Triple Pay Off:
The Leap to Teacher Program
Implications for Adult Education, Public Schools and Communities
November 2011
December 2011
Mimi Abramovitz
Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College, CUNY
The Graduate Center, City University of New York
Debby D’Amico
Joseph S. Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies,
School of Professional Studies, City University of New York
with Joanne Mason and Iris DeLutro
Joseph S. Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies,
School of Professional Studies, City University of New York
0
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
About the Murphy Institute
The Murphy Institute was established in collaboration with the City University of New York and New York
City labor unions more than 26 years ago. As a University-wide Institute, it meets its mandate to: 1)
increase higher education opportunities for working adults; 2) meet the city and state’s workforce
development needs; and 3) advance the study of labor and urban issues, policies, and practices. In
addition to expanding higher educational opportunities for working adult students, it serves as a resource
to the labor, academic, and broader community seeking a deeper understanding of labor and urban
issues.
About the Authors
Deborah D’Amico, PhD (Anthropology) has worked as an applied anthropologist in the field of adult,
worker and union education for more than twenty years. She has published articles on adult and worker
education and on workforce development policy and was the recipient of a National Literacy Leader
Fellowship. Dr. D’Amico has developed and administered a wide range of programs for union members,
and evaluated workforce development and education initiatives for unions, adult literacy programs and
other stakeholders.
Mimi Abramovitz, DSW, Bertha Capen Reynolds Professor at the Silberman School of Social Work at
Hunter College and the CUNY Graduate Center. Dr. Abramovitz has published numerous books and
articles on women, poverty, employment, human rights and the U.S. welfare state. She is currently
researching the history of low-income women’s activism in the U.S. and the impact of social policy on
human service agency and workers. Dr. Abramovitz has received prestigious awards from major
professional associations and was recently inducted into the Columbia University School of Social Work
Hall of Fame. An activist and a scholar, Dr. Abramovitz serves on various policy making, foundation and
community boards.
Page 1
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
Triple Pay Off:
The Leap to Teacher Program
IMPLICATIONS FOR ADULT EDUCATION, PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES
Executive Summary
Policy makers, government officials, employers, and educators increasingly recognize the importance of
postsecondary education programs for adult workers. Yet few studies document the success or failure of
students – whether they are adult workers or not – who enroll in college on a part-time basis (currently
one fourth of the college population). Nor do they document how part-time students view their educational
experience or suggest how institutions of higher education can best serve this population.
This Report fills this gap by examining the LEAP To Teacher (LTT) program at Queens College, a program
that was established by the Murphy Institute and the City University of New York (CUNY) to help
paraprofessionals working in New York City public schools earn a teaching degree. The study reached out
to more than 300 LTT alumni to learn directly from them what worked and did not work for adult learners
as they pursued a college degree, teacher certification and/or the continuing education requirements
needed to retain employment as a paraprofessional.
The LTT students entered the program after many years employed as paraprofessionals in New York City
public schools. Their interest in a teaching career was fueled by a deep commitment – and in many cases a
strong passion, to help children develop into successful adults. The research found that supporting
paraprofessional career ladders yielded “a triple payoff.” 1) The adult learners advanced personally,
financially, and professionally. 2) New York City gained experienced teachers who remained on the job
longer than the national average. 3) The City benefited from higher levels of civic engagement as teachers
became more involved in their communities, schools, unions, and public affairs.
The alumni in this study gave the LTT program high marks. They especially appreciated that it addressed
their need to balance work and family responsibilities and that they had access to tuition benefits
negotiated by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). The program helped the students stay the course
and advance in their chosen teaching career. Examining the graduation rate for the total LTT population
that entered the program between 1996 and 2009 (706 students in all) and not just the survey
respondents, reveals an impressive rate of success when compared to national averages. The national
graduation rate for all part-time students who may take up to 8 years to complete their baccalaureate
degree is 25% and less than 11% for students who are over 25 at the time they enrolled. By contrast, of
the 706 mostly part time students enrolled in the LTT program more than 43% graduated. The LTT alumni
also remained in the New York City public school system. One half of all teachers who enter the teaching
profession nationwide leave within five years (more in schools serving poorer children). In contrast, almost
60 percent of the LTT study participants remained not only in the profession, but in the NYC public school
system for more than 6 years.
This report provides strong evidence for the value of college education for paraprofessionals and for the
importance of student support. The investment pay offs in the retention of experienced teachers
committed to NYC schools. The findings take on greater importance in the current environment, which is
not especially sympathetic to public institutions or public school teachers. In the context of budget
shortfalls and teacher layoffs, the LTT program continues to prepare teachers, especially for high need
areas.
Page 2
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
THE LEAP TO TEACHER PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
For generations, the words "college student" meant someone who went to college straight from high
school, lived in a dorm, was financially dependent on his or her parents, and earned a degree in four
years. Since the 1970s, this picture has been changing, and today, fully three-fourths of all college
students no longer fit the traditional model. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics,
about half of today's students are financially independent; 49% are enrolled part-time; 38% work full
time; and 27% have dependents of their own.
Fully three-quarters of all college students
Almost half, --12 million--attend two-year
community colleges rather than four-year schools.
no longer fit the traditional model: 49% are
Today’s “nontraditional” adult learners are the new
enrolled part-time, 38% work full-time,
American majority on campus.1 Found in nearly
27% have dependents of their own.
every higher education institution and program,2
Today's "non-traditional" learners are the
they are single mothers, police officers, veterans,
new majority on campus.
teacher aides, construction workers, health care
workers, public and private sector employees and
the unemployed seeking new careers. Many have
been out of school for years, and are thus considered adult learners. Women outnumber men among
college students, and are more likely than male students to be responsible for younger or older
dependents. This sea change in the population seeking college degrees, in turn, poses critical challenges
to the conventions and assumptions that inform how institutions of higher education can best serve adult
learners.
Adult learners now represent a significant and growing segment of postsecondary education. They bring
needs that differ in important ways from those of “traditionally-aged” college students.3 This report
examines the experiences of working adult paraprofessionals in New York City schools who enroll in
college to become teachers through the Leap to Teacher (LTT) program of the Joseph S. Murphy Institute
for Work Education and Labor Studies of the City University of New York. This research explores issues
vital to the success of adult working students and describes: 1) the unique characteristics and experiences
of LTT program participants; 2) their assessment of the role of the LTT program and of their overall
educational experience in helping them pursue a college degree; 3) the impact of the program on their
personal, family, and community life; and 4) the implications of the findings for public policy. To this end,
this study surveyed all 307 alumni who graduated from college and the Leap to Teacher Program (LTT)
between 1996 and 2009. The LTT program was developed by the Labor Education and Advancement
Project (LEAP) at Queens College and continued by its successor organization, CUNY’s Joseph S. Murphy
Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies.
HISTORY OF THE PROGRAM
Queens College was established in 1937 as a four-year college granting baccalaureate degrees.
Created to serve the needs of a growing population in the borough of Queens, including newly arrived
immigrant families, the College currently offers a total of 100 degrees at the undergraduate and
Master’s levels.4 In 1984, LEAP was established at Queens to serve the higher education needs of union
members and working adults. Programs offered through LEAP are the product of a unique partnership
between the college and the New York City labor movement. Over the past 27 years, LEAP staff have
developed an approach to worker education that includes intensive free support services, such as
Page 3
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
individualized academic advising, career counseling, academic support, and free preparation for the
CUNY admissions exam.
In the mid-1990s, when the LEAP program began collaborating with the United Federation of Teachers
(UFT) and adapted these services to address the educational needs of UFT members, the LTT program
was born. The resulting program targeted paraprofessionals who needed to earn college credits to
qualify for a salary increase, pursue a teaching degree, or embark on a related field of study. The
paraprofessionals served by LTT and using UFT negotiated tuition benefits may choose any subject or
major in any field. However, this study focuses on those who chose to become teachers. LTT’s worker
education mission was evident in its intensive academic guidance and support services, along with classes
held at times convenient for working paraprofessionals. Combined with the paraprofessional’s tuition
benefit, offered through the New York City Department of Education’s Career Training Program and
covering 6 credits per semester, these worker education services quickly attracted paraprofessionals to
the program.
In 1996 soon after LTT began serving paraprofessionals, New York State announced new teacher
education requirements scheduled to take effect in 2004. Anticipating how these new requirements might
affect degree completion by the paraprofessionals enrolled in the program, LTT and the UFT partnered
with the New York City Board of Education and the Queens College Department of Education to create a
teacher-education pathway that bridged the old and new requirements for those already enrolled in
teaching degree programs. Launched in spring of 2000, the new bridge program allowed
paraprofessionals to complete their certification using work time at the schools where they were currently
working. The alumni interviewed for this Report include the pilot group of 55 paraprofessionals who
participated in the bridge program and succeeded in becoming teachers. Forty-two of these (77%)
eventually attained both a Bachelor’s and a Master’s degree.
Since its inception in 1996, the LTT Program at Queens College has served 706 paraprofessionals. By
summer 2009, the time of this study, 307 or 43.5% of these students had graduated.5 Many also earned
Master's degrees and some returned to teach at the same New York City public schools where they
worked as paraprofessionals. Moreover, LTT participants who have become teachers have continued
teaching longer than typical new entrants to the teaching profession, more than half of whom leave the
field within their first five years. Redressing the lack of national data on graduation rates for part time
college students in public universities, a recently released report by Complete College America based on
data from 33 states found that 4 out of every 10 public college students attend a 4 year college on a
part time basis. However, no more than one quarter ever graduate, even less for students of color, low
income and older students that mirror the LTT students. For many the problem stems from the lack of time
due to the need to juggle work, family and school.6
Partly due to the success of the LTT initiative, in 2005 the Queens College Worker Education program
became the Joseph S. Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies, a program of the School
for Professional Studies at CUNY. This change enabled the Murphy Institute to expand by serving union
members and working adults at CUNY campuses in each of the five boroughs of New York City. As a
result, the LTT program has expanded beyond Queens College to serve paraprofessionals at Lehman
College in the Bronx, Brooklyn College and the College of Staten Island. The 486 paraprofessionals
currently enrolled in the LTT program account for nearly half of the 1014 paraprofessionals served
throughout the University. As such it is the largest program for paraprofessionals within CUNY. In addition
to the LTT program, the Murphy Institute offers undergraduate and graduate degree and certificate
programs in Urban Studies and Labor Studies. Its Labor Advisory Board includes representatives of 23
unions, including the UFT.
Page 4
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
With its CUNY-wide mandate, the Murphy Institute transformed LTT into a more comprehensive program.
