ERIC ED455216: Implementing the Recommended High School Program as the Minimum Graduation Requirement: A Study of the Need for Teachers.

31 Pages·0.54 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
SP 040 141
ED 455 216
Implementing the Recommended High School Program as the
TITLE
Minimum Graduation Requirement: A Study of the Need for
Teachers.
Texas Education Agency, Austin.; Texas State Board for
INSTITUTION
Educator Certification, Austin.
2001-01-00
PUB DATE
NOTE
33p.
Reports - Descriptive (141)
PUB TYPE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Beginning Teacher Induction; Distance Education;
DESCRIPTORS
*Graduation; Higher Education; Preservice Teacher Education;
Secondary School Teachers; *Teacher Certification; *Teacher
Supply and Demand
*Texas
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
This report describes a recommended high school program
which requires that students take specific courses for graduation, including
credits in the core subject areas, in foreign languages, and in other areas.
in
One relevant issue of concern is the availability of certified teachers
specific subject areas. The report focuses on: current course requirements
and graduation plans; projected areas of most need; review of certification
requirements; projected need for teachers in specific subject areas: Public
Education Information Management System (PEIMS) data analysis; projected need
for teachers in specific subject areas: Texas A&M survey; cost estimates;
available and projected certified teachers; production, employment, and
attrition; employed teachers who are uncertified; projected production
needed; efforts to address shortages; Texas Beginning Educator Support
System; distance learning and dual credit; other significant issues related
to this study; and strategies to address teacher need. Nine appendixes
present course requirements at the secondary level; Texas state graduation
requirements; campuses not offering the recommended high school program,
1999-00; number of students completing the course, 1999-00; assumptions and
related notes; related nonrequired courses; excerpt from Regional Teacher
Supply and Demand Study, 1999-00; course completions through distance
learning, PEIMS 1999-00; and course completions through dual credit, PEIMS
1999-00.
(SM)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
Implementing the
Recommended High School Program
Graduation Requirement
as the Minimum
A Study of the Need for Teachers
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
Prepared by the
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
Texas Education Agency and
BEEN GRANTED BY
State Board for Educator Certification
L. )(toil,
for the K-16 Council
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
1
January 2001
C
DEST COPY AVA111141312
0
2
a_
f)
Implementing the
Recommended High School Program
as the Minimum Graduation Requirement
A Study of the Need for Teachers
Texas Education Agency
Department of Curriculum, Assessment, and Technology
1701 North Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas 78701-1494
512 463 9087
www.tea.state.tx.us
State Board for Educator Certification
1001 Trinity Street
Austin, Texas 78701-2603
512 463 3000
www.sbec.state.tx.us
January 2001
3
Implementing the
Recommended High School Program
as the Minimum Graduation Requirement
A Study of the Need for Teachers
Summary
> Since
the percentage of students graduating under the Recommended High School
1995
graduated under programs that
Program has increased by 13%, and 41% of the Class of
1999
of the Class
were more rigorous than the Minimum Graduation Plan. Approximately half
(55%)
of 1999 graduated under the Minimum Graduation Plan.
> Consideration is being given to requiring the Recommended High School Program as the
In comparison to the minimum plan currently in place, the
minimum graduation plan.
Recommended High School Program requires an additional course in mathematics and
additional credits in science, social studies, languages other than English, and fine arts.
s would be needed annually to teach each of the required
> It is estimated that about
2,750 1-1'J
areas of mathematics, science, and languages other than English, which were examined in this
study.
> The study indicates that the educator preparation programs in Texas are currently unable to
supply the needed numbers of teachers in critical fields. In several of the shortage areas, almost
as many new teachers were recruited from out of state as were produced in Texas.
> Of each year's supply of newly certified teachers, approximately 66% actually enter Texas
of new teachers, however, will eventually
75%
classrooms the following school year. Almost
It is incumbent upon Texas educator
teach at least 1 year within 4 years of becoming certified.
preparation programs to expand teacher recruitment efforts exponentially to meet both the
current and projected needs for certified teachers.
Texas Education Agency and
Page i
State Board for Educator Certification
January 2001
3,4
Implementing the
Recommended High School Program
as the Minimum Graduation Requirement
A Study of the Need for Teachers
Introduction
A voluntary recommended high school program was first adopted by the State Board of Education
in November 1993. This 24-credit program, developed with input from educators, business leaders,
and the public, encourages students, parents, and campuses to set goals beyond the minimum
Between 1993 and 2000 the State Board of Education codified the
graduation requirements.
Recommended High School Program into rule with minor changes in course requirements. The
Recommended High School Program requires that students take specific courses for graduation
including credits in the core subject areas: English language arts and reading, mathematics, science,
and social studies. Credits in languages other than English and other courses are also required.
Discussion is occurring about whether the Minimum Graduation Plan should be eliminated (or
become the exception) and all students be required to complete at least the Recommended High
In light of increasingly rigorous statewide testing requirements and demanding
