yield back the balance of my time.


Chairman McKeon. Thank you.

We will hear from, first, Dr. Emily Feistritzer, executive director from the Center for Education Information, Washington, D.C.; then, from Dr. Robert Strauss, professor of Economics and Public Policy, from the John Heinz School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and, Dr. Beverly Young, associate director for Teacher Education and K-12 Programs, California State University at Long Beach, California, and Dr. Marci Kanstoroom, research director, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Research Fellow from Manhattan Institute, Washington, D.C.

We also have one other witness, Ms. Katrina Robertson Reed, the associate superintendent of Administrative Services, District of Columbia Public Schools, Washington, D.C. She has not arrived yet. If she does, we will hear from her after Dr. Feistritzer. If not, we will work her in later; she may be hung up in traffic. Dr. Feistritzer.




Dr. Feistritzer. Thank you, Mr. McKeon and Mr. Martinez, for inviting me to testify before your Subcommittee today.

I have been asked to concentrate my testimony on the field or the area of alternative routes for preparing and licensing teachers as a way to recruit and retain quality people into the teaching profession. We have been tracking alternative routes for certifying teachers since 1983 in the States, and this publication -- which, as you can see, has gotten to be quite large, 426 pages -- Alternative Certification: A State by State Analysis, actually provides a detailed description of the evolution of alternative routes and the existing status of alternative routes in each of the States in the United States.

As you know, historically, the traditional route for bringing people into teaching has been through an approved college teacher education program route; meaning, that colleges and universities submit to the State Department of Education, which has licensing authority, a program for the preparation of teachers.

Alternative routes grew out of, really, the demand for not only more teachers but also higher quality teachers, and the first States to really develop alternative routes were Texas, New Jersey, and California, and these three States are still the primary States producing the greatest number of people through their alternate routes.

In our annual survey of the States, we find that, now, 41 States say they have an alternative route for certifying teachers, but the question that we ask the States is ``What is your State's status regarding an alternative to the traditional approved college teacher education program route?'' Now, what is happening is a lot of those 41 States are submitting their emergency certification routes and calling them alternate routes. Other States are calling program that they already have on the books alternate routes.

It is forcing this issue of what really is an alternative route, and I would like to use the short verbal time in a formal presentation to talk a little bit about the programs that really seem to be categorized as really effective alternative routes, and these are programs that have the following components: they have a strong academic coursework component. That coursework may be in the form of seminars and workshops, but they do have an academic component; they are not just getting people into classrooms quickly and issuing a certificate based on some demonstrated performance of teaching skills. Another major component of a good alternative route is that it is a field-based program. These programs get people into classrooms very early, and they get them observing and practicing teaching early in their career.

Another major component of a good alternative route is that the candidates for teaching going through alternate routes work constantly with a qualified mentor teacher in a school-based setting. The candidates for some of the good alternate route programs go through the programs in cohorts, not as individuals, and this has proven to be very, very supportive and helpful to candidates for teaching that they actually can be with their peers and discuss various problems and issues that come up in teaching along with their mentor teachers. And, most importantly, most of these programs are collaborative efforts among State Departments of Education, whose responsibility it is to license teachers, colleges and universities that have the responsibility for educating and training teachers, and school districts who actually do the hiring of teachers. The best alternative programs are a collaborative effort among those three bodies.

A lot of the criticism of alternative teacher certification has been that they are quick and dirty programs that are in opposition to college-based teacher education programs, and that is not true in the good programs. The good programs incorporate the best of all three of those entities that are involved in the training and licensing of teachers.

Another thing that makes good alternative teacher certification programs really work and worth your serious attention and support is the fact that these programs are targeted to where the demand for teachers is greatest. They are not just turning out people who are certified to teach who may or may not get a job.

As you well know, a third to 40 percent of new teacher graduates in any given year are not teaching the following year, and many of them don't ever go into teaching. The alternative routes are much more efficient in that regard, because they go to school districts in areas where the demand for teachers is greatest; in inner cities, outlying rural areas, recruitment for math and science teachers, special ed. teachers, bilingual teachers, or whatever the demand is. They actually design programs to recruit and prepare teachers to meet the job demand, and very often in these good alternative programs, the school districts have to sign on ahead of time to ensure that this person will be placed.

Consequently, it is not surprising that a lot of the early research data shows that these alternative routes are very successful in attracting minority candidates; they are very successful in attracting math and science teachers, bilingual teachers, males, which are underrepresented, and they are very successful in recruiting and keeping teachers in inner cities and rural areas. I see the red light already, so I will stop here, and be happy to take up any further issues on this and answer your questions.

[The statement of Dr. Feistritzer follows:]




Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. Ms. Reed, we introduced you; we are glad you were able to make it.




Ms. Robertson Reed. Good morning, thank you, and I do apologize; traffic was quite heavy this morning.

I am Katrina Robertson Reed, associate superintendent for Administrative Services for the District of Columbia Public Schools and also president of the American Association for School Personnel Administrators, and my discussion this morning really does relate to the issue of trying to strike this balance between the issues of quality and quantity in terms of the demand for teachers in light of the increasing teacher shortage, and how do we in fact, as well, have a balance relative to quality. I am going to try to stick as much as I can to the text and then, again, will be available for questions.

As the Nation faces the need for nearly two million new teachers over the next decade, school districts across America face the complex task of recruiting a tremendous number of teachers while maintaining rigorous professional standards. The District of Columbia, like many of its urban counterparts, has begun to implement aggressive recruiting strategies in an effort to attract a greater number of qualified candidates.

While current recruiting efforts have garnished moderate success, increasing student enrollment, an aging teaching workforce, and other contributing factors will increase the need for an even greater emphasis on innovative teacher recruiting and retention strategies for the immediate future.