Upon admission, LTT matches paraprofessionals at each campus with an academic advisor who helps
students manage the complexities of credit allocation and who keeps them moving toward graduation. In
addition to this academic counseling, the program offers general counseling, peer support and
specialized workshops on teacher certification, exam preparation, test-taking anxiety, tutoring and
preparation for the CUNY admissions exam-- all at no cost to the student. Finally the program’s
convenient locations and timely class schedules allow students to complete the courses they need for
degrees while working full-time. LTT also supports entry into and completion of Master's degrees,
particularly in specialty shortage areas such as special education, bilingual education, math and science,
in keeping with new requirements and opportunities for teachers in New York City.
THE PROBLEM ADDRESSED: TEACHER TURNOVER AN D RETENTION
The LTT program arose in response to a prevailing teacher shortage. The LTT staff concluded that in
addition to increasing access to higher education for working adults, the nearly 20,000 paraprofessionals
working in New York City classrooms represented an untapped resource that--with a college degree-could potentially help to fill the City’s mounting teacher shortage. Based on the expected rise in student
enrollment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) predicted that the employment of teachers would grow by
13 percent between 2008 and 2018--about as fast as the average for all occupations. This included
16% for elementary, 15% for middle, and 9% for secondary school teachers. By 2009 some 3.6 million
full-time equivalent (FTE) elementary and secondary school teachers worked in schools nationwide; 3.1
million of these in the nation’s public schools. 7 Projected enrollment rates varied somewhat by region,
with less growth expected in the Northeast, However, the BLS reported that “many inner cities—often
characterized by overcrowded, ill-equipped schools and higher-than-average poverty rates—and rural
areas—characterized by their remote location and relatively low salaries—have difficulty attracting and
retaining enough teachers.”8 Persistent chronic teacher attrition has compounded teacher shortages
especially in hard-pressed areas. Every school day, nearly a thousand teachers leave the field. Another
thousand change schools, many in pursuit of better working conditions. And these figures do not include
the teachers who retire.9 From 2007-2009, eight percent of public school teachers left the field
nationwide.10 In 2006-2007 New York City employed almost 78,000 public school teachers, with an
annual turnover rate of 9.5% (latest available data).11 Of the 6,892 new hires that year, New York City
lost more than 12 % after Year 1 and more than 25% after Year 2.12 Nationally, 50% of all certified
public school teachers permanently leave the profession before the end of their fifth year of teaching.13
Some leave for personal reasons such as pregnancy, health problems, childcare, and family relocation.
However, more than two thirds of the “leavers” (other than retirees) depart due to job dissatisfaction (i.e.
lack of support; poor working conditions; lack of influence on school policy; the pursuit of a new career). 14
Other related data indicate that the teacher attrition has grown by 50% over the past fifteen years and
that the national teacher turnover rate has risen to 16.8 percent. In urban schools it is over 20%. In some
schools and districts, the teacher dropout rate is actually higher than the student dropout rate. 15
As in many other cities nationwide, the New York City school system looses too many teachers because
they change professions, take higher paying jobs in private schools or outside the city, burn out, or retire.
Increasingly budget cuts play a role. Since 2007, New York City schools have endured an average of
13.7 percent in budget cuts.16 In June 2011 the city averted a loss of teachers.17 However due to a three
percent cut in the statewide teacher workforce18 in October 2011 more than 700 school aides, parent
coordinators and other school support staff lost their jobs. Most of these workers are black or Latino
women, many of whom are single mothers who work in the same schools their children attend. Some of
their tasks could fall to teachers.
Page 5
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
The exit of teachers from city schools due to attrition or budget cuts is costly. It drains resources,
diminishes teaching quality, and undermines the ability to close the student-achievement gap. Students
miss out on the value of being taught by an experienced teacher and schools incur the cost of recruiting
and training their replacements.19 In 2007 The National Commission on Teaching and Education’s Future
estimated that teacher turnover costs over $7.3 billion a year.20 This does not count the less tangible costs
that result from churning of teachers and the loss of teacher experience.
In the current context of budget cuts, teacher layoffs, loss of support staff, and education reform many
have concluded that the role of experienced and committed teachers has the most significant impact on
student learning and achievement.21 This study suggests that the LTT program successfully supports
degree completion among a racially diverse population of students who face all of the challenges faced
by working adults attending college, especially
In 2007 The National Commission on
women who must balance school, work and family
responsibilities. That many of the students in the
Teaching and Education’s Future estimated
study were locally rooted in the communities in
that teacher turnover costs over $7.3 billion
which they worked also addresses the need for
a year. This does not count the less
well-trained professional educators committed to
tangible costs that result from churning of
long-term careers in their own communities. The
teachers and the loss of teacher
program contributes a steady supply of more
experience.
experienced teachers in areas of greatest need as
well as teachers who demonstrate a strong
commitment to students, to local communities, and
to civic engagement. In good times or bad, it holds out the promise of slowing teacher attrition and
otherwise helping to stem the ordinary outflow of teachers.
METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION
As of 2008, the LTT program had graduated 307 students, including many teachers. In 2009, the Murphy
Institute commissioned a survey of the LTT alumni. The findings reported here examine the alumni’s current
employment situation and plans; what attracted them to LTT; their experience with and assessment of the
LTT program; how they managed their work, school, and family responsibilities; and the impact of their
college education on their work, daily life, views about New York City public education, and civic
participation. The project was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Hunter College, CUNY.
The research employed a mix of phone and mail surveys. Of the 307 alumni, 52 could not be contacted
(phone numbers were no longer active and new numbers were not found in the online white pages which
locates phone numbers using a street address) and 62 did not respond to phone calls. That left 193
alumni who could be contacted. Seventy alumni (70) responded to these phone calls (43 teachers and 27
Paraprofessionals). A follow-up survey was mailed to 179 non-responding alumni for whom the project
had a current address. Twenty-one alumni (21) responded to this mailing, (14 teachers and
7paraprofessionals). All told 57 teachers and 34 paraprofessionals responded to the survey. Of these,
91 surveys could be used (see Table 1).
Respondents are identified by numbers throughout this report rather than the names to protect the
identity of the respondents.
Page 6
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
Table 1. Respondents by Type
Phone Calls Made
Surveys Mailed
Responses
Phone calls
Mailed surveys
Completed Full Survey
Completed Partial Survey
All Alumni Teachers Para Total Included NA
193
179
95
57
34
91
4
72
43
27
70
2
23
14
7
21
2
57
7
64
0
27
27
The 95 respondents represented 30.9% of all 307 alumni. However, the phone interviews produced
better results than the mailed survey. The 70 phone respondents represented 36.2% of the 193 phone
calls. The 21 mailed responses represented 11.7% of all the 179 mailed surveys.
The original list of LTT alumni did not indicate who became teachers and who remained paraprofessionals
after they graduated, so no response rate could be calculated for each of these groups separately.
The initial research plan only sought to interview alumni who became teachers. If the interviewer reached
an alumni who had remained a paraprofessional, she explained that this survey was for teachers,
collected limited data, thanked the person, and ended the interview. It was later decided that it would
be useful to have more information about the impact of LTT on paraprofessionals as well as teachers.
Resources did not permit a full scale mailing. However, surveys were mailed to the 38 paraprofessionals
who had responded to the phone call but who then had been exited from the interviews. Of the 64 full
interviews, 57 were with a teacher and 7 with a paraprofessional. The 64 full interviews represented
21% of the 307 LTT alumni.
The research was conducted by Mimi Abramovitz, Bertha Capen Reynolds Professor of Social Policy,
Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College, CUNY and a member of the Consortial Faculty of
the Murphy Institute and Debby D’Amico, Senior Program Developer, Murphy Institute, with Iris DeLutro,
LTT Coordinator; and Joanne Mason, Queens Campus Site Coordinator. Kristen Meehan, Kristy Perez,
Rebecca Steinfield, and Teija Sudol, Hunter College School of Social Work students, conducted telephone
interviews with LTT alumni during the summer of 2009.
Beatriz A. Gil at the Murphy Institute provided invaluable assistance in the preparation and design of the
final report as did Cynthia Tao who entered all the data in the Statistical Program for the Social Sciences
(SPSS).
Page 7
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
A PORTRAIT OF THE LEAP TO TEACHER PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
Demographics
The respondents in this study were reasonably, though not fully, representative of all 307 LTT alumni and
teachers nationally.
Gender. The overwhelming majority of all LTT alumni, LTT respondents, and teachers nationwide are
women. However, female representation among LTT alumni (94%) and survey respondents (90%) was
significantly higher than it is among school teachers nationwide, where women comprised 76% of the
public schools and 74% of private school teachers (2007–2008, latest available data).22
Age. The majority of all LTT respondents (62%) were over age 50, including 60.4% of the teachers and
71% of the smaller sample of paraprofessionals. Nationally, 32.1% of teachers are over age 50. Within
the LTT study population, 32.3% of the teachers and 14.3% of the paraprofessionals were under age
50, compared to 67.9% nationally (see Table 2). We do not know if the LTT respondents are
representative of all LTT alumni as age data for the latter group was not available. However, the older
age of the LTT group suggests that the program participants may have spent years as a
paraprofessional before deciding to become teachers and/or that long-term paraprofessionals, in
particular, were attracted by the opportunity provided by the LTT program (see Table 2).
Table 2. Age of LTT Alumni and US Teachers
Age
Under 30
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 and over
No Answer
Total
LTT Respondents
All
Teachers
%
N
%
N
1.7%
1
1.9%
1
11.6%
7 13.3%
7
16.8% 10 17.1%
9
46.8% 28 47.1% 25
15.1%
9 13.3%
7
6.7%
4
5.7%
3
100% 60
100% 53
Paras
%
0%
0%
14.3%
42.9%
28.6%
14.3%
100%
N
0
0
1
3
2
1
7
US 2007-200823
National
%
N (000)
18.2%
637
26.1%
914
23.6%
826
25.7%
900
6.4%
224
NA
NA
100%
3501
Race. The majority of LTT respondents (71.7%), all LTT alumni (53.4%) are white, perhaps due in part to
the high proportion of white people living in the zip codes nearest to Queens College. The share of white
LTT respondents and alumni mirrored but fell far below the percent (82.9%) of white teachers nationally.
Both the LTT survey respondents and all LTT alumni included more persons of color than the national
teacher workforce. Persons of color comprised 28.3% of the LTT respondents and 46.6% of all LTT alumni
compared with 17% of the national teacher workforce. Hispanics represented 16.7% of survey
respondents and 30.8% of LTT alumni. The share of blacks and Asian/Pacific Islander/Alaskans was
lower and were about the same in both groups (see Table 3).