School Program.
college curricula, requiring the Recommended High School Program for graduation would provide
students with more rigorous and in-depth courses of study to better prepare them for higher
education and, ultimately, for participation in a competitive global economy.
Should this change be implemented, one issue to be addressed is the availability of certified teachers
in specific subject areas, particularly in mathematics, sciences, and languages other than English. If
all students are required to take the Recommended High School-Program for graduation, it is critical
that there be enough certified teachers available in each school district to teach the required courses.
The state is already investigating and implementing new strategies to attract, train, and retain growing
numbers of teachers in order to meet increasing demand. For example, one strategy focuses on
recruiting higher numbers of mid-career professionals into teaching and providing them with
In addition, the Texas
temporary credentials while they work toward standard certification.
Beginning Educator Support System (TxBESS) is in its second year of development and is expected
TxBESS provides structured support and mentoring for
to decrease attrition rates significantly.
newly certified teachers to foster their professional growth and to encourage them to remain in the
profession.
Current Course Requirements and Graduation Plans
As required by Texas Education Code 528.002, each school district that offers grades 9 through 12
must provide instruction in the foundation curriculum consisting of English language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies (Texas, United States, and world history; government; and
geography) and in the enrichment curriculum consisting of languages other than English (to the
extent possible), health, physical education, fine arts, economics (with emphasis on the free
enterprise system and its benefits), career and technology education, and technology applications.
State Board of Education rules enumerate the courses that school districts must offer as shown in
Appendix 1.
Texas Education Agency and
Page 1
State Board for Educator Certification
January 2001
4
As required by statute, the State Board of Education has established three graduation plans from
which students choose: the Minimum Graduation Plan, the Recommended High School Program,
and the Distinguished Achievement Program. Appendix 2 provides a side-by-side comparison of the
specific requirements of each of these graduation programs. Compared to the 22 credits comprising
the minimum plan, 24 credits are required in the Recommended High School Program, including
another prescribed course in mathematics and additional credits in science, social studies, languages
Fewer credits in elective courses are necessary in the
other than English, and fine arts.
Recommended High School Program than in the minimum plan.
Since its implementation, the percent of students completing the Recommended High School
Program has increased, particularly as previous graduation plans such as the Advanced and Advanced
with Honors programs have been phased out. The Class of 1999 was the last to use the Advanced
and Advanced with Honors programs for graduation. The percent of students graduating under the
Recommended High School Program is expected to continue increasing; data for the Class of 2000
should be available by early March 2001.
Table 1. Students Graduating Under High School Programs Beyond the Minimum Program
Advanced with
Advanced
Distinguished
Recommended High
Class
Honors Program
Program
of
Achievement Program
School Program
Total
41.2%
12.1%
14.1%
1.4%
13.6%
1999
39.5%
14.6%
16.2%
0.66%
8%
1998
40.7%
19.4%
19.9%
0.05%
1.3%
1997
,
40.6%
19.7%
20.4%
0.09%
0.38%
1996
39.57%
18.6%
20.7%
0.1%
0.17%
1995
j
Many school districts provide the courses for the Recommended High School Program on site at the
variety of means: concurrent enrollment
campus. Other districts are offering this program through a
and junior colleges,
arrangements with neighboring districts, affiliation agreements with community
distance learning opportunities, or correspondence courses through universities. Texas Education
Code §56.304(g) requires that, by March of each year, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) provide to
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board a list of high school campuses whose students do
High School Program or the
not have the opportunity to complete either the Recommended
Distinguished Achievement Program (See Appendix 3.). In June and October 2000, TEA conducted
further investigation to follow up on the campuses not offering the Recommended High School
Program. Twenty alternative campuses and 1 regular instructional campus indicated that they only
offer the 22-credit Minimum Graduation Plan. The regular instructional campus is also anomalous
in that it provides its instruction through correspondence courses.
Additional information on student access to the Recommended High School Program for school
be available in February 2001.
year 2000-2001 will be reported to TEA by districts and will
Projected Areas of Most Need
It is anticipated that the availability of teachers will be more problematic for some courses if the
Recommended High School Program is the mandatory minimum. This study looks at the courses
Specifically, the courses examined
for which this change will likely pose the most severe difficulties.
Chemistry, Physics, and several languages
are Algebra II, Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC),
other than English. The languages are Spanish, French, and German, which are the courses most
Texas Education Agency and
Page 2
State Board for Educator Certification
January 2001
5
Appendix 4 provides 1999-2000
commonly taken currently by students in Texas high schools.
course completion data for the courses used in this study, including completions by grade level.
The three sciences listed above are included in this study because, in addition to mandating a course
in biology, the Recommended High School Program requires two other science credits.
Students