Due to the critical teacher shortage that we face in elementary, ESL/bilingual, mathematics, and science, and particularly in special ed., and the need for teachers from a variety of cultures, backgrounds and males, as was mentioned earlier, the District of Columbia focuses, one, its campus recruitment on those colleges and universities that produce teachers in these key areas. However, in the context of the national teacher shortage, the District has to compete with other school systems that are seeking candidates from this same limited pool. Therefore, the offer of incentives, such as signing bonuses, stipends for moving expenses or initial supplies has become a necessity in the highly competitive recruiting arena. For a cash-strapped school district, such as the District, many of which have the greatest need, the ability to provide monetary incentives is limited thus placing the school districts with the greatest need at a disadvantage in the more traditional arena of campus recruiting. In this competitive market, beginning teacher salaries, and incentives often become the decisive factors for teacher candidates.

In an attempt to make the District of Columbia Public Schools competitive in terms of salaries, particularly with our surrounding school districts, such as Montgomery County, Fairfax County, Prince George's County, and others, the school district through its negotiations with the Washington Teacher's Union has reached a tentative agreement that will make beginning salaries competitive with these neighboring school districts. Thus, the focus and the hiring efforts is to recruit and retain teachers who are fully certified thus improving the quality of the teaching force in the District of Columbia Public Schools.

The use of such specific incentives of signing bonuses of a $1,000 for those teachers who are fully certified and through the early signing of a contract to commit to work in the District of Columbia Public Schools has been extremely helpful. Additionally, teachers are provided with support of up to $500 for moving expenses and $250 for the purchase of classroom materials and supplies, often which are not available immediately for new teachers.

We have also have made an agreement with Kay Management -- and I am not advertising, but this happens to be the company that we have been able to work with -- to assist new teachers in obtaining housing by offering housing with no security deposit, apartment rental discounts of up to 5 percent, and no application or a requirement for an application fee at three key locations in the District. The school district will also purchase for each new teacher a subscription to Teacher Magazine, which is a professional publication which provides many teaching and classroom management strategies.

In addition to campus recruiting, the District of Columbia relies upon programs, like Teach for America, and other such nationally-based efforts that provide well-intentioned but often under-qualified teachers who have an attrition rate in urban settings. While these teachers provide a valuable resource as a candidate pool, they are not a long-time solution, so we are committed in the District to creating an environment that contributes to every teacher’s ongoing development in terms of high standards.

To this end, we have developed a three-pronged mentoring program that will go beyond support and encouragement to develop knowledge and performance associated with effective teaching. This three-pronged approach will serve to provide both beginning teachers and experiences teachers who are new to the school system with the required competency and skills necessary for success in the classroom, and I have attached that document.

We are seeking, as well, to articulate between the school system and teacher training programs in our area in an effort to address the teacher shortage; particularly, we are looking at a design in terms of a comprehensive partnership between the school system and these teacher training programs that would also allow us to focus on retooling teachers who are veteran teachers in the critical shortage areas. So, such collaborative efforts as work with Trinity College, with UDC, George Washington University, and others, are allowing us, then, to take advantage of teachers who are currently teaching but who also now can move and develop skills in these critical shortage areas.

While new teachers also make up the critical applicant pool for us, we also need to look internally, and that is a critical piece, I think, of this need to address in a number of ways the issues of the teacher shortage; to look at paraprofessionals who are currently working within the school district, and to use a "pathways to teaching" option for these paraprofessionals who are also familiar with our District and who have an interest in teaching and working in the District.

Also, as you have heard earlier, the alternative certification route is extremely important. It allows for teaching opportunities for teachers or individuals who want to make career changes, and they are particularly interested in teaching. Currently, we provide an opportunity for these teachers to work for a period of up to three years to meet the certification requirement.

As well, I think there is a need for a national priority around this issue which calls for the collaboration with many organizations, and I have identified those there. We need to establish, I think, nationally a job bank and clearinghouse for teacher recruitment that should be accessible for both teachers and school districts nationwide to link both employers with this candidate pool. It also would allow teachers with the opportunity to gain access to information about these school districts. I would think, as well, some kind of help line that would offer potential counseling, answer questions, give information around certification requirements would also be important.

The development of a national certification process -- we find, oftentimes, that teachers get turned away or the process of certification becomes so difficult from State to State and so the need to establish some way of looking at certification on a national basis that would allow the reciprocity and the ease of transfer of teachers between States who have met the requirements for certification. I would also want to add to that that I think that an area of creating a national way of focusing on retirement, as well, is important.

I think that, as I close, that we need to understand that this is a, I think, a very difficult situation in that requires a number of strategies to meet the growing needs around the teacher shortage. I don't think that there are shortcuts or miracles, because there needs to be a focus, a very comprehensive way of meeting this challenge without compromising quality to reach or attain the issues of quantity in meeting the numbers of teachers.

[The statement of Ms. Robertson Reed follows:]




Chairman McKeon. Dr. Strauss?




Dr. Strauss. Thank you, Chairman McKeon. I have a long a story in my full testimony, which grew to 60 pages, which I ask be included in the record. There are few grammatical corrections that need to made. It was done in about five days. I have a shorter story which is a series of PowerPoint overheads that I am going to shorten yet; I don't know if you have that. Has it been distributed? What I am going to do is speak from this outline, basically.

I am a professor of Economics and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon. I am an Emeritus of the staff of the Joint Tax Committee and the Office of the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. I have enjoyed my Federal service and also teaching. I have been thinking and working and researching teacher quality issues in the Pennsylvania for the last dozen years, and in many universities without School of Education. I am tenured, so I have the freedom to speak freely.

If you could turn to slide 7, "What do we know about the pool of certified teachers?", I will get started. My basic message to you this morning is the following: if the local hiring decision doesn't get cleaned up in the next five to seven years when retirements are going to occur, all bets are off, and that is something I hope we get to talk about a lot. But I am very concerned about what I have seen in terms of decision procedures, and since school boards in every State have to vote hires, we get to the wonders of local decision processes.