Interestingly the share of white LTT alumni (53.4%) mirrors the Queen College undergraduate population
(46.2%) as does the share of black and Asian/Pacific Islander/Alaskan students. However, the LTT
program drew about one-third more Hispanic students and far fewer Asian/Pacific Islander/Alaskan
students than are found among the larger Queens College student body.
Page 8
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
Table 3. Racial Distribution of All LTT Alumni and Survey Respondents
All LTT
Respondents
RACE
White Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
More than one race
Total
N
43
10
4
2
0
1
60
%
71.7%
16.7%
6.7%
3.3%
0.0%
1.6%
100%
All LTT
Alumni
N
%
118 53.4%
68 30.8%
17 7.7%
11 4.9%
7
3.2%
0
0.0%
221 100%
Queens College 2007-2009
Undergraduate National24
2010-2011
(000)
%
N
46.2% 2902
18.6%
46
9.4% 242
25.6% 277
0.0%
0
0.0%
34
100% 3401
%
83.1%
7.0%
7.0%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
100%
E THNICITY . We do not have data on the ethnic backgrounds of all LTT alumni. However, the majority of
survey respondents identified as mixed heritage (28.8%), Italian (16.9%), Irish (10.2%) and South
American (8.5%). Most of those who identified as mixed heritage indicated a background of mixed
Caucasian populations (e.g. Irish- Italian, Irish German, etc). Only one was interracial. These numbers are
of limited value, since 16.9% of the respondents chose “other” and 44% chose not to answer this
question.
Employment and Educational Background
Since its inception, the LTT Program at Queens College has served 706 paraprofessionals. Among the 95
survey respondents, 57 (60%) were teachers, the primary focus of the survey. Thirty-four alumni (40%)
had not transitioned from paraprofessional to teacher for reasons that included lack of certification,
inability to find a job, or decision to change careers among others. Four others were unclear.
Graduation Record. A recent study of graduation rates of part time students by Complete College
America found that only 24.3% percent graduated within 8 years from time of entry to graduation,
compared to 60% for full time students (until this study by Compete College America there was no
national data on graduation rates for part time students). In comparison, by summer 2009, the time of
this study, 307 (or 43.5%) of the 706 LTT program participants (nearly all part timers) had graduated.
From the time of their admission to the Queens College LTT program, 222 of the 307 paraprofessionals
(73%) graduated within 8 years, while 83 or 27% took 9 or more years to graduate. It is important to
note that among those who took 8 years, the vast majority (190 of 222) entered with some prior credits,
while those who took 9 years were almost as likely to be new college students as transfers (39 freshman
and 44 transfers). From another vantage, the 222 paraprofessionals who graduated within 8 years
represent 31% of all 706 program participants compared to 12% (83) who took 9 or more years to
graduate. The remaining 399 includes those who may not have intended to pursue a degree.
Page 9
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
Table 4. LTT Alumni by When Started College and Years to Graduate
When Started College
Before 1996 1996 or later
Total
Graduated
Years to Graduate
8 years or less
9 years or more
Not graduated as
of 2009
Total
Total
Program
Participants
N
45
66
%
40%
60%
N
177
18
%
91.0%
0.9 %
N
222
83
%
73%
27%
N
222
83
401
%
31%
12%
57%
110
100%
195
100.0%
305
100%
706
100%
Exposure to the LTT program made a significant difference. The paraprofessionals who were admitted to
Queens College when the LTT program was in place (1996 or later) were more likely to graduate within
8 years (91%) than those with less exposure to the LTT program (0.9%)(see Table 4). Fully 80% of the
paraprofessionals who took 8 years or less to graduate enrolled in LTT in 1996 or later, while 78% of
paraprofessionals admitted prior to the inception of LTT took 9 or more years to graduate (see Table 5).
Table 5. LTT Alumni by Years to Graduate and When Started College
When Started College
Since LTT (1996 or Later )
Before LTT (Before 1996)
Total Alumni
Years to Graduate
8 years or less 9 years or more
N
%
N
%
177
80.0%
18
22.0%
45
20.0%
65
78.0%
222
100%
83
100%
Total
N
%
195 64.0%
110 36.0%
305 100%
Employment. Unlike many other new teachers who have little or no teaching experience, the LTT
respondents come to teaching after working for many years as paraprofessionals in New York City and
they remained in the system.25 Nearly 90% worked in the public schools at the time of their application;
less than 5% worked in a private school. Just over 3% had switched to teaching from another occupation,
and 1.6% were not employed at the time. This dedication to working in the New York City public school
system bodes well for future retention. National data show that almost 50% of new teachers leave within
five years. That is, teachers new to the profession are far more likely to leave than their more seasoned
counterparts.26
College Major. As undergraduates, almost 70% of the LTT respondents majored in education, frequently
early childhood or elementary school education linked to a major in psychology or sociology. As Master’s
students, many went on to major in special education.
College Degree. Most of the LTT respondents (78.8%) had either completed a Master’s Degree or were
enrolled (10.5%) in a Master’s Degree program at the time of this study. This mirrors the pattern among
New York State teachers, where the highest degree earned was the Master’s for 77.6% of the teachers
Page 10
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
and the Bachelors for 11.8 %.27 At the national level, the percentages were a lower 42.8% and 49.1%
respectively. More than half of the LTT respondents (52%) completed their Master’s degree at a CUNY
college, including 46% at Queens College or 6% at other CUNY colleges. Forty-eight percent (48%)
attended a private college for their graduate education.
Certification. New York State requires teachers, administrators, and pupil personnel service providers to
hold a state certificate in order to be employed in the State’s public schools. Issued by the Office of
Teaching Initiatives, the certificates ensure that an individual has satisfied the degree, coursework,
assessment and experience requirements. Some paraprofessionals attended college and participated in
the LTT program to be certified and thus to qualify for a higher paraprofessional salary; others wanted
to become teachers. One third (33.3%) of the LTT respondents obtained an initial certificate only. This
entry-level certificate allows one to teach for five years and can lead to a permanent certificate which is
valid for life.28 More than 85% of the LTT respondents received this initial certificate after obtaining their
bachelor’s’ degree; 12.5% did so after obtaining their Master’s degree. However, the majority--nearly
two thirds (64.8%)--qualified for the advanced permanent certificate needed to pursue a teaching
career. Reflecting the changes in the LTT program over time (see History), the largest number of
respondents, 54.1%, received their initial certification between 2001 and 2005 followed by 24.9 %
between 2006 and 2010 and 20% from 1992 to 2000.
Reasons for Returning To School
Researchers have found that working adults between 35 and 50 years of age (or what some refer to as
“nontraditional” students or adult learners) enroll in college for specific reasons such as to improve their
career prospects with expanded qualifications and/or to pursue personal enrichment goals.29 A 2005
survey of adults by the National Center for Education Statistics identified the reasons why working adults
enrolled in formal work related programs (not just higher education) (see Table 6).
Table 6. Reasons for Participation in Formal Work Related Programs
Reason
Number (000)
To maintain or improve skills or knowledge you already had
54,050
To learn new skills or methods you did not already know
47,163
To help get a raise or promotion
10,595
To get a new job with a different employer
5,711
To get or to keep a state, industry, or company certificate or license
23,697
Because you were required to take it
38,882
Total
57,004
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Adult Education Survey of the 2005 National Household Education Surveys Program.30
Percent
95.0%
83.0%
19.0%
10.0%
42.0%
63.0%
100%
Merriam and Caffarella add that adult education programs in general fulfill a wider range of goals.
These programs may: (1) assist people with practical adult life issues; (2) prepare people for current and
future work opportunities; (3) encourage continuous individual growth and development; (4) assist
organizations to achieve desired results and adapt to change; and (5) provide opportunities to examine
community and societal issues, foster change for the common good, and promote a civil society. 31
Page 11
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
Table 7. Reasons for Enrolling in Adult Education
Reason
Gain a personal sense of accomplishment.
Learn about things that interest them
Earn a higher income
Change to a different career/industry
Become an expert in my field
Be a better role model for their children or other youth
Do their job better
Gain respect at their job
Overcome disadvantages they have experienced in life
Gain respect from family and friends
Advance within their company
Start or expand their own company
Have a greater positive influence in their community
%
81.0%
78.0%
71.0%
65.0%
59.0%
58.0%
55.0%
49.0%
49.0%
48.0%
48.0%
41.0%
39.0%
The LTT respondents saw higher education as a route to greater economic security but also to greater
personal growth. As Table 6 shows, equal numbers listed personal enrichment (88%) and a higher salary
(88%). Equal proportions also wanted a stable job (73%) and a more challenging job (72%). Fifty-five
percent sought a career change while others framed their interest in terms of time: summer off (37%) and
convenient work hours (30%). These last reasons suggest the need for supports that help students balance
work and family life responsibilities.
Table 8. LTT Alumni Reasons for Seeking Higher Education
Reason
Personal Enrichment
Higher Salary
Stable Job
More Challenging Job
Career Change
Summers Off
Convenient Work Hours
% of LTT
Respondents
88.0%
88.0%
73.0%
72.0%
55.0%
37.0%
30.0%
Why Paraprofessionals Want To Teach
In the current economic downturn and political context, teachers have become scapegoats blamed for
failing schools and city and state budget problems. The work that teachers do, the problematic contexts
in which they do it, and the pay they actually receive are often not discussed or are misrepresented.
Likewise, their motives for teaching are poorly understood and/or not even part of the conversation. Yet,
when asked why they teach, teachers across the U.S. answer that they want to instill knowledge, make the
world a better place, and motivate the next generation to live up to their potential. They express love for
the children they teach, and they aspire to inspire. They say they enjoy the challenge of getting students
Page 12
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
to listen, learn, and contribute to society. Data on the profession show that most teachers are under-paid,
over-worked, but dedicated professionals, who
are often unfairly attacked by politicians.32
“I love to see the spark in a child’s eye when
LTT participants choose a teaching career for the
they get it!” LTT graduate
reasons indicated above, as well as others. Some
focused on practical aspects of the job such as
“time working as a para would carry over into
teaching” (#70), “the salary and personal enrichment” (#285), “I wanted the same schedule as my
children”(#141), “convenient hours”(#26), and “my education was paid for, so why not?” (#26).
Many more reported a strong interest, indeed a passion, for working with children. They said, “I found
working with children to be very gratifying” (#155). “I really liked working with children” (#305), “Loved
cheering students when I was a para” (#234), “it was a good way for me to give to students” (#4), “I
love to see the spark in a child’s eye when they get it!” (#147) Still others wanted to influence their
student’s future thinking and behavior: “As a para, I liked building up the children’s self-esteem” (#234),
“my passion for shaping young lives into good citizens and preparing them for the future“(# 141), “to
support them in being more open and ready to learn and helping to shape their behavior in a positive
way” (#234),“I had good teachers in school and I wanted to be a role model for kids “(#44).