may choose these credits from IPC, chemistry, or physics. (The College Board Advanced Placement
and International Baccalaureate courses may be substituted where appropriate, and students may also
take Principles of Technology I in lieu of Physics.)
Table 2. Ways to Achieve the Three Required Science Credits
IPC
IPC
;
Biology
Biology
Biology
;
Chemistry
Chemistry
Physics
Physics
Review of Certification Requirements
The State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) is responsible for ensuring that persons are
qualified to serve in the public school system through the state's certification process. SBEC adopts
rules for certification requirements for classroom teachers and specifies requirements for assignment
of teachers and other public school personnel. The assignment requirements are delineated in 19
Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 230 Subchapter U, Assignment of Public School
Personnel.
Current certificate requirements for grades 9 through 12 course assignments (junior high, high
school, or all level assignments) are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Certificate Requirements
Certificate
Assignment
: Mathematics
Mathematics (Algebra I, Algebra II, and
Geometry)
1 Biology
Biology
Science Composite
Chemistry
Chemistry
Science Composite
Physics
Physics
Science Composite
Physical Science
Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC)
Chemistry
Physics
Science Composite
Teaching Field in Language of Assignment
Languages Other than English, Levels I and II
Texas Education Agency and
Page 3
January 2001
State Board for Educator Certification
6
Projected Need for Teachers in Specific Subject Areas: PEIMS Data Analysis
Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) data for 1999-2000 were analyzed by
TEA and used to develop projections for additional numbers of teachers needed for the
Recommended High School Program should it become the required minimum program. The earliest
possible implementation date for the Recommended High School Program as mandatory for
graduation was assumed to be the 2002-2003 school year, with ninth-grade students taking the
required courses over a four-year period. The projected numbers of teachers needed in specific
required subject areas are also based on other assumptions related to numbers of students per grade,
numbers of students per classroom, and numbers of educators certified in the specific areas. These
assumptions include a cohort of approximately 300,000 students, an average class size of 20 students,
and an average teaching load of 5.5 sections per full-time equivalent (FIE).
Given these
assumptions, it is estimated that about 2,750 additional 1-T.Es would be needed annually to teach each
of the required areas addressed in this study. Another key assumption is that the 1--1.Es teaching a
specific course are appropriately certified or hold permits to teach that course. More detail about the
assumptions used for this analysis can be found in Appendix 5.
Table 4 illustrates the additional demand for teaching staff in required courses in the three areas of
mathematics, science, and languages other than English, given an estimated increase in course
completions required for the Recommended High School Program. Four scenarios are depicted in
Table 4 based on possible reallocation of teachers. F1Es teaching nonrequired (elective) courses
who have appropriate certification are likely to be reallocated to teach additional sections of required
courses as demand increases. For example, should an additional class of the required course Algebra
II be needed, a teacher of a nonrequired course such as Mathematical Models might be reassigned to
accommodate the change. Likewise a teacher of an Astronomy class could instead teach the required
Physics course, and teachers of higher level of languages could teach Levels I and II. Appendix 6
provides the related nonrequired courses for which possible reallocation of 1-(lEs was considered in
this study.
The possible reallocation of 1-1.Es focuses on changes in teacher assignment from one course to the
other and on the issue of teacher certification for the specific assignment. A teacher needed for a
required algebra course may be certified in another area and not certified in the new assignment such
Table 4 provides scenarios depending on a certain percentage of teachers being
as algebra.
reassigned from one class to the classes required under the Recommended High School Program.
F1ES in related nonrequired courses include teachers whose areas of certification would allow them
to teach in the required courses with their current certification.
For example, Table 4 shows that 117,170 additional students would need to take Algebra II under
the increased requirements. Scenario 1 shows that 1,585 1-1Es were assigned to teach the course in
Fall 1999-2000. These FIEs are assumed to be certified individuals or those who hold permits to
teach algebra. There are 653 FT.Es teaching related nonrequired high school mathematics courses.
This scenario assumes that 100% of the 653 teachers could and would be reassigned to teach Algebra
With this reassignment of teachers, the estimated total number of I-TEs available to meet the
II.
demand to teach Algebra II is 2,238 (the sum of FlEs assigned in the fall and the reallocated FIEs).
Given the estimate of 2,750 teachers needed to meet demand, there would be a shortage of 512
teachers for Algebra II.
With all 1-1.Es m related nonrequired courses reassigned in the sciences, the shortage of IPC teachers
is estimated to be 642 and of Chemistry or Physics teachers to be 497 for a total deficit of 1,139
Ihs. If all students chose to take Chemistry and Physics and not take IPC (as they are encouraged
to do in the Recommended High School Program), the estimated shortage of science teachers would
still be 1,139 because the IPC teachers could be reassigned to teach either Chemistry or Physics.
Texas Education Agency and
Page 4
State Board for Educator Certification
January 2001
.
) ) )
)
6
_
9 4 6
9
1
_
L
5 4 3
2
_
9
A
3 1 5
9
_
,
, , ,
T
,
8
3 4 4
_
4
1
O
( ( (
_
(
5
_
T
_
i
_
_
0 2 7
5
8 2 2
0
9
7
2
2
1
_
7 5 5
1 5 5
5
1
5
I
6
I
_
4