Just a few comments about who wants to be a teacher and who winds up in the classroom. We know, historically, that they have been at about the 35th percentile of the SAT distribution, and in the back there is a graph which is basically visible. I would like to have you look at it for a second, because this is something that explains a lot of the problems we have in local public education. If you see that line that says "Ed," it shows you what the percentile in the national distribution of SAT scores has been since the seventies of those who want to become teachers -- it is about 30 to 39 -- and if you look at the top in the 80th percentile, more or less, you have people who want to major in math or English in college.

These are well-known facts, but I think they really frame the issue of teacher quality in the future as all these retirements take place, because we are talking about people's scholastic aptitudes. Another way to think about that first line is it means that two-thirds of the high school seniors facing somebody who came back to teach later on have scholastic aptitude that is much stronger, and I think that is a very important thing to remember.

Okay, now what do we know about hiring procedures -- and I am going to summarize what I found in Pennsylvania for the State board. We did a survey of superintendents, school board presidents, and local union leaders to make sure everybody said what was actually going on. Half of the districts in Pennsylvania have no written hiring policies. On average, 40 percent of the teachers in a district attended that district as students previously. The average interview lasts about 45 minutes, about only one-quarter of the candidates -- only one-quarter -- were asked to teach a class so that people could see if they could explain themselves. Only 44 percent of the candidates had a second interview.

Only half of the districts were contacted by teacher preparation institutions, and in Pennsylvania, we have a huge access supply, about 20,000 certificates cranked out annually; about 2,000 newly-admitted teachers hired every year. Of course, things are very different, but I want you to understand the mismatch.

One-fifth of the districts reported that school board members narrowed the applicant pool. If you correlate good personnel procedures against student performance, second interview, things like that, what you find is the districts that you use professional personnel practices are districts whose students test at grade level or have higher achievement scores. Dick Pitcock, who you know, was very happy. He is somebody who was past-president from Pennsylvania.

I turn, then, in thinking about how hiring decisions get made, and noting that this measure of insularity, hiring from your own previous high school graduates, occurs where unemployment rates are higher, to ask the question what controls school board member conduct if we look at State statutes, and this is going to be, probably, fairly controversial -- I am at slide 10. If you look at 30 States, as we did, all you have to be is of voting age and not a criminal to be a school board member and get elected. Only New Jersey and New York have requirements that you be able to read and write; you can't be an employed teacher, but very few States prohibit, directly or indirectly, self-dealing, conflicts of interest. All States prohibit teachers employed in the district from being on a school board, but many States do not prohibit school board members' wives from being employed as teachers. This raises all kinds of ethical questions.

School board members, as you know, are volunteers; they are only paid nominally in some States, and I have some fairly controversial suggestions to you about how to raise the ethical bar in the States as you look at spending Federal monies to encourage the States to do what I don't think they are willing to do themselves, which is to raise the bar on direct and indirect self-dealing by school board members, so that we can be assured that hiring the most qualified teacher candidates takes place.

My red light is on, so I give you the short, short, short story.

[The statement of Dr. Strauss follows:]




Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Dr. Young.




Dr. Young. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Martinez, members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program, California's BTSA Program for induction and professional development of teachers.

I am Beverly Young, associate director of Teacher Education and K-18 Programs for the 23-campus California State University system and a former BTSA director and a former elementary classroom teacher. Each year, the California State University prepares 12,000, or 60 percent, of California's new teachers, which represents about 10 percent of the entire Nation's teaching force. Following my testimony, I look forward to responding to your questions.

The Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program, or BTSA, is a California program designed to support, improve, and, most importantly, retain fully qualified, first-and second-year teachers. A main element of BTSA is the one-to-one match of novice teachers with veteran teachers who assess that new teacher and individually determine what is the most appropriate support for them. These programs also incorporate effective partnerships of school districts, county offices, and universities. Every one of the California State University's 22 teacher preparation programs participate in an induction program.

BTSA is based on the results of a large-scale pilot study called the California New Teacher Project, which ran from 1988 to 1992. Over those four years, the program served approximately 3,000 beginning teachers. The results show that that program and BTSA substantially increase new teachers confidence and job satisfaction, while also significantly improving their teaching performance. As a result, 91 percent of the participating teachers in this program remain in classroom teaching compared with attrition rates ranging from 35 to 55 percent among new teachers in many districts. In this way, BTSA reduces the demand to recruit and train replacement teachers, a demand that California schools are hard-pressed to meet. Unlike Pennsylvania, California is a severely under-producing State for teachers.

Previously, at most, BTSA has only served about 16 percent of the eligible first-and second-year teachers, but legislatively provided funds allowed BTSA this year to jump from $17.5 million to $67.8 million in funding in one year, enough for every eligible teacher in California to participate. The focus now is on how to retain the high quality and effectiveness with such rapid expansion. The BTSA Program is addressing this in four ways.

First, is an upgraded training structure. The local agencies that administer BTSA participate in highly structured, BTSA-sponsored training programs for the veteran teachers who assist and support the first-and second-year teachers, specialized training programs for site administrators and the participating schools, and for the seasoned educators who assess the performance of new teachers.

Additionally, in this expansion year, State agencies have upgraded the BTSA training by developing the California Formative Assessment and Support System for teachers, we call it CFASST. In this new model, experienced professionals learn how to manage an integrated process of assessment, assistance, implementation, reflections-on-practice, and further assessment on the part of every beginning teacher.

The second initiative is a regional structure for program support. There is going to be 48 new, local BTSA programs this year in California. To assist these local managers, California has been divided into five regions, each with an experienced BTSA cluster consultant. A consultant supports the recruitment of effective support providers, training plans, assists in implementing CFASST, and answers the questions of local directors.