The Need to Balance School Work and Family R esponsibilities
Most of the paraprofessionals interested in the LTT program have worked in the New York City public
school system for many years and bring a rich background of life and work to the classroom drawn from
their various roles as spouses, parents, employees and community members. However, these multiple roles
can make it difficult for students to balance work, school, and family life especially for the women who
make up 90% of the LTT alumni and 94% of the
survey respondents. Like other women, they
Eighty-two percent of the LTT respondents
continue to perform the bulk of family work.
care for one or more children, including 17
Eighty-two percent of the LTT respondents care
for one or more children, including 17 percent
percent who cared for three or more children.
who cared for three or more children. Only 18%
The balancing act becomes even more
no longer had children at home. The student’s
challenging for low-income women who are
caretaking responsibilities often extended
sole breadwinners and also carry primary
beyond the immediate family. Forty-six percent
responsibility for managing the home.
provided care to people other than their
children. These included a spouse/partner
(69.9%), an aging parent (21.4%), relatives
other than spouse/partner (14.8%), children of
relatives (14.8%), a disabled relative (11.1%), and a disabled child (3.8%). The balancing act becomes
even more challenging for low-income women who are sole breadwinners and also carry primary
responsibility for managing the home. Yet adult learners often underestimate and society often overlooks
the toll that the effort to balance these multiple demands takes on the well-being of students and their
families.
Page 13
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
ASSESSING THE LEAP TO TEACHER (LTT) PROGRAM
How Paraprofessionals Heard About LTT
Many respondents first heard about the LTT program from sources outside of Queens College. Just over
16.6% learned about LTT from workers, 14.5%
from friends, 12.5% from their union, and 2.1%
As for what motivated students to enroll in
from the Board of Education. Another group first
the LTT program, 87% of the LTT
heard about LTT though a Queens College
respondents said that the union benefit was
program: 25% from ACE (the Adult Collegiate
an important motivating factor, including
Education Program at Queens College) and 21%
70% who said it was “extremely
from LTT material. The remainder (8.3%) did not
important.”
remember how they learned about LTT.
LTT outreach efforts ensured that potential
students heard about the program from various sources. The LTT program reaches out to
paraprofessionals employed in the New York City schools through its close connection to the
paraprofessional chapter of the UFT, which encourages paraprofessionals to talk to their co-workers
about the program and to bring them to its Open Houses in each borough. At these introductory sessions,
program participants describe the student supports provided by LTT while enjoying food, often home
cooked by the CUNY wide program coordinator and her family. LTT also provides the paraprofessionals
who attend these events with the number of an experienced individual whom they can call with questions.
Why Paraprofessionals Choose the LTT Program and Queens College
By definition, adult learners return to study on a full-time or part-time basis after spending a period of
time in other adult activities. The challenges they face while pursuing a college degree differ significantly
from those experienced by traditionally aged students who move directly from high school to the college
campus. The Council for Adult and Experimental Learning (CAEL) identified four issues that can interfere
with the pursuit of higher education among working adults: 1) A lack of time for education and studying,
2) the need to meet family responsibilities, 3) the time and location of courses, and 4) the high cost of
tuition.33
Given that women comprised the overwhelming majority of LTT alumni (90%) and respondents (94%), it is
not surprising that the major challenges they faced while in school included balancing school, work, and
family responsibilities. The LTT respondents reported that they had trouble finding time to keep up with
housekeeping tasks (74.6%), spend with children (72.9%), spend with partner/spouse (66.1%), and meet
parenting and other family responsibilities
(55.9%). One alumni explained,” It was hectic
“Well, I was pretty much a B student. I think
trying to balance everything. I sometimes felt like I
I would have got better marks if all I had to
was neglecting my children, but I was lucky
do was go to school. But I had to work and
because my husband came home at 4:00 pm--just
then come home and run a house.” LTT
when I would leave for my other job. I worked as
graduate
a waitress two nights a week” (#70). Seventyseven percent of the alumni reported having
trouble finding time for friends and social life, and
81% had little time for leisure activities. Almost 75% said that they did not get enough sleep while in
school. One graduate exclaimed: “I never slept! Nevertheless, I graduated with a 3.7 GPA” (#307).
Another explained, “Well, I was pretty much a B student. I think I would have got better marks if all I had
to do was go to school. But I had to work and then come home and run a house” (# 86). Other challenges
Page 14
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
stemmed from the normal demands of school such as finding time to study (84.7%), completing their
education in a timely fashion (67.8%), meeting financial obligations, (50.0%), receiving financial aid
(32.8%), understanding the material (32.2%), and finding transportation to and from school (21.1%).
The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) reports that students try to manage such stressors
by seeking flexible and fast paced course offerings that allow them to meet their educational goals while
still balancing work and family responsibilities.34 Like other adult learners, the LTT students preferred
educational programs that relate directly to their needs,35 which include a wide range of course
selections, scheduling options and class locations.36 The LTT program attracted New York City
paraprofessionals because it addressed these needs. More than three-quarters of the LTT respondents
liked both the convenient location of the LTT classes (78.3%) and the program’s flexible course schedule
(76.7%). However, the reputation of both Queens College and the LTT program also made a difference.
Almost 60% were attracted by the academic reputation of the Queens College Education Department,
and 46% by the general reputation of LTT. Of the respondents, only 22% had considered another
program. But many would not have been able to pursue their goal of a college degree without access to
funding provided through the Department of Education Career Training Program. Eighty-seven percent of
the LTT respondents said that this union-negotiated benefit was a key attraction for them, including 70%
who said it was “extremely important”.
What the Students Thought of the LTT Program
In general, the respondents gave the LTT program high marks. On a scale of one-to-ten, more than 80%
ranked the program at eight or higher. It was ranked ten by 42.6% of the LTT respondents, nine by
11.1% and eight by 29.6%. More than 80% also scored their student teaching experience at eight or
higher. One student explained that the LTT program helped her by “allowing me to student-teach in the
same class as where I was a paraprofessional. This allowed me to keep my job and my benefits” (#91).
In contrast, another student complained, “sometimes the courses did not coincide with my graduating on
time” (#125).
Course Work. A majority of the LTT
The availability of LTT’s support services, such
respondents reported that their education
as academic counseling, convenient location and
courses were at the right level for them. When
scheduling, and preparation for certification
asked how easy or difficult the courses were,
drew more than half of the alumni to the
54% stated that they were “just right.” Some
found the courses “somewhat difficult” (24%),
program.
while others said that the courses were
“somewhat easy” (17%). No one reported that
the classes were “extremely easy” or
“extremely “hard,” suggesting that the teaching level was on target. One student observed, “the courses
were right on track for me” (#146). Another stated, “Academically the classes prepared me for
becoming the teacher that I am today” (#91). However, some alumni found being in school more difficult.
According to one respondent, “it was difficult at first, going back to school as an adult, but then it got
easier” (#127). For another, “the courses were not difficult, it was just juggling all responsibilities that was
hard” (#44).
Nearly 80% of the respondents stated the Queens College education courses were useful to their
subsequent work. They described the courses as “extremely useful” (50.9%), “somewhat useful” (28.3%),
or “just useful” (17%). Various respondents explained, “the courses were structured in a sequence order
which made integration easier” (#234). “I learned a lot that was pertinent to my population of students”
(#44) and the classes “really prepared me for the classroom” (#60). One student was disappointed
Page 15
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
because she said that “the Education Department did not offer the 6 credits in Special Education required
by the state for permanent certification (#155).
Supports and Services. The LTT program provided students with a wide range of services designed to
help the working adult succeed. Indeed, 55% of the respondents indicated that it was the availability of
these services that attracted them to the program. When asked how much the services contributed to the
alumni’s success, large numbers of LTT respondents indicated that the following services “contributed a
lot”: “location of classes” (75.9%), “union tuition assistance” (77.2%), “quality of teachers” (70.0%), and
“class schedule” (69.5%) (see Table 7). These program features correspond to what originally attracted
students to the program. They were followed by “opportunity to prepare for certification” (54.4%),
“academic counseling” (53.4%), and the “variety of courses” offered (53.4%). Fewer students thought the
following program features “contributed a lot” to their success: “one stop application” (34.5%),
“writing/math skill courses” (32.3%), “career counseling” (29.3%), “other financial assistance” (29.3%),
and “tutoring” (17.2%). More than a few students indicated that “other financial assistance” (51.7%) and
“career counseling” (53.4%) “did not contribute” to their success. These high numbers may reflect the fact
that many of the students had union tuition aid and had already selected their career path. As one LTT
respondent said, “I already knew what I was going to do. I knew I was going to be a teacher. They
helped me a lot to get to the end point to make up my mind for a career” (#26). That tutoring fell to the
bottom of this list may reflect the lack of need or the lack of time to engage in this activity.
Table 9. Supports and Services that “Contributed a Lot"
Location of Classes
Union Tuition Assistance
Support from Family
Quality of Teachers
Class Schedule
Support from Friends
Support from Teachers
Support from Program Administration
Support from Students
Academic Counseling
Opportunity to Prepare for Certification
Variety of Courses Offered
One Stop Application
Writing Math, & other skill Courses
Career Counseling
Other Financial Assistance
Tutoring
% of LTT
Respondents
75.9%
77.2%
72.4%
70.0%
69.5%
62.1%
62.7%
59.3%
55.2%
54.4%
54.1%
53.1%
34.5%
32.3%
29.3%
29.3%
17.2%
The survey also asked how much support from teachers, friends, family, and program administrators
contributed to the student’s success. Seventy-two percent of the LTT respondents indicated that support
from their family “contributed a lot” to their success, followed by support from teachers (62.7%), friends
(62.1%), program administrators (59.3%), and other students (55.2%). More than 88% of the
respondents described other students as very (61.7%) or somewhat (26.7%) supportive. They explained:
Page 16
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
“The students I went through school with were great. They were going through the same experience as
me.” “We helped each other with study groups. Called each other. Good bond” (#44). “I went with one
of my friends, but met another” (#26). “I have met some wonderful friends through the program and we
have advised and helped each other throughout our coursework--both undergraduate and graduate”
(#38). However, one student offered an important proviso: “Many were older adults--so there was some
support--but not like being in your 20s and attending college full time” (#234).