n
_
,
5
a
_
m
_
_
r
e
_
G
_
_
2
_
0
3
4 9
2
9 9 0 9 9
0
1
)
0 0
1
) )
0
5
0
)
7
2
3 3
I
1
1
6
4
1
_
6 6 8 6 6
5
9
5
5 5
0
9
I
5
0
4 2
2
1

1 1 1 1 1
6
1
6
_
7
7 7
0
1
7
h
1
3 4
,
2
,
, ,
_
,
,
,
9
c
2
2 2
,
0
, ,
3
2
,
1
1 1
_
1
n
1
0
3
(
( (
_
(
e
3
1
r
_
F
_
_
6 3
7
0
6 0 6 6
4
6
6 0
4
_
2
0 3
0 6 0 0
5
0 7
7
6
I
_
I
1
1 2
1 3 1 1
1 1
2
7

_
h
, ,
, , , ,
, ,
,
1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1
_
s
4
_
i
S
n
1
_
E
a
_
p
G
_
S
A
_
U
i
i
i i i i
i
i

G

0
0
5
6
9 0
9
9
1 1
1 1
1
N
9
0
8
1
8 8
8 8
6
I
8

.
A
1
1
n
5
,
L
a
7

m
x
i
r
d
e
G
n
e
7 7
7 8
f
5 2 7
9
2
p
0
) )
0
0
7
1
) )
2
0 0
0
8
1 2
0 0
f
5 5
5 6
1
0 5
I
4
2
y
7
5
5
5
7
5 5
0
6
p

0 6
4 2
a
2 2
2 2
3 2
h
2
2
7
8
7
7 7
0
1
r
6 7
8 9
A
t
c
,
,
,
, ,
,
o
,
4
S
( (
( (
2
2
2 2
0
4
n

t
2
0
1
e

n
a
3
1
g
r
d
i
F
n

n
d
i
4
9
7
h
a
7 2 6
n
0
2 2 2 2
5
1
2 6
1
4 9 5
9 9 9 9
5
M
I
c
9
u

1
6
7 4 5
4 4 4 4
2
7
h
a
o
,
, , ,
, , , ,
,
s
1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1

e
3
f
s
i
5
n
T

i
e
1
a

m
b
p
r
S
o

n
a
f
r
a
i
i i i

i
g
d
.
c
_
0
o
0 0 0
n

3
_
s
4
4 4 4
6
_
r
a
s
i
6
6 6 6
6
P
_
m
s
c
_
,
y

i 7
s _
l
e
6
l
_
y
o
a
D
_
h
o
n
_
0 7 2 0
0
3
5
0
)
P
) ) )
3 0
0
1
1
1

7
7 3 8
h
_
5 4 1 5
a
8
3
5
4
5 5
0
0
7
l
6
9 0 3
_
7 1 1 7
1
a
1
c
7
2 7
7
0
5
4 6 6
_
s
, , , ,
,
,
, , ,
n
,
2 2
S
2 2 2 2
2 2
6
(
( ( (
2
2
6
2 2
0
_
i
7 7
7 7
3
o
7
h
0
_