Third is the adoption of standards for program accountability, a set of 13 Standards of Program Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Programs. These standards define and describe the excellent qualities of support services to new teachers; the care in which each new teacher's performance is assessed, and the training of mentors, support providers, and site administrators in the program.

Previously, these standards were only used for the determination of grant funds to each local program. Now, these standards will also be used for peer review across grant programs. In this way, every new and continuing program will be accountable for thoughtful uses of program data, which include teacher retention data, teacher performance data, and local client satisfaction.

The fourth initiative is the development of teaching standards in California, the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. Drafted by outstanding teachers, reviewed by thousands of professional educators during the development, these teaching standards describe in six domains accomplished teaching in California public schools. Outside of BTSA, these standards are used as the basis for programs of teacher education in colleges and universities and for ongoing professional development of experienced teachers -- and there is a one-page of the California Standards attached to my testimony.

Within BTSA, the California Standards are the benchmarks that guide the consultation and activities of all beginning teachers, their support providers, and their assessors. Each new teacher aims for growth in each of the six domains of the CSTP. More than any other program of its type, BTSA uses standards as the basis for individual learning activities as well as annual accountability reviews. In this way, the CSTP allows the continued excellence of California BTSA Program.

In closing, California legislation over the last two years has had a major impact on BTSA and on teacher preparation and development in general. A year ago, legislation prompted the upgraded training structure, the regional structure, and the expansion of BTSA. This year, further legislation gave new statute to the BTSA Standards and the California Standards for the Teaching Profession.

The 1998 legislation also established in California a comprehensive Learning to Teach System for all beginning teachers, a multi-program strategy that includes undergraduate programs for early deciders, traditional post-baccalaureate programs, expanded internships, such as the CSU's Cal State Teach Program, which you may have heard about earlier this week, pre-internships for late deciders, and the expanded BTSA Program as a second level of preparation for all 21,000 new teachers in California each year. Statewide, BTSA is considered the centerpiece of this Learning to Teach System in which teacher education and induction programs are held accountable for high quality while assessing new teachers on the basis of California's rigorous standards for teaching performance.


Mr. Chair, Congressman Martinez, thank you for inviting me; I look forward to answering your questions.

[The statement of Dr. Young follows:]




Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Dr. Kanstoroom.




Dr. Kanstoroom. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here to testify today. My name is Marci Kanstoroom. I am research director at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in Washington and Research Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. In addition to my statement, I brought two documents that I ask the Committee to enter into the record. First, an appraisal of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Title II of ESEA. Second, a policy manifesto that suggests a new way of tackling the teacher quality problem. This manifesto has now been signed a number of prominent policymakers and education experts.

In reviewing the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, my co-author, Jake Phillips, and I found that the program is not very effective. To have any real impact, professional development activities for teachers must be long-lasting and intensive. Unfortunately, though, most of the training supported by title II takes the form of short workshops. In the report, we conclude that focusing on retooling existing teachers through professional development is itself an inadequate strategy for addressing the teacher quality problem. A bolder strategy for boosting teacher quality would shift the focus of reform efforts.

To develop an alternative, we at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation called on a group of policymakers and scholars. We brought this group together earlier this year to share insights and research on promising teacher quality policies. The manifest, which we have issued, results from that group's work. So far, this manifesto has been signed by two governors, the highest State education official in five States, a number of State school board members, prominent education thinkers, and veteran teachers, including former Education Secretary Bill Bennett and three former assistant secretaries.

Here is a brief version of the manifesto's argument. The complete text is available on our web site, The good news is that America is beginning to adopt a powerful commonsensical strategy for school reform; set high standards for the results to be achieved, and be flexible about the means for achieving those results. The bad news is that most policymakers have turned away from this approach in trying to solve today's dual crisis of teacher quality and quantity. Instead of focusing on results, many States are demanding ever-more regulation of inputs and processes.

The signers of the manifesto conclude that the regulatory approach is seriously flawed. Every additional requirement for prospective teachers will limit the potential supply of teachers by narrowing the pipeline. However, these requirements have no bearing on the quality or effectiveness of those in the pipeline. Research finds no reliable link between pedagogical training and classroom success. Requiring extensive training as a condition of certification does deter talented individuals who might make fine teachers.

The time has come to consider radically different policies to boost the quality of teaching in U.S. schools. The teaching profession should be deregulated; entry into it should be widened, and personnel decisions should be decentralized to the school level. Instead of requiring a long list of course and degrees, we should test future teachers for their knowledge and skills. We should then allow principals to hire the teachers they need. Freeing up those decisions only makes sense, however, when schools are held accountable for their performance.

While this manifesto is primarily directed toward State policymakers, I think it has clear implications for Federal policy as well. The most important is that Washington should embrace a diversity of approaches. There are many ideas for raising the quality of our Nation's teaching force. There is no evidence that any of these are sure bets. It will be a terrible blunder to put the force and funding of the Federal Government behind a single solution. The Congress should instead encourage States to try different approaches. Your most valuable role in this ESEA cycle might well be to foster an atmosphere of responsible experimentation by States and school districts. It is crucial, though, that you insist that everything supported with Federal funds be judged by evidence that it yields higher pupil achievement.

As yet, there is no one best system for raising teacher quality. Since we don't know for sure what works, the best bet is to make this a time for experimentation tied to accountability, not a time for regulation and homogenization.

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today.

[The statement of Dr. Kanstoroom follows:]




Chairman McKeon. Thank you.

Well, as I said earlier, we would have a variety of input today, and we certainly do.

Dr. Feistritzer, you said three States have pretty good alternative programs, and that was California--


Dr. Feistritzer. Well, California, Texas, and New Jersey have the oldest, and I think the best and the most effective in both recruiting, training, and placing teachers, but there are several others.