When asked for a wish list of services that LTT could have provided to students, not everyone replied and
the items were quite general: “More evening classes” (#305), “more information, more contact” (#157),
and “more one- to-one direction” (#234). Others used the question to praise the program: “anything I
needed was there for me” (#185). “I had a great experience with LTT” (#251) and “none, it was very
comprehensive” (#44). The respondents did offer a few suggestions as to how LTT alumni might contribute
to the future development of the program. The ideas fell into two main categories: workshops for current
students and recruitment of future students. Workshop ideas included inviting alumni once a semester to
support and guide current students by talking about such topics as: their experiences with LTT; strategies
for ensuring degree completion; and employment prospects in the current job market. Some suggested
asking seasoned alumni to teach for LTT and/or to help recruit new students, to show people how easy it
is to become a teacher, and to otherwise inspire young people to become teachers.
IMPACT OF THE LTT PROGRAM AND TE ACHER EDUCATION:
A TRIPLE PAYOFF
The responses of participants in this study indicate that supporting career ladders in education for
paraprofessionals can produce “a triple payoff:”
1. The students benefited personally, financially, and professionally.
2. The New York City public education system gained experienced teachers who remained on the
job for many years.
3. New York City as a whole benefits from higher levels of civic engagement among teachers who
became more involved in their unions, schools, communities and public affairs.
Payoff #1: Personal Gains
Becoming a teacher had a positive impact on the daily life of most LTT respondents. Many reported that
their self-esteem (82%), financial situation (78.7%), and work life improved since becoming a teacher.
Their new career also enhanced their relationship with their children (58.3%), friends (55%),
partners/spouses (45%), and parents (35%). Compared to life as a student, teaching allowed more time
for recreational activities (45%) and improved the quality of time for themselves (36.7%).
Self Esteem. LTT alumni gained greater self-esteem due to feelings of accomplishment as well as gaining
new skills, more prestige, and greater influence. One respondent put it this way: “I think my self-esteem
has definitely improved because it seems like it has been forever” (#20). Likewise, an older graduate of
the program stated, “I finally finished and
“My education gave me more confidence and more
now I have a higher position. It took me 10
years, but I got through it. I’m turning 50
voice. I have more of an opinion and I am more of a
next year. So I wanted to do this before I
force to reckon with now.” LTT graduate
turned 50.” (#188). For another LTT
respondent, it was the balancing act: “My
Page 17
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
own sense of accomplishment of being able to juggle, family, my husband, my children, job and friends. It
brought my self-esteem up to a different level.” (#185).
Developing new skills also increased self-esteem. One LTT respondent stated, “going back to school,
getting information, retaining it, then speaking and learning to be a better speaker--that’s what teachers
do, being eloquent and diplomatic because you are wearing many hats. Overall, it builds self-esteem.”
(#77). For others, greater prestige played a
role. A graduate who “was a para for so many
Most LTT respondents reported that their selfyears” explained that she felt better because
esteem, financial situation, and work life
“you know people do look at you differently as
improved since becoming a teacher—and that
a teacher instead of a para” (#68). Along the
their new career enhanced their relations with
same lines, an LTT alumnus felt: “Now that I am
a teacher, I am getting credit for many of the
children and friends.
same things I did in the classroom as a para-but did not get credit for it; the credit went to
the teacher” (#76). For still others it was a
matter of influence, “My education gave me more confidence and more voice. I have more of an opinion
and I am more of a force to reckon with now” (#237).
Finances. Improved finances were especially important for many alumni. They said, “It really improved
my financial situation. I really needed the boost since I was working on my own at the time and struggling
to make ends meet. It definitely makes me feel better to take in a better salary from the job that I am
doing” (#33). Another LTT graduate added, “because of the money I am able to help my children a bit
more so the money helps” (#39). Still another “bought a car as soon as I graduated” (#68).
Work Life. Most LTT respondents also reported that moving from paraprofessional to teacher had a
positive effect on their work life. The largest number stated that this career advance increased their sense
of personal enrichment (93.3%) and effectiveness in the classroom (88.1%). For one teacher,
effectiveness came from “seeing the children grow--and having your own classroom!” (#260). More than
two-thirds (66.7%) reported greater job stability and 55% cited improved relationships with their coworkers. Another LTT graduate summed it up for herself saying, “Teaching has been a wonderful
experience for me!” (#3).
Going to college and becoming a teacher also increased the student’s understanding of education and
the New York City public school system. That is, it broadened their views.
Both Sides. I have a better understanding of what teachers go through now that I can see both sides”
(#260). Another alumni explained, “I took a lot of sociology courses and read different things, learned
different points of view. Before I went back to school, I would watch CSPAN, so it wasn’t that I wasn’t
involved in learning about those things. But school did open my eyes to a lot of other things or other
points of view” (#39).
More Complexities. Others found that teaching involved complex issues. “I originally thought that going
into education, you’d be given a curriculum, ABC and that’s what you’ll be teaching. That’s not the case at
all. You wear so many different hats and there are so many issues that don’t really apply just to
education such as poverty, behavior issues, and learning disabilities” (#117).
Page 18
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
What Works. Respondents also developed
better understanding of what worked and what
did not work: (#74). From “being in the
trenches” another teacher explained, “I see
what works. I see what doesn’t work. I see
what’s needed. I see and appreciate the
efforts being done. But I know that more needs
to be done in order to reach every child. So my
awareness has been heightened for sure” (#237).
“My experience gave me an understanding of
how public education works, the expectations of
the students, teachers, and staff around them--as
well as what doesn’t work.” LTT graduate
Payoff #2: Benefits to New York City Public Schools-Retention of Teachers
When the final bell rings at the end of the school year and students across the nation head out the door
for summer vacation, too many of their teachers will also be leaving the classroom—permanently. But this
is less so for LTT respondents. The U.S. Department of Education reports that about half of all teachers
who enter the teaching profession nationwide leave within five years. The rate of attrition is roughly 50
percent higher in schools serving poor children than in schools serving more affluent children; and attrition
is also more likely among new than more experienced teachers.37 In contrast, 55.8% of LTT alumni
reported working as a certified teacher for 6 or more years (see Table 10). Of these 5.8% stayed for 6
years; 13.5% for 7 years, 11.5% for 8 years, and 24.8% taught in the public schools for 9 or more
years. If this pattern continues, it is likely that many of the more than 40% of LTT respondents who
worked in the public schools for 5 years or less at the time of the survey will stay in the profession longer
than the average teacher, strengthening the value of LTT and its approach to teacher preparation.
Table 10. Years Worked In New York City Public Schools as a Certified Teacher
Years
0-5 years
6- 10 years
11-20 years
Prefer not to answer
Total
Percentage
40.4%
34.6%
21.2%
3.8%
100.0%
Number
21
18
11
2
53
These retention rates compares favorably to the New York State and national rates. Table 9 compares
the retention rates of LTT respondents to New York State and U.S. retention rates based on
categorization of years found in the National Education of Educational Statistics report which differ
slightly from those used in the LTT study. However, it is most significant that a higher percentage of LTT
(55.5%) than New York State (38%) teachers and US teachers (36.3%) have continued to teach in the
important 3 to 9 year range. The LTT retention rate might be higher if the program had been operating
more than 12 years at the time of the study. The program’s inception date helps to explain why fewer
LTT (23.5%) than New York State (28.5%) teachers have worked for 10-20 years and why no LTT
respondents had taught for more than 20 years, while 20.6% of New York State teachers had achieved
this longevity. The same pattern obtains when LTT alumni are compared to teachers nationwide.
Page 19
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
Table 11. Years of FT Teaching Experience: LTT Alumni, NYS Teachers & US
Years
LTT (2009)
NYS (2007-2008)
US (2007-2008)
Worked*
Less than 3
21.1%
12.8%
13.4%
yearsyears
3-9
55.5%
38.0%
36.3%
10-20 years
23.5%
28.5%
29.3%
Over 20
NA
20.6%
23.7%
* Categories used for NYS by National Center for Educational Statistics 38
While most of the respondents stay in the public school system, it is also true that nearly half (44.4%)
stayed in the school where they had worked as a paraprofessional suggesting that the individual schools
placed a high value on the training received by the paraprofessional participating in the LTT program.
Table 10 lists the reasons why LTT alumni left their former schools. Of the respondents who changed
schools, most did so either because there was no job for them at the original school or because they
wanted some kind of improvement. More specifically, many left due to labor market conditions stating:
“no position at my school” (67%) or “hired elsewhere” (62.1%). Many fewer left because “I lost my job”
(6.9%) or “completed my scholarship obligation” (3.4%). While most respondents changed schools for
economic reasons, others said that they looked for something else such as a “fresh start” (41.4%), “a
better teaching assignment” (31%), “better school environment” (27.6%), “a more convenient location”
(20.7%), or “a school with a better reputation” (17.2%). A few alumni preferred not to work at the same
school because either their principal or they themselves felt it would be easier to gain respect and
authority in a school where one entered at the rank of teacher, rather than having worked formerly as a
paraprofessional.
Table 12. Why LLT Alumni Left Original School
Reason
No position at my school
Hired at another school
Wanted fresh start
Better Teaching Assignment
Found better school environment
More convenient location
Found School w/ Better Reputation
Lost my job
Completed scholarship obligation
Percentage
67.0%
62.1%
41.4%
31.0%
27.6%
20.7%
17.2%
6.9%
3.4%
Number
18
18
12
9
8
6
5
2
1
Payoff #3: Benefits to New York City-Greater Civic Engagement
The central role school plays in the lives of children, the importance of education to the New York City
workforce, the impact of budget cuts on public education, and the increased stake LTT alumni have in the
viability of the public school system led the researchers to ask if becoming a teacher had affected civic
participation. In contrast to recent findings that civic participation among “traditional’ college graduates
in general has declined in recent years;39 it appears to have increased among “non-traditional” LTT
alumni.
Page 20
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
Some LTT alumni found that becoming a teacher led them to begin to pay more attention to public policy
issues. The data do not indicate if this increased civic consciousness is a result of becoming a teacher or
becoming a teacher through the LTT union-sponsored worker education program. However, the
participants felt they had become much more conscious and responsible. More than 75% of the LTT
respondents said that they became more informed about public education in New York City. More than
83% stated that teacher education affected their ideas about public education. One respondent
explained, “I understand the issues more in depth now. So I can make a better evaluation and have a
better opinion of them” (#188). Another LTT graduate observed, “It‘s really important that public
education is funded and does the right things for the children of our city, because there are certain
policies that really are helpful to students and there are others that are not, as far as curriculum and
those kind of things” (#4). Still other alumni became more politically savvy (#236). Another respondent
noted, “I came to understand how public education and policy decisions are related. There is a whole lot
of politics going on. I learned that a lot of people are making decisions who don’t really know what is
going on--who don’t really know how their decisions affect kids and teachers” (#44).
