• Home
• Search
• Abstract
• Systemic Nature of Reform in Chicago >
  • How Systemic?
  • Studying the Systemic
• History and Context >
  • Timeline for Education Reform in Chicago
  • 1988 and Local Control of Education
  • 1994 Chicago Urban Systemic Initiative
  • 2000 Chicago Urban Systemic Program
  • 2002 CUSP to OMS to CMSI >
    • CMSI Logic Model
• Professional Development on Use of Instructional Materials >
  • Context >
    • What the Literature Tells Us
    • Teacher Recertification and Endorsement Policies
    • Changes in Professional Development Coordination
  • Aims, Actions, Adaptations >
    • Workforce Development and
      CMSI Professional Development >
      • Professional Development
        Leaders (PDLs)
    • The SEPUP Professional
      Development Story
    • Improved Instruction and
      CMSI Professional Development
    • Coherent Policies and
      CMSI Professional Development
  • Sustainability >
    • Scale: Developing Internal Scheduling and Databases
    • Fiscal and Personnel Stability
    • Teacher Buy In
• In-School Instructional Support >
  • Context >
    • What the Literature Tells Us
    • Some Contextual Factors Affecting
      the In-School Instructional
      Support Strategy's Design
  • Aims, Actions, Adaptations >
    • Original In-School Instructional Support Roles
    • The Strategy Within the CMSI Theory of Action
    • Initial Successes and Challenges
  • Sustainability
• Standards-Based Instructional Materials >
  • Context >
    • What the Literature Tells Us
    • Policies and Practices
  • Aims, Actions, Adaptations >
    • Improved Instruction and Standards-Based
      Instructional Materials
    • Workforce Development and
      Standards-Based Instructional Materials
    • Coherent Policies and
      Standards-Based Instructional Materials >
      • An Example of
        Assessing Teacher Learning
  • Sustainability
• University Courses on Mathematics and Science Content Knowledge >
  • Context >
    • What the Literature Tells Us
    • Supply and Distribution of Endorsed
      Math and Science Teachers
    • University Participation
    • Funding Availability
  • Aims, Actions, Adaptations >
    • Coherent Policies and
      University Courses Related
      to Teacher "Highly Qualified" Status
    • Meeting Workforce Needs
      for Content Knowledge
    • Improved Instruction
  • Sustainability >
    • Partnership Model Shifts
    • Funding Shifts
    • Accountability and Incentive Shifts
• Student Assessment and Program Evaluation >
  • Context:
    Measuring Student Achievement
  • Context:
    Role of Program Evaluation
  • Aims, Actions, Adaptations >
    • Improved Instruction
    • Workforce Development
    • Coherent Policies
  • Sustainability
• Outcomes >
  • Student Outcomes >
    • ISAT Studies >
      • ISAT
      • Types of ISAT Studies >
        • CMSI Research
          Summaries
        • CMSI %ME
          Longitudinal
          Studies Report
        • Effect Size Studies
        • Controlled Regression
          Studies
        • Professional Development
          Studies
        • Citywide Math
          Specialist Studies
        • Cross Study Implications
    • High School Algebra I
      for Middle Grades Studies
    • High School
      Student Outcomes
• References

University Courses on
Mathematics and Science Content Knowledge

Context: Supply and Distribution of
Endorsed Math and Science Teachers

Nationally, only two-thirds of grades 7 to 12 math and science classrooms were taught by teachers with certification or majors in those fields in 2000 (Blank, Langesen, Laird, & De Mello, 2003). Geography, salary, and working conditions influence teacher recruitment and retention. Within states, distribution of qualified math and science teachers is uneven; under-prepared teachers are more likely to teach students with lower socioeconomic status. Also, the type of teacher preparation impacts retention rates. Retention rates after three years are lower for graduates of shorter teaching programs than for graduates of regular 4- and 5-year teaching programs (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003).

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 aimed to provide, among other things, federal incentives and mandates for states and their school districts to improve the quality of teachers, especially those in the most difficult-to-staff schools. When NCLB took effect (in school year 2002-2003), the law required all teachers in Title I programs to have a full certificate, a bachelor’s degree, and to demonstrate competence in every core subject they taught. ^cite These teachers would then meet the NCLB definition of “Highly Qualified.” All teachers of core academic subjects in K-12 public schools were required to meet the Highly Qualified requirement by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.

In 2002-03, Chicago Public School teachers met the NCLB Highly Qualified standards as follows:

The shortage of qualified CPS high school science teachers varied by discipline. The district especially needed teachers in physics and earth/space science, and chemistry and biology teachers to a lesser extent. CPS middle grade math and science classrooms held the fewest teachers who met NCLB standards, and the Chicago Math & Science Initiative (CMSI) focused on this area from 2002-2008.