Chairman McKeon. Are the things that they are doing, can they be replicated in other States?


Dr. Feistritzer. Easily, easily. There all three, actually, pretty similar in their design. They all require some pre-pedagogical, methodology type academic work, and they all three get people in the classrooms with mentor teachers right away, and they all three last about two years, and they all three -- many of the characteristics that I indicated earlier -- recruit for specific needs, and they have the cooperation of the State Department and in most cases the IHEs, the institutions of higher education, and the school districts where the teachers are placed.

I think they are very replicable models, and they have been around since about the mid-1980's, all three of them. So, they have learned from a lot of their own early mistakes, and they have implemented and changed things, so that they really do have strong teacher training components as well as good placement programs. Their retention rates are much higher than they are for new entrance into teaching from more traditional programs, and, again, I can't emphasize enough that I think one of the reasons for that is because they recruit people before they are even trained to teach.

So, it is not a lottery; it is not like you get a teaching certificate, and you may or may not like teaching, because you haven't had much experience in the classroom prior to doing it. They really do get people in classrooms, and a lot of people are weeded out very early. They have rigorous recruitment and acceptance policies for these programs. So, I think all three of those should be really paid close attention to.


Chairman McKeon. They are weeded out before they are actually hired or before they are actually in a classroom?


Dr. Feistritzer. Right. Well, even before they are allowed to get in the alternate route program.


Chairman McKeon. That is what I mean. They are weeded out early in the process?


Dr. Feistritzer. Right, and about 20 to 25 percent of the people in California don't complete the internship program even, so there is a continual weeding-out process. Now, some people would say, "Well, they have got a high attrition rate because of that," but they, themselves, perceive as a natural selection process where there is an actual weeding out that is going on as people are training to teach.

And they do -- you know, these programs -- I didn't say earlier, but I want to emphasize, they are specifically designed for people who already have a bachelor's degree, usually in a field other than education, and, in many cases, people who are coming into teaching with a very idealistic notion about it, quite frankly, but very altruistic. Their number one reason for wanting to go into teaching is, in many cases, they have done other things, they have been there, done that, and they really do want to improve education in America, and they want to help young people develop. They are very highly motivated, which I think contributes to the high retention rate they have.


Chairman McKeon. Now, do the States talking to each other; are these three States recognized by other States as models to look to?


Dr. Feistritzer. I think so. There is not as much collaboration among the States on alternative routes as there could be for the simple reason that New Jersey really took a lot of pot shots in the early 1980's, because they were so public about it and got a lot of criticism, and so other States have kind of been, sort of, shell-shocked by New Jersey's early experience.

And I must say, having followed this movement since 1983, I am really surprised at the strength of it and how much tenacity it has and how alternate routes have grown and developed over the years, because the early criticisms were so strong, but I think it is a testimonial to the fact that these States were really quite serious about designing programs that would recruit talented individuals from fields with degrees already who really wanted to teach, and that is the strength of these programs. It is not as much in the content of them or the process of them but the candidates who go into them are people who are really highly motivated and in many cases quite talented.


Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Mr. Martinez.


Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess everybody in the country is familiar with Jaimae Escalante who was an engineer and then decided that although he enjoyed the challenges of his engineering, decided that a greater calling would be teaching. He went into a school in my district, Garfield High School - took a number of students who, prior to their experience with him as a teacher, were considered underachievers, and he trained them in a very difficult subject, to the point that when they took the college equivalency test, they all passed. Everybody thought they cheated. However, when they retook the test under very tight scrutiny, they all passed with higher scores than the first time. So, it shows what can be done with an alternative process for teachers.

Also, I would like to ask a question. I recently had an experience where a gentleman who worked on the House floor -- he is retired now – approached me about his daughter who had moved from Boston to California. The reciprocal teaching agreements are such from State to State, and the standards are so different, that it was difficult for her -- although she was hired as a totally qualified teacher in Boston to become certified in California. The State licensing board immediately prohibited her from teaching until she met certain requirements that they wanted her to meet, which she had already met in Boston.

And, just to show you how nonsensical it was, when I called Theresa Hughes, a California State senator who was Chairwoman of the Education Committee, and she put her staff people to work on it, she immediately regained her teaching job and was able to teach. She did have to take some alternative courses but in her own time, not as was described to her first.

So, it got me to thinking about how -- and somebody -- Ms. Reed, you touched on this -- we cannot mandate to States their teaching standards nor their licensure requirements. However, I was talking to Mr. McKeon about this issue. There may be some way to create incentives in this legislation that we are developing that would at least allow States -- maybe two or three States -- to join in a collaborative effort if we provided some monies for them to develop a reciprocal plan where their standards would be coordinated. Would you comment on that?


Ms. Robertson Reed. Yes, I would like to comment on it, because that is a discussion we are currently involved in in the District. Most States, now, are moving to require, as a part of their certification process, the use of the process or some kind of examination that tests knowledge and skills in either their content area as well as some way to examine their ability relative to instructional strategies. Our concern is that if we continue to put up the roadblocks that exist between State to State that the impact is just what you are saying, and I think that there are discussions now underway.

There was a recommendation, I believe, from the national commission's report that we began to look at what is a national certification process? What does it mean? And how can we, in fact, eliminate what I call barriers in terms of the ability to move from State to State without having to go through a completely new or different standard? I am not suggesting that the standards should be lowered in any way, but that we do need a standard that can be applied nationally, thus allowing this kind of movement for teachers and a recognition of what it means in terms of the knowledge, the skills that a teacher should possess in order to be considered a good teacher, and then what is it that we need to look for in terms of their instructional skills and their strategies, and how do we assess that? So, I support very much the examination of some way of looking at national certification.


Mr. Martinez. My time has run out, but, Dr. Strauss?