Other alumni translated their concerns about public education into activities and action. Some LTT
respondents reported that since becoming teachers, they developed more interest in “helping others get
more education” (74.1%), “keeping up with New York City public education issues” (70%), “contacting
public officials” (40.4%), “attending community forums on public education issues” (35.1%), “voting in
elections” (29.8%), “working with their union’s education policy committee” (24.6%), “joining an
educational advocacy group” (22.8%), and “participating in a political campaign” (12.3%). More than
63.2% said their interest in voting stayed the same and about one third said their interest in voting
increased. Most of the alumni focused their new interests on their union, their school, and their community.
With The Union. About one third (31.7%) of the
LTT respondents reported increased union
“The courses we took helped us get more
involvement. “I try to rally teachers for the union
involved in our own community. You just feel
meeting. I’ll put up ‘let’s meet’ signs or bring
a little smarter. Now, you more or less want
people along when we decide to protest
to know what’s going on. You’re not afraid
sometimes. My belief is in the union and the
to know...” LTT graduate
support you get from it” (#77). Another graduate
appreciated this kind of activism; she said, “In the
school, we have an active person in the union, our
union shop steward. She actually is the teacher right next door to me. So it’s very easy for me to become
involved in those activities, because she’s right there with me” (#4). A teacher who liked to think of her
school as a community became “active with the UFT. I go to UFT meetings. I also go to some rallies
because I find it important, to support our union” (#236). Another LTT alumni was a union delegate and
said she was thinking that “maybe down the road I might try to be a UFT representative which is a lot
more work” (#26).
At The School. The school itself was the focus of activism for many LTT alumni. Nearly two-thirds (64.6%)
of the respondents reported that their involvement in school matters had increased since they became
teachers. “I felt that it would be very good for my children and for me to be involved in their school,”
explained a respondent. “First of all, in order to change anything, you have to be involved for it to
change. So I serve on different committees at school. I’ve also chaired committees” (#307). Another LTT
alumni explained, “as a para, I was just looking at one little piece. But as a teacher, I wasn’t looking at it
from a small window anymore. I was figuring out how it all works. This made me feel more confident to
get much more involved in the school community with school leadership teams, the parents, colleagues,
and administrators” (#293). Another former paraprofessional felt that she contributed by “keeping
Page 21
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
current with what is going on today, being open-minded in the classroom, and taking a step back and
making sure that everyone’s opinion or ideas are validated”(#117). An alumni with artistic interests
contributed through “her love of the arts and of students. If I spread a seed, it grows and spreads out.
Barnes and Noble had a display of my student’s
Since become a teacher “I developed more
work and all the work I created. I also got a
trophy award for a banner that I made for the
interest in keeping up with New York City
Special Olympics, for handicapped children. I
public education issues.” LTT graduate
came in first place, and the children in wheelchairs
carried the banner across the field, two years in a
row!” (#80). For some teachers, issues of schools
and community came together. For example, one survey participant was moved to join the campaign of a
local assemblywoman because of her involvement in addressing issues at the school in which this
participant taught: “She does a lot for our school, [so] I volunteered to help stuffing envelopes, answering
the phone, maybe hand out leaflets” (#86).
In the Community. The local community was the site of action for still other LTT graduates. Indeed, 51%
of the LTT respondents reported increased involvement in community work and more than 80% reported
a greater sense of sense of contributing to society since becoming teachers. “I joined the PTA at my son’s
school” (# 236). “I am a “den” mother for a boy scout troop of nine year olds. I did that because my son
got involved and it’s also a teacher thing. She added that she felt that she supported the community by
“helping the students feel good about themselves. I think they are going to grow up to be better people,
so I think I am really doing something for the community” (#86).Similarly, another LTT graduate felt that
she supported the community by “becoming very involved in parent groups, doing workshops for parents
to allow them to have a forum to ask questions, to try to inform them as much as possible about their own
community, and to encourage them to become involved” (#234).
For others, it was a more direct connection: “I like to get involved in my community. I go to a lot of
community meetings to stay involved with what’s going on. I go to all the activities in the neighborhood.”
This respondent added, “the courses we took helped us get more involved in our own community. You just
feel a little smarter. Now, you more or less want to know what’s going on. You’re not afraid to know. I
think the school just gives you that awareness…you know, you also have to teach the kids all about the
community” (#293). Another alumnus agreed: “as a member of the education community board and
involved with an environmental group,” she said, “I think it is good to be involved in local politics because
we really can’t change anything in the world except local politics. No matter who we vote for as
president, it’s not going to make any difference in our lives, truthfully, but local politics will” (#76). Others
regarded community participation as an important civic duty. “I want to make improvements and to
contribute” (#237). Others just wanted to “give back” (#64).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The findings of this study have implications for two important public policy issues. They suggest that
effective paraprofessional education can significantly contribute to the retention of experienced teachers,
particularly in high need schools, and thus enhance academic development of the next generation in our
public schools. At the same time, the experiences of those interviewed as teachers reveal the risks to
retention that are built into working in New York City schools that are increasingly underfunded. A second
policy issue addressed by the study is the ongoing debate as to whether or not cities should require
public employees such as police, fire fighters and teachers to live in the communities in which they work.
The respondents were asked for their views on this controversial issue, and were as divided as the public
at large.
Page 22
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
Issue #1: “Risks to Retention”
A large number of the LTT alumni in this study have worked as teachers in New York City public schools
since the late 1990s. Despite this long-term commitment, well-known external pressures on public
education—i.e. mounting social problems, shrinking resources, and the growing lack of support for
teachers and other public sector workers—may be taking a toll on LTT graduates and other teachers.
Although more than 76% of the respondents experienced greater job satisfaction as a teacher than as a
paraprofessional, 71.7% of the LTT respondents also experienced increased job stress, 56.7% reported
increased work hours, and 40%, indicated increased burnout. The following observations from LTT
respondents suggest that the harsh attack on public sector programs, workers, and unions 40 threatens to
undercut The Triple Payoff described in this report, especially the retention of teachers.
The dual experience of teacher education and teaching experience also exposed LTT alumni to chronic
problems in the public schools, many of which are known to contribute to job dissatisfaction and attrition.
A study of teacher retention in the California school system found that teacher dissatisfaction stemmed
less from low compensation (though teachers are not unconcerned with pay) and more from the quality of
the teaching and learning environment. Although poorly maintained classrooms and school facilities are
dispiriting to both teachers and students, troubling workplace features go beyond leaks in the ceilings
and toilets that do not flush. Rather, teachers point to a wide range of instructional, collegial, and
systemic conditions that make teaching a less satisfying profession.
While substantial research documents that teachers leave low performing schools in poverty
neighborhoods, this study supports newer findings that it is the working conditions in these schools and
teachers’ perceptions of administrative support that have the greatest influence on teacher satisfaction. 41
Teachers who leave a school point to two major areas as the most problematic features of their working
environment. They are: (1) inadequate system supports, that is the lack of such things as adequate time
for planning and professional development, textbooks for their students, and reliable assistance from the
district office; and (2) bureaucratic impediments such as excessive paperwork, too many unnecessary
classroom interruptions, too many restrictions, and too great an emphasis on performance and testing. 42
LTT respondents echoed these concerns. But they were also troubled (3) by negative public perceptions of
teachers as professionals and their treatment by the school system.
1. INADEQUATE SYSTEM SUPPORTS
Like many other public school teachers, the LTT respondents work in schools where budget cuts continue to
reduce resources in an already depleted system.
Too Few Resources. Many respondents spoke of the need for more classroom resources. “We need
more money for supplies, more arts, and more music” (#236). “I don’t think that there should be an
abundance of supplies, but enough!” (#86). “We also need a uniform reading program, more basics.
Let’s give the kids the basics from kindergarten through first and second” (#174). “We need a system
that can get services to children in a timely fashion and not let a whole year go by before, or if, anything
is done. I don’t want to see children falling through the cracks on my watch and unfortunately sometimes
they do. I would like a system where children get more services and get their needs met” (#237). “I
would like to see more training for teacher assistants, more hands-on learning (#71).”
Parent Involvement. LTT alumni share with many other educators the belief that parent involvement is a
critical component of teaching and learning. One alumnus was very disappointed that “parents did not
Page 23
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
always do what they’re supposed to do. I think that was my biggest delusion. That was my first
experience. But I learned to look at economic issues and social issues in the community where I was
teaching. Over the course of the eleven years, I have noticed that parent involvement is getting better
and better. It is not where it should be. But it’s getting better (#174).”
Discipline and Safety. Some LTT graduates thought the students should be more accountable for their
behavior. “I think disruptive children should be addressed—first, for the disruptive child and then, for the
other 26 children in the classroom who have to put up with the disruption” (#86). Another respondent saw
the way students dressed as a “part of the breakdown of discipline” and wanted changes. She
explained, “I think it’s disgraceful that they come in to school with these baggy pants and their
undergarments showing. Not coming to school dressed properly, it shows a lack of pride, a lack of
respect. A lack of respect for themselves but also for the people that are trying to educate them” (#117).
Another LTT respondent added, “Uniforms. It popped into my head, because my school is public but we
do have uniforms. But not everyone requires them. But it really makes a significant difference” (#125). I
would also like safety issues to be addressed” (#86).
Pay. Some but not many alumni mentioned
salaries. “Oh golly, there are so many… I’d like to
see a pay increase. I know we’re on the
taxpayer’s back. But we do a lot of work and a
lot of good (#174).”
“I don’t think that there should be an
abundance of supplies, but enough.” LTT
Graduate
2. PROBLEMS WITH BUREAUCRACY
In this study and others, teachers were more upset by bureaucratic impediments which they saw as
interfering --more than limited resources--with their ability to teach creatively and effectively.
Organizational Dynamics. The LTT teachers quickly became aware of the importance of knowing their
school’s organizational dynamics. One LTT graduate realized, “that teachers are squished between the
parents and the administration and have to answer to administration. I never realized that” (#164).
Another teacher agreed, “I didn’t really understand the public school system at first, but I understand it a
lot more now after being actively involved in it, especially the interaction between the principals,
assistant principals, and the teachers. I think there are some very good things going on in the public school
system. I think that there also are some things that really still need a lot of work” (#234).
Excessive Paperwork. As in most large bureaucratic organizations, LTT alumni complained that excessive
paperwork took time needed for teaching. One teacher stated, “I noticed that the teacher is doing more
paperwork than working with the class” (#234). Another added, “We have more paperwork and less
time hands-on time with students. I have a big disagreement with that” (#248). Others declared, “I would
probably like to see less paperwork” (#269). “Less paperwork would leave more time--and more quality
time--for educating the children,” one LTT graduate observed, “There is way too much paperwork and
redundancy of information which means that I’m repeatedly entering that same information into the
system that could have easily been transmitted through computers.” She suggested, “There should be a
computer system where information is entered and goes to all the systems that need it--everything should
be interfaced. You know, if I’m typing a student’s name once it should go on all those other forms,
assessment forms, or whatever, and be done” (#130).