S
4 4
4 4
6
h
y
_
3
i
t
, ,
E
, ,
,
t r
1 1
_

g
1 1
5
t
i
r
C
s
_
s
5
d
i
s
o
E
_
i
H
N
1
E
m
d
_
f
T
E

T
_
A

e
F
s
_
I
d
F
C
h
e

_

f

e
C
o
S
t
f
_
f
o
o
d
o
_
n

_
n
n
n

o
s
_
o
)
5

0 2 0
e
7
0
7 8 7 0 7
)
2
0 7
) )
8
1
i
8 0
1
_
3
i
d
2
t
2 8
3
i
5 0 5
6
6 6 6
7
6
3 5
8
5
4
m
0
a
1 0
s
t
_
8
1
4 4
a
e
7 0 7
9
1
9 9 9
9
6
0 7
7
1
3 0
c
y
_
7
7
6 7
, , ,
,
c
, , ,
,
t
,
, ,
,
,
s s
, ,
o
m
_
(
2 2 2
1
1 1 1
1
7
C
(
( (
l
2 2
2
2
2 0
a
o
e e
_
l
a
7
2 0
l
P
l
l
a
s s
_
o
l
n
e
2 3
a
I
r r
_
e
c
u u
A
r
e

R
_

o o
e
R
d
_

C C
R
%

.
_
i i
! !
i i i i i i
n
i
%
i
4

_

d d
0
a
_

e
0
0
)
3
5 2 5 8 0
3
) )
0
0 5 5
7
8 0
0 0
)
e e
0
5
0
e

5
2 8
_
2
5
6

h
8 1 8 4
5
8 8
5
2
5
3 7
3 5
s
0
8
r r
1
-
6
l
1 3
_
0
1
7
i i
5 9 5 7
5 5
6
S 3
7
8 1
7
2 7

n
5
0
b
t
u u

1
_
5 8
d
0
,
, , , ,
, ,
-
, ,

,
,
, ,
,
,
C
2
1 1 1 1
q q
1 1
,
o
_
2 7
( (
2

2
2 2
a
1
0
,
e
f
1
d
1
e e
_
8 1
I
I
I
0
l
T i
(
T
I
(
e
i
_
1 1
t
r r
a
3

n n
A
a
l
p
_
i
t
a
o o
r
r
_
M
m
u
b
t
_
N N
r
E
C
e
_
u
u

g
H
_
g g

C
s
s
l
_
n n
T
A

e
s
_
s
i i
A
h h
s
A
_
e
M
c c
r
_
s
u
a a
_
r
o
e e
_
u
C
_
T T
o
_

C

d
s s
_

E E
e
_
d
_
r
T T
e
i
_
u
F F
r
a
_
i
q
e
u

_
d
f f
e
0
d d d
r
0 0 0
d
q
o o
d
_
d
d
n
A
r
0
n n n
0 0 0
n
e

_
n
n
n
n
a
n n
0

a a a
0 0 0
a
_
r
a
e
a
o
a
m
d
o o 2
m m m
n
2 2 2
m
_
m
s
m
m
N
e
-
i i
o
s
- - -
s
e
_
r
s s
t t
e e e
9
9 9 9
d
e
e
a a
u
e
e

e
N
e
_
d
e e
d d d
9
d
9 9 9
e
d
d
o
c c
s
d
s
_
d

s s

9
e
t
9 9 9
e

r
C
t t t
o o
d

r
_

r r
e
t
t
e e e
u
1
t
0
t
u
t
u u
1 1 1
N
e
e
l l
_
e
e
e
e
a

e l e l e
o

0
o
r
o o

e
a a
e
_
l
e

e
t
m
l l l
l
e
s l s
m m m
c
s
0
l s l s l
c
a
e
c c
a
m
m
_
e e
a a a
m
m
E E
p

n
E E

2

l
R
F
_
d

R R
F F F
d
d d
e
o

o o o
o
T T

-
T T
_
s
o
o
e
o
e
o
e e

t
9
R

s
t t t
i
F F
s s s
o

t
_
F F
t
t
% %
t
r

t
r
t
r r
e
n
9
e
e

e e e
i
e e e

i
_
i i
N
d
u d

u d
u d u
l
f f
l
e
9
s
l
f f
l l l
s s s
l
0 5
b
_
o o
p
b b b
e
q e
o o
A
q e
q e q