Dr. Strauss. Yes, I would just like to comment that many States have procedures for what is called waiver or emergency certification, and, typically, what has to happen at the local level is the superintendent has to request of the State licensure board, based on the unavailability of comparable skills, that the person be given an emergency certificate, and then they fulfill their obligations under that State's law, and it kind of sounds like what worked out in the case you described. The reciprocity is not perfect, but most States have this safety valve.


Mr. Martinez. Let me interrupt for a minute. That did happen to be the one. The superintendent of the school district did request that the teacher be given a waiver, but instead of giving the waiver, the licensing board proceeded to withdraw her teaching credential regardless of the request for a waiver and then asked her to come for an examination to determine what she needed to do to be able to meet the California standards. That was all waived and went back to the original process that you just spoke of based on the superintendent's request for a waiver, and the waiver was given. What I am saying is, there has got to be some way to eliminate that kind of bureaucracy in the system that will allow, as Ms. Reed has said, for teachers to move from one area to another.

I remember when U.S. Steel closed in Ohio. Youngstown and the surrounding communities surrounding were very affected by that layoff. What happened was that the families with children started to move to where the jobs were and depleted the school-age population in that area. As a result, people who were qualified teachers couldn't get jobs and had to go someplace else to get a job as a teacher, and that has happened in a lot of places throughout the country.

We find where sometimes communities get older, and the school-aged children have grown up and moved away, and you have a community of senior citizens now, not school-age children, and you have a school facility that is relatively empty, while you have another school facility, maybe a few miles away, that is crowded, because that community has just had a whole bunch of new tract homes come in or a whole bunch of new families have moved in with a whole bunch of new children.


Dr. Strauss. Sounds like western Pennsylvania.


Mr. Martinez. Yes. So, there has got to be some way to make adjustments for these kinds of situations where teachers can move from one area to another.


Chairman McKeon. Mr. Isakson.


Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to, first of all, make a comment and then ask Dr. Strauss one or two questions. I think Dr. Kanstoroom's report -- I have had the opportunity to read it, and I personally think it is right on target, and I noticed Dr. Strauss kept nodding his head. He was either falling asleep or agreed with everything she said, and since Pennsylvania is mentioned in there, and since the 90th publication that you wrote, Dr. Strauss, is entitled, Who Should Teach in Pennsylvania Schools?, I just wanted to confirm that your nodding of the head of creativity that is being used in Pennsylvania outside the box does in fact meet the answer to the question: Who should teach in Pennsylvania schools?


Dr. Strauss. Oh, yes. I favor not only deregulating supply, which incidentally, if you go back to this graph, what alternative certification is about is getting folks in a much higher SAT percentiles who wanted to do something else, did something else, and now want to give something back or teach; I favor that. But my point is that for Pennsylvania or any other State to take advantage of the retirement window which most States are going have -- there are only a few States that are going to have massive increases in enrollment. You have to face up to the realities of the hiring decision.


Mr. Isakson. Is the reference to the SAT scores -- I understand exactly what you said there about getting above the 35th percentile by being creative to attract those who might be better performers although not trained in colleges of education. I have one question and a point to make. You said since you were tenured, you were free to say what you wanted to say.


Dr. Strauss. I am looking behind me, but, yes.


Mr. Isakson. Well, I want to ask you this question: Do you think one of the biggest obstructions to alternative certifications would be the colleges of education and the universities in the United States of America?


Dr. Strauss. Absolutely. New York State is a case in point; what happened up there six months ago.


Mr. Isakson. I happen to agree, and I think that is one of the things -- and what Dr. Kanstoroom has said -- as we deal with creativity we have got to do; the one thing colleges and universities love more than control is receipt of money?


Dr. Strauss. Absolutely.


Mr. Isakson. And if there are catalysts for training that give them the opportunity to think outside the box, maybe they would then become more creative about the instruction of our teachers. The last point I will make, on the SAT question, in Georgia -- and we are not different; in fact, we probably don't have a concentration as great as California and Texas and other parts of the country -- there is a tremendous shortage not only of math and science quality teachers but of foreign language teachers. We have two school systems in Georgia that went from a fraction of 1 percent Hispanic population in public schools 5 years ago to higher than 33 percent; one in the carpet industry and one in the poultry industry. Our ability to find Spanish teachers to meet the demands of that diversity in those schools given current certification was not only hard, it was impossible without any assistance from the Federal Government, because there wasn't a program and really no assistance from the State government in Georgia. We created an exchange program with the University of Monterey and in Mexico, bringing teachers who would not be certifiable in the State of Georgia to do emergency teaching of English to Hispanic-speaking students in Dalton and exchanging Dalton teachers, who spoke Spanish, to go to Monterey to teach English-speaking students in Monterey, albeit because of some of our employment and NAFTA switches, how to understand and learn Spanish.

So, my point is, help us to find some ways to put creative catalysts, to have all institutional education understand the real-world problems America faces, and don't fall in the trap of just SAT scores or just a degree in education or just this as how we get better teachers. If we do it in highway funds, we grant highway funds now under the Interstate Act, the only matches I know of anymore are when you do a demonstration project that creates new technology, and so everybody is thinking outside the box as to how to have new technology in transportation. We need that type of thinking in attracting teachers into education over and above pay, over and above incentives, over and above bonuses, and you all can help us with those types of things. So, that would be my request to you.


Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Mr. Roemer.


Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for another helpful and informative hearing this morning. I think some of our witnesses have it right, and we need to be concerned both about the quantity of teachers as well as the quality of those teachers in the classroom. We want to make sure that if we reduce the classroom ratio from 25 to 1 to 12 to 1 or 15 to 1, that we have a quality teacher in that classroom teaching physics or biology or mathematics or computer science.