Too Many Interruptions. Too often, mandated changes in classroom policies and practices appear
sudden and irrational to teachers who have not had a voice in designing them, as the quotes that follow
illustrate. “I enjoy being in my classroom, I enjoy being in my school. But, I don’t like that the Board of
Page 24
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
Education is always trying to fix problems that exist in any huge system. They’re always trying to see
what works, what doesn’t work. Let’s fix this, let’s fix that, instead of letting things be that are actually
working okay” (#188). Along the same lines another teacher observed, “Once change is implemented,
the new program--whether it’s for curriculum or teacher development, it should have a longer run,
especially if it is proven effective. Let it have a longer stay, despite budget problems” (#234).
3. PEDAGOGICAL IMPEDIMENTS
Large Classes. “I’d like smaller class sizes, absolutely. I did work one year with just 20 children and my
goodness. I was the best teacher I could be. I have 28 in the classroom now---it’s very hard” (#86).
Similarly, “The biggest, biggest change I’ve always, always wanted is smaller classroom sizes. It is not
feasible with so many children in a classroom to give them the attention and the education they need. I
feel that education will never be what it’s supposed to be unless there are fewer students in a classroom”
(#236). Likewise, “the biggest change would be trying the smaller classes. I feel teachers are really
dedicated; they really love the kids. I haven’t met one who isn’t really dedicated, unless they are burnt
out. But it kills you when you can’t reach all the children--and there’s not enough time in the day to reach
them all. So smaller classes would be really great” (#164).
Teaching to the Test. Many LTT alumni expressed deep concerns about what some refer to as “teaching
to the test,” which they regarded as educationally unsound. One alumnus stated, “I understand that
testing can be important, I just wish we were allowed to teach!”(#99). Another LTT graduate declared, “I
want to stop teaching to the test. This test! Oh god…I think it takes away from the children. I think it’s just
something they’re programmed to learn. I don’t understand what it helps them with” (#293). Similarly
teachers asked “are we really teaching our children?” #307). Some believed that the focus on grades
and testing forced teachers to “spend too much time showing the kids how to take tests and [that]
interferes with learning” (#99) and that the emphasis on testing “led the children to miss out on the
development of social skills and took all the play out of the classroom” (#20). One teacher recommended
that the schools “allow students to learn though experience, without being told what they’re supposed to
get out of it. This way, they are not afraid to make a mistake” (#307). Another suggested “assessments
as an alternative to testing. There are so many different assessments that they could use” (#287). Finally,
a teacher said, “I don’t like that people think that if the student’s test score is not a 3 or a 4, that you’re
not a good teacher. The score is not the be all and end all of being a teacher. That really irks me” (#86).
These issues did not differ significantly from the commonly emphasized solutions to teacher attrition
reported in a 2004 survey of NYC teachers. Then as now, the teachers wanted smaller class sizes, more
classroom resources, more competitive salaries and benefits, improved school safety and more
disciplinary measures.43 Another study in New York City in 2009 produced a similar list of working
conditions that influence teachers who leave their jobs. In rank order of importance, it includes: support
from administrators, student behavior, district policy, teaching philosophy, teaching assignment, emphasis
on student testing, ability to help students, school facilities, and autonomy over classroom, and
colleagues.44
4. THE TREATMENT OF TEACHERS
In addition to more resources and less bureaucratic interference, the LTT participants expressed concern
about how teachers were viewed and treated.
Page 25
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
Public Perceptions. Some LTT respondents spoke about what teachers were up against. “I was surprised
at how much is involved. People think teachers have it easy because they have the summers off, but that is
not so! We work at it. We prepare for teaching all summer” (#77). Another teacher commented on the
same discrepancy. “The public thinks that you go in at 8 am and get out at 3 pm and you’re supposed to
be teaching all day long. They don’t realize that you’re much more than a teacher, and that you’re
responsible, for a lot of stuff” (#86).
Freedom, Trust, and Respect. One LTT respondent stated, “All accountability lies on the teacher’s
shoulder, rather than making the student accountable… the parent accountable. Everything seems like it’s
the teacher’s fault” (#260). Others wanted fewer restrictions: “the biggest thing that I would like to see is
giving teachers more freedom in the classroom. Right now, I feel that everything is too scripted. In the
school where I work, you don’t have too much freedom to vary how you would like to do things…. I just
don’t think the teachers are recognized for what they know. We are highly educated, but sometimes I
feel like the system insults us, that it does not trust our experience. We are always being told what we
don’t do rather than being commended for the things we do. Now they track the students to see if the
student is doing the right thing, or whose fault it is if the child is not succeeding, tracking the teachers to
kind of find out what’s going on with the child. Sometimes I just don’t feel the teachers are appreciated.
We are educators; we do know what we are doing” (#185). “I would like to see more respect for
teachers” (#174). Again, “I think teachers should be respected for the job that they do” (#86).
Diversity. “II would like to see more diversity in administration and possibly teaching staff. Most of the
teaching fellows are from Long Island, Yonkers, Michigan, Wisconsin and from around the world. I have
met a lot of the Teaching Fellows but I think we need more teachers who are native New Yorkers, people
who have gone through the system in New York. I think that there should be more New Yorkers [among
public school teachers] who are raised in the system of New York, who live in New York, and who
understand” (#248).
Issue #2: To Live and Work in the Same Community?
In some cities, there is ongoing public debate over whether or not police officers, firefighters, and public
school teachers should be required to live in the city in which they work. Accordingly, the LTT survey asked
graduates: “do you think it makes a difference if teachers come from the same community as their
students?” In response, 30% said no, 60% said yes, and 10% preferred not to answer this question.
YES. A majority of LTT respondents thought it was a plus if teachers worked and lived in the same
community. Many believed that it promoted greater understanding: “Teachers who live in the community
know how the community lives, its socioeconomic status, and what goes on beyond school hours” (#260).
“Teachers who come from the same community as the students are more aware of their environment, their
culture, their lifestyles, and can be more sensitive. Someone who comes from outside may have no clue as
to how the families are living or struggling to live. I definitely think it makes a big difference” (#236). “I
think they have a better view of the student’s needs” (#117). “They are more aware of what goes on in
the community and how it affects the children.
There is common ground” (#99). “Neighborhood is
“The biggest thing that I would like to see is
what creates the teaching environment. Basically if
giving teachers more freedom in the
you live in the same area, you know what the
classroom.” LTT graduate
students are going through in their daily lives”
(#130).
Some LTT alumni identified specific advantages of proximity. “I come from the community I work in, so I
am familiar with things that go on in the community and I can talk to the kids about them. It’s a more
Page 26
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
personal relationship” (#188). “Well, some people would disagree, but I live in the neighborhood in
which I work and I think it helps. The kids and the parents look at me more like ‘oh you live in the
neighborhood.’ I meet the parents in the supermarket. I don’t know. I think it’s a plus. They can relate to
me, not just as their child’s teacher, but I’m also part of the community” (#26). Yes, it could help because
you’re familiar with the neighborhood and you know what your children are going through. I’ll never
forget how shocked I was when I went by my old school. Just a short story: I was coming home late at
night from something in Manhattan and as I was walking past my school, I realized why the children are
so exhausted sometimes and falling asleep at their desks. The noise from blasting radios and car radios
and the parties and all these fights on the corners, it made me aware of what the children live through. I
just realized this; I never knew it was like this because I lived in a different community. So it is good to see
what your students are going through” (#164).
NO. Most of those who said “no” felt that teachers have “to be open and understanding, but do not have
to live in the same neighborhood to understand the students” (#7). “If you are working in the community,
then you’re experiencing that community as well, even if you don’t live there” (#305). “Even if you don’t
live in the same community, as a teacher you know what’s going on in the community and you can address
it with students as it comes up” (#33). I’ve never worked in a community where I lived, but I don’t think it
really makes a difference. I think I would have the same level of commitment if I worked in my community
as I do now working in another community. I think if you have a love of teaching you can work just about
anywhere” (#185). Similarly, you can have a teacher coming from the community that doesn’t care and
one, like me, who does not come from the community but who participates actively in after-school
activities and who brings her own children to them” (#20). “I think it’s very important for the teacher to be
empathetic to the needs of the student. It is not so much that you have to be of the same social or ethnic
group, but you do have to be exposed to different ethnic groups” (#248).
Others pointed to benefits of not living and working in the same communities: “People might think it would
be a good thing if a student and a teacher come from the same community, but it’s not necessarily so.
People coming from outside the community may be more objective and may have different or better
expectations for the children” (#74). Another teacher observed, “teachers from different communities can
actually help students understand the differences between cultures or can have a positive impact,
especially if the student’s socioeconomic status is low. Maybe the teacher could be a role model in some
sense” (#287). Another teacher found exposure to
a neighborhood that differed from hers
“Teachers who live in the community know
empowering. She explained, “I work in South
how the community lives, its socioeconomic
Jamaica, I live in Whitestone, Queens, two starkly
status, and what goes on beyond school
different communities. Whenever I drive from
hours.” LTT graduate
Whitestone to South Jamaica, the difference hits
me like a ton of bricks. South Jamaica has all these
fried chicken places and my neighborhood doesn’t
have that. They sell candies in South Jamaica’s neighborhoods that they wouldn’t dare sell in mine. The
impact for me comes from seeing the stark differences. I see the injustice and that empowers me to do the
best job I can, so that my students can get out of there and have a better future. If I lived in that
neighborhood, I don’t know how that would be. That’s why, when given the choice to work in my
neighborhood or South Jamaica, I picked South Jamaica” (#237).
CONCLUSION
The research presented in this report identifies “three payoffs” resulting from efforts to help
paraprofessional workers in New York City schools become teachers. While based on a limited sample,
the findings suggest that supporting career ladder education for paraprofessionals provides (1) higher
Page 27
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
incomes and increased job security for individual paraprofessionals who become teachers; 2)
experienced teachers who stay the course for New York City public schools; and 3) higher levels of
engagement among teachers in local schools and in education issues concerning local communities.
The study’s findings also offer food for thought and ideas for action relative to two critical national
education policy issues. The first centers on how best to increase degree completion among working
adults at a time when the job market increasingly values higher education credentials as a criteria for
employment. The second concerns retaining effective, experienced teachers in public schools in general
and New York City schools in particular.