r
d
1
r r r
a
_
5 2
-

m
u
a a a
e d
d

u u u
e d e
e d
) )
u

) )
_
l

g
- e o e
l l l 4
r e
e
i
o e o e o
r e r
r e
t
i i i
o - -
a

n
_
a a a
S
n n n
n
g c g

e
e
1
c g c g c
e
e
C
v
2 3
O
_
o
v v v

i o o
o
a a
n

n
a a

t
n
n
o
a
_
l
o o o

n
a a a

O
e
n n
n
t t
a

I

O O
t t
l

t
r r
_
s
t t t
R
a
s

r r
l
s
s

s
u
o o

d
p
s s s
I
o o
d
d d
d E
_
E
d d d
u
I I
E
R
E
E
n A
h h
E E E
e
m
R R
h h
e
e e
_
e
e e e
n
T
T
T
T
n
S T S
A
t
N
T S T S T
n
_
t t
t
A A
n n n
n
a
o
F
F
a a
A
F
a
F
F
( (
_
g
F F F
N
( (
g g g
A
E
l
C
N N

l l

l
e

_
e e
d d d
i
e
d
d d d
i i i
d
d
l
s
E

C

l l l
s s s
r
a
_
E E
r r
d
e e e
a a a
r
s
e
e e e
s
e
e
s s s

C
t
n
_
S
e
t t t
t
t t t
n n
t
C C
n
a
t t t
o
s
t
a a a
a a a
n
o o o
a
a a a
_
i
a
m
i i
S
i

a
T

m m m
e
T T T
S S

m
s s
_
m m m
m
s s s s s
s
e

u
d
E E

_
E E E E E
.
i i i
E
. . .
i
r i i i
t t t t
i
s
u
t
_
t t t t t t
T T
t
c
s s s s
T T T T T
s
s s s s s s
T
s
s
t
_
n
E E E E
F F
E
S E E E E E E
F F F F F
E
A
F
_
I
Overall, if all teachers of related nonrequired courses were reallocated, there would be shortage of
3,359 teachers across the three major subject areas of mathematics, sciences, and languages other
than English.
If half of the individuals teaching related nonrequired courses could be reallocated as shown in
Scenario 2, there would be a shortage of 838 teachers for Algebra II.
In the sciences the estimated
shortage of teachers is 1,279 teachers. With 50% reallocation of Fl Es, the shortage of Levels I and
II language teachers is 2,027. A total shortage of approximately 4,144 H.:Es would occur for the
three areas examined in this study.
Scenario 4 depicts the data if I- I hs m related nonrequired courses cannot be reallocated. Assuming
that no reallocation of F1'Es can occur, it is estimated that 1,165 additional mathematics teachers,
1421 science teachers, 920 teachers of languages other than English, Level I and 1,423 teachers of
would be
languages other than English, Level II would be needed.
Approximately 4,929
needed in total.
Projected Need for Teachers in Specific Subject Areas: A&M Survey
Additional information was gathered about estimated numbers of teachers needed if the
Recommended High School Program is the mandated minimum requirement for a diploma. At the
request of TEA and SBEC, the Institute for School-University Partnerships, Texas A&M System,
The survey, distributed to all
collected data in its Teacher Demand Survey related to this issue.
school districts in Fall 2000, included questions asking districts about the number of teachers they
would need in the areas of languages other than English and science should the Recommended High
School Program be mandated as the minimum plan for all students. Appendix 7 lists the specific
questions asked in the survey.
Districts projected that they would need an additional 1,530 certified teachers of languages other than
English and an additional 1,496 certified science teachers should the Recommended High School
Program become the minimum. These data look only at numbers of certified teachers needed and
do not take into account any possible reallocation of teachers based on the different course
requirements.
Cost Estimates
Using total reallocation and zero reallocation of 1-Ths in related nonrequired courses provides an
With 100%
estimated range of salary costs associated with the additional staff requirements.
reallocation of teachers, an additional 3,359 teachers would be necessary at an approximate cost of
If no reallocation of teachers could take place, 4,929 teachers would be
$140,000,000 annually.
These amounts are rounded up to
needed at an approximate annual cost of $200,000,000.
accommodate some of the increased benefits costs. Average salary is assumed to be about $37,840
based on 1999-2000 salary data reported in PEIMS for individuals classified as teachers and special
These cost estimates do not include any possible offsetting savings that might be
duty teachers.
realised if districts discontinue nonrequired (elective) courses in order to reassign certified personnel
to teach required courses.
Increased ongoing cost would also be associated with supervision and professional development for
the additional teaching positions. Cost estimates for these activities are not provided but would need
to be considered should the Recommended High School Program become the minimum graduation
Texas Education Agency and
Page 6
State Board for Educator Certification
January 2001
10