In this quest for quality and the quantity of teachers, I am reminded of some of the dialogue that we had last year when we attached some language that I helped author on a rigorous alternative route certification to the higher education bill. I talked about the example of former President Carter who can come into my district at the University of Notre Dame and teach tomorrow, but he would have difficulty coming into my high school where I graduated in Mishawaka, Indiana and teaching physics or biology. And we don't need to blow up the current system, but we do need options and different ways to look at recruiting new teachers that are rigorous; that bring in quality teachers, and give people at mid-career some options to come into the teaching profession.

Dr. Feistritzer, I want to ask you a couple of questions about the Troops to Teachers Program, something I am very interested in and potentially interested in expanding in some different areas. First of all, in the Troops to Teachers, have you done a study on how effective these teachers have been and what the attrition rate has been or not been on this program?


Dr. Feistritzer. I did a survey for Troops to Teachers last fall, and they have had about 3,000 transitioning military people go into teaching jobs, and we looked at a variety of variables, including what their future plans were. The program is not old enough to get really definitive--


Mr. Roemer. Is it five years old?


Dr. Feistritzer. It is in its fifth year, but the question that had to do with "What do you plan to do?" showed that these military people have a very high level of commitment to teaching and to education generally. The administrators for whom they work in the college with whom they work and the schools throughout the country can't say enough good things about them in terms of their effectiveness as teachers.

In doing that survey, which was demographic -- we wanted to get a demographic profile of them as well as some attitudinal data, it was overwhelmingly positive, and any follow-up anecdotal and data collections that are being done support the contention that these military people make outstanding teachers, and it was interesting to find out--


Mr. Roemer. Let me interrupt you. When we will have the opportunity to do more of a longitudinal study?


Dr. Feistritzer. I hope very soon. The Troops to Teachers people have been talking to me and to others, I am sure, about doing a more definitive study. I have been suggesting to them that they look at the preparation programs of these people, because it is a perfect sample to ascertain how much difference it makes what kind of preparation program you go through, because--


Mr. Roemer. Were you able to look at the attrition rate? Was there any significant attrition rate?


Dr. Feistritzer. No, the data on that program shows that those people are staying in teaching at the rate of about 90 percent.


Mr. Roemer. My understanding is, even when they go into some of the more difficult teaching environments where the attrition rate is high, the Troops to Teachers have stayed at the higher rate than even the other teachers have. Is that correct?


Dr. Feistritzer. That is true for Troops to Teachers, and it is true for several other alternative route programs.


Mr. Roemer. Now, do you think, given the success of this, at least so far over a five-year period, that we can expand this program and possibly look at some ways to set this up in the private sector, maybe with some universities or some foundations or some already existing institutions that could help duplicate this in some other areas?


Dr. Feistritzer. I think you could and should. I think Troops to Teachers provides an outstanding model of a federally funded program that has been very effective in recruitment, training, and placement of a particular segment of the population, in this case, transitioning military people. You may or may not be aware of the fact that AT&T, for example, has a program called Transitions to Teaching. I became aware of it only because they keep ordering my book to pass out to people, but they--


Mr. Roemer. And you don't mind that, do you?


Dr. Feistritzer. No.


And IBM is interested in transitioning programs. So, there are a number of corporations that are interested in having programs that can transition their people into other careers, and they seem to be particularly interested in teaching.


Mr. Roemer. I will look forward to working with you more on this. I am in the process now of drafting up a bill that would expand the Troops to Teachers and would appreciate some of your insight on it.


Dr. Feistritzer. I would be more than happy to help you.


Mr. Roemer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Chairman McKeon. That is an expansion of an existing program, not a new program, right?


Mr. Roemer. That is not only an existing program, that is an existing program that works tremendously well, and probably would be right up there with your accolades of Pell Grants and Head Start, Even Start, and some other programs.


Dr. Feistritzer. May I add that Troops to Teachers -- and I think as you go forward with this, it needs to be kept in mind -- Troops to Teachers is really primarily a recruitment and placement program. Troops to Teachers has heretofore not been directly involved in the training component of teachers, and what I think you could do is do a nice piece that would take the best components of that recruitment and placement effort with those -- I think it would be desirable to have a State office, such as Troops to Teachers has, in every State in the country, because that is a very effective way to deliver this and introduce some of these elements of alternate route programs that some of the successful States have, and you would make a major contribution to improving the efforts of bringing post-baccalaureate people into the teaching profession.


Mr. Roemer. Could I ask one follow-up question?


Chairman McKeon. If you want to, we will work with you on that, incorporating that into this bill.


Mr. Roemer. That would be great, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to sharing this with you and getting your input and working with you on it.

Emily, have you done any studies or have you talked to some additional people, apart from AT&T and IBM, to assess where else this has been particularly successful? I understand -- I have had some discussions with Paul Vallis in the Chicago School Corporation who is also doing some of this, and understand that there might be some foundations_Pew Charitable Trust or some other foundations -- that may have funded some of this. If we can draw together some of these people that have already gone down the road to replicate Troops to Teachers, it might make the drafting of this bill a little bit easier. We have an outline right now, but if you could give me some of your input, not necessarily right now but in the future, I sure would appreciate that.


Dr. Feistritzer. Well, I think that there needs to be somebody -- and you know survey research is my favorite thing -- somebody really needs to be collecting some data about what corporate America is doing in this field and some of the foundations. I hear from them mainly because they are just at the inquiry stage, but I don't think we know -- first of all, I don't think there are a lot. I think the AT&Ts are very, very rare. I think the interest in doing this is significantly higher than the implementation as I think that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who are interested in--


Mr. Roemer. I would think that some of the high-tech corporations -- Microsofts or Intels and Silicon Valley in the chairman's State -- would be very interested in this concept.


Dr. Feistritzer. I don't think there is any question about the fact that they would be. The Milken Family Foundation is the most recent one that has gotten in touch with me on this very topic.