The story of the LTT program mirrors what policy makers and educators who support the attainment of
postsecondary degrees have discovered is effective for “adult learner focused institutions.” The Council
on Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL), a national leader in defining how postsecondary institutions
can support degree completion among working adults, calls for flexible scheduling of both classes and
advisement and other support services; recognition for learning achieved outside of the classroom; life
and career planning; tuition benefits and financial aid; support with transitions and next steps; and
strategic partnerships with employers and unions that support adults’ ability to succeed. The LTT program
implements many of these practices, including outreach, counseling, free college prep classes and
advisement that help paraprofessionals with college entry; acceptance into education degree programs;
application to and financing of both undergraduate and graduate education; ongoing academic
advisement; and free preparation for teacher certification exams. The UFT/DOE contract provision which
includes tuition benefits is an example of a strategic labor-management partnership that enables
paraprofessionals to meet the legislative mandate to continue their education by earning college
degrees.
The findings of Triple Payoff also reinforce the view that working adult learners require more time to
complete their degree requirements. Concerned that only a minority of Americans can access the classic
liberal arts education model based on full time attendance for four years, Attewell and Lavin explored
the educational and economic outcomes of CUNY’s Open Admissions policy over thirty years. Their
findings, summarized in Passing the Torch (2007)45 challenged the then conventional four-year degree
completion time frame. They found that since the 1970s “disadvantaged women complete college
degrees in far greater numbers than scholars realize. Fully 71% of a representative sample of women
who entered CUNY in the 1970s earned a degree, and over three-fourths of these completed a
bachelor’s degree, while 26% of them earned a Master’s or higher degree. Although 29% of degree
completers took ten years to complete, and another 10% twenty or more years, the authors consistently
demonstrate the payoff of degrees earned in employment, earnings, and even positive impacts on the
educational outcomes of the next generation among the children of degree completers. During the past
50 years, many colleges have opened their doors to students who cannot attend full time. Within this
broader context, the LTT alumni participating in the research reported here are part of the history of the
democratization of American education that Lavin and Attewell described.
Triple Payoff also speaks to the debate regarding how best to retain effective, experienced teachers in
public schools in general, and New York City schools in particular. New Yorkers have grown accustomed
to reading about and lamenting the difficulty of attracting individuals to teaching careers, particularly in
the city’s most troubled schools. However, the data from this study suggest that teacher retention is
fostered by providing a career ladder for New York City paraprofessionals. As this Report notes,
teacher retention rates for LTT alumni in this study compare favorably to both New York State and
national data. The paraprofessionals in the survey also professed increased commitment to teaching and
greater involvement in the schools in which they work as well as those in their own communities, and
greater interest in public affairs. The approximately 20,000 racially and culturally diverse
Page 28
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
paraprofessionals employed by the New York City school system have experience working in public
schools and generally share the cultural and class background of the schools’ constituency. Expanding the
LTT program and others like it might be more cost effective than programs that draw primarily young
college graduates into teaching in impoverished school districts where they come face to face with
immigrant, ethnic and/or class behaviors and beliefs very different from their own and also encounter a
formidable and unfamiliar bureaucracy. Experienced paraprofessionals already seasoned in the nation’s
largest public school system, this report suggests, will be more likely to stay the course.
A large number of the LTT alumni in this study have worked as teachers in New York City public schools
since the late 1990s. Their words about their experiences as teachers also identify risks to teacher
retention and underscore the need to counter the current hostility to “big government” and to funding for
critical public services, such as education. Unless resisted by popular support for public sector unions and
institutions, this attack puts at risk funding for programs such as LTT that serve adult workers enrolled in
public colleges, as well as support for the nation’s public schools, charged with rendering our youth
equipped for higher education and the demands of the future.
Page 29
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
REFERENCES
1 USA
Today (6/4/2010). Degrees of Difficulty.
Retrieved from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/degrees-of-difficulty.htm
Jones, Stan (2011). Time is the Enemy, Complete College America. Retrieved from:
http://www.completecollege.org/docs/Time_Is_the_Enemy_Summary.pdf
2
Neeley, Lynn, Niemi John A, Ehrhard, Barbara J. (1998). Classes Going the Distance So People Don't Have To: Instructional
Opportunities for Adult Learners. T. H. E Journal 24(4): 72-74 Retrieved from:
http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/rlib_doc.cfm?docn=5938
3
4
Queens College at a Glance. Retrieved from http://www.qc.cuny.edu/about/Glance/Pages/default.aspx
It is difficult to compare this graduation figure with standard college graduation rates for two reasons: 1) both nationally
and locally the standard graduation rates is computed only for full-time students; and 2) the standard rates are based on
cohorts admitted during the same year. Most LTT paraprofessionals attend part-time, and it was beyond the capacity of this
project to identify by year the many cohorts represented by the alumni in the study.
5
Jones, Stan (2011). Time is the Enemy, Complete College America. Retrieved from:
http://www.completecollege.org/docs/Time_Is_the_Enemy_Summary.pdf . See also Lewin Tamar, (2011) College Graduation
Rates Are Stagnant Even as Enrollment Rises. A Study Finds, The New York Times, September 27, pp. A5
6
Department of Education, Institute for Education Science (2010). Digest of Education Statistics. Table 68: Public and private
elementary and secondary teachers, enrollment, and pupil/teacher ratios: Selected years, fall 1955 through fall 2019,
Retrieved from : http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_068.asp
7
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-2011Edition. Teachers, Employment Projections Data.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos318.htm#emply
8
Alliance for Excellence in Education (2005, August). Teacher Attrition, A Costly Loss to the Nation and to the States. Issue
Brief. Retrieved from Http:/ www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/TeacherAttrition.pdf
9
Department of Education, Institute for Education Science (2010) Digest of Education Statistics, Table 77: Mobility of Public
and Private Elementary and Secondary Teachers, by Selected Teacher and School Characteristics: Selected years, 1987–88
through 2008–09. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_077.asp?referrer=list
10
New York City, Department of Education, Human Capital Data. Annual Teacher Turnover Rate. Retrieved from
http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/DHR/HumanCapitalData/default.htm. see also
http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/5DB97FCD-BC4D-446F-9896 D45735404367/0/TotalTeachersandAnnualTurnover.pdf
11
New York City, Department of Education, Brand New Teachers and Attrition Rates. Retrieved from:
http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6961F6AF-C4D8-439A-A468637213A7533D/0/BrandNewHiresandTeacherAttrition.pdf. See also New York City, Department of Education, Human
Capital data, Updated Data on Teacher Recruitment and Retention. Retrieved from:
http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/DHR/HumanCapitalData/default.htm.
12
Abdallah, Jameeleh (2009). Lowering Teacher Attrition Rates Through Collegiality. Academic Leadership Live. 7(1) (Winter).
Retrieved from: http://www.academicleadership.org/article/lowering-teacher-attrition-rates-through-collegiality
13
Andrew Tammy (2009, February 25). Teacher Attrition Rates: Data Shows Teachers Leaving
Educationhttp://www.suite101.com/content/teacher-attrition-rates-a98726#ixzz1B7FFD6Bd; see also. Alliance for Excellent
Education, Issue Brief (2005).Teacher Attrition: A Costly Loss to the Nation and to the States. Retrieved from:
http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/TeacherAttrition.pdf
14
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2007, June 20). NCTAF Policy Brief Says Teacher Dropouts Cost
Nation More Than $7 Billion Annually. Retrieved from: http://nctaf.org/resources/news/press_releases/CTT.htm
15
Page 30
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
Santos, Fernando (2011). Heated Debate at Council Hearing Over Layoffs. The New York Times, October 1. Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/schoolbook/2011/10/11/heated-debate-at-council-hearing-over-layoffs/
16
Fernanda, Santos (2011). Deal Will Avert Plan to Lay Off City Teachers. The New York Times, June 24. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/deal-reached-to-avert-new-york-teacher-layoffs.html
17
Report: Layoffs hit 3 percent of NY teachers. (2011) The Wall Street Journal, October 11. Retrieved
from:http://online.wsj.com/article/AP8001a7f0250c4b7a98bc38661e0cca0e.html
18
Dill Vicki & Stafford, Delia (2008, April 14). Teacher Retention a Critical National Problem. Education News. Retrieved from:
http://www.ednews.org/articles/teacher-retention-a-critical-national-problem.html
19
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2007, June 20). NCTAF Policy Brief Says Teacher Dropouts Cost
Nation More Than $7 Billion Annually. Retrieved from: http://nctaf.org/resources/news/press_releases/CTT.htm
20
Boyd, Donald, Pamela Grossman, Pamela, Lankford, Hamilton, Loeb Susanna & Wyckoff. James (2009, March). Who
Leaves? Teacher Attrition and Student Achievement. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Data in Education
Research (CALDER Working Paper No. 23) Retrieved from:
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001270_teacher_attrition.pdf. See also: Wright, Paul, S., Horn, Sandra, P, Sanders,
William. L., (1997) Teacher and Classroom Context Effects on Student Achievement: Implications for Teacher Evaluation.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 11: 57-67; Retrieved from: http://www.sas.com/govedu/edu/teacher_eval.pdf
21
National Center for Educational Statistics, Fast Facts, Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28; see
also National Center for Educational Statistics Digest of Educational Statistics. Table 68. Highest degree earned and years of
full-time teaching experience for teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools, by selected teacher
characteristics: 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2007-08 Retrieved from:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_068.asp?referrer=report
22
23 National
Center for Educational Statistics (2010). The Condition of Education 2011, Table A-31- Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tsp-1.asp
24 National
Center for Educational Statistics (2010). The Condition of Education 2010, Indicator 27. Table A-27-1:
Characteristics of Full-Time Teachers. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/pdf/27_2010.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education (n.d.) Tapping the Potential: Retaining and Developing High-Quality New Teachers
http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/TappingThePotential/TappingThePotential.pdf
25
Alliance for Excellent Education (n.d.) Tapping the Potential: Retaining and Developing High-Quality New Teachers
http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/TappingThePotential/TappingThePotential.pdf
26
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (2009). Digest of Education Statistics, 2009. Table 67: Highest
degree earned, years of full-time teaching experience, and average class size for teachers in public elementary and
secondary schools, by state: 2007-08. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_079.asp
27
New York State Education Department. (n.d.) Certificates and Licenses. Retrieved from:
http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/certificate/typesofcerts.html
28
Educational Encyclopedia (n.d.) Nontraditional-Students-in-Higher-Education, Types of Nontraditional Students in the United
States, Support for Nontraditional Learners. Retrieved from:
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2298/Nontraditional-Students-in-Higher-Education.html#ixzz1KpGbdesh