Mr. Roemer. Thank you.


Chairman McKeon. Thank you. I will get to you; I have just a couple of quick questions here. Dr. Kanstoroom, you said that you found that the Eisenhower Program was very ineffective, and the only way to fix it would be a complete overhaul. Do you have recommendations on that?


Dr. Kanstoroom. Well, I think the program really needs to be expanded beyond its focus on professional development, because the districts are getting amounts of money that they can't use effectively, and it is hard to schedule teachers into longer professional development programs, the kinds that would be effective. But we really need to give districts the flexibility to use the money to improve teacher quality in any way they can think of. If they can design a professional development program that is long and intensive that will actually have an impact, that would be fantastic.


Chairman McKeon. In one of our other hearings, one of the studies said that if the program were under eight hours, it didn't help much, and over eight hours, it seemed to be very helpful. If you have some specific recommendations that you could get to us on that, I would sure appreciate it and would look at them.

Okay, Dr. Young, on the BTSA Program, that is a State program, and it was funded from $17.5 million up to $67.8 million?


Dr. Young. In one year.


Chairman McKeon. And there is enough financing there now for every new teacher to go through that program?


Dr. Young. Every first-and second-year, fully-credentialed teacher. So, it is not designed to work with the teachers who are in the process of an internship who have separate State funds supporting them and also the currently about 30,000 emergency permit teachers in California, totally non-credentialed teachers who are currently working in California.


Chairman McKeon. So, you find it to be a very effective program?


Dr. Young. It is a very effective program for those participants. Up to now, it has been voluntary for teachers, and even as its funding is expanded, it is still designed to be a voluntary program for first-and second-year teachers, but it is probably the most agreed upon successful program in California education that we can think of. Everyone participating in BTSA, from the teachers, administrators, districts, colleges, and universities, have found it to be extremely successful, not only in teacher job satisfaction and retention, which is one of its main aims, but in student achievement data, which is just beginning to come in from those first-year teachers who are now several years into their jobs.


Chairman McKeon. Okay, you had another comment you wanted to make?


Dr. Young. Well, the Congressman who asked about the Troops to Teachers Program, I just wanted to let him know that the CSU supports the administration's proposal to transfer authority from Troops to Teachers from the current Department of Defense to the Department of Education, and the program -- California is a rich ground for Troops for Teachers; we have lots of displaced military in California. However, it is not a very effective program currently in California, and the CSU is in the process of developing specific recommendations for congressional consideration about that program.


Chairman McKeon. How soon will you have those recommendations?


Dr. Young. We just had some congressional staff out in California meeting with our chancellor, and this very topic came up about three weeks ago, and so, for the last three weeks, we have been meeting with the Troops to Teachers people in California. So, I would guess within the next week to two weeks we would have something available.


Chairman McKeon. Great. If you get those to us, we will be in the process of drafting this bill, and we will look at that part of that program.

Dr. Strauss, you studied how many school boards?


Dr. Strauss. In Pennsylvania? Well, all of them, basically.


Chairman McKeon. Just in Pennsylvania?


Dr. Strauss. Yes, reviewed the statutes governing their conduct in 30; that is the States laws, the school codes, the oaths of office.


Chairman McKeon. Did you look at California?


Dr. Strauss. Yes.


Chairman McKeon. And did you find much difference between the States?


Dr. Strauss. No. I mean, what the States tend to do is treat local school board members like other elected officials. They have to support the Constitution of the U.S. Government and the State; they have to be a citizen for as little as 30 days; they have to be of voting age, and that is about it. There are statutes which supervise employment relationships and contract relationships, but it doesn't take much imagination to see among the States how they are circumvented -- if I can put it nicely.


Chairman McKeon. I served on a school board for nine years.


Dr. Strauss. I know that; I read your biography, sir.


Chairman McKeon. And I guess I, through that association and representing our area on the State school board association, I found a pretty high caliber of people serving in those positions, and I just feel like I have a different view from what you do.


Dr. Strauss. Sure. Let me describe it this way: State laws are permissive, and so what you see in a local school district that is successful -- and I endorse, of course, because I signed the manifesto, what Marci is saying -- kids are performing, okay? And you have got school board members who are focused and to task, but you can have in other areas lots of dysfunctional behavior.

Let me talk about Pennsylvania, which I know best -- and I am not going to name names -- but in two districts where I talked carefully and in detail with the president of the school board and a member in another -- and I have access to all the administrative records in the State under signed confidentiality agreements -- the personnel directors in both of those districts after those conversations went off to do other things, and in one case the board member was unaware that we have State testing requirements; in the other district, which is a very rich district, the personnel records were in shambles. And, so you can have very high caliber people who are very well-intentioned, but the realities of keeping track of things when you want to for the best interest of the kids -- which, incidentally, no State obligates you through an oath of office to assert; you are simply there to support the Constitution, not that the kids learn -- I have a proposal there, incidentally.


Chairman McKeon. I will look at that.


Dr. Strauss. So, you see everything at the local level, and my, sort of, hope is that you folks be ambitious as you look at funding local districts, and ask them to focus on learning and focus on spending the monies through appropriation processes and without conflict of interest. As I say in my paper, if those two, sort of, ideas are not in the national interest for the Federal Government to express through its spending of Federal monies, what is?


Chairman McKeon. Okay, well, it looks like we are done.

I want to thank you for being here, and what we have done at each of these hearings we have had is suggest that if you think of something that you might have said that you didn't get the opportunity to, if you could get that to us, we will certainly insert it in the record; and if you watch us through this process now that you have been here and testified, I hope you will buy into the process and help us as go through drafting a bill, and anything that you can see that would be helpful, please get it to us, and I assure you that it will be part of the process.

Thank you very much, and we will now adjourn.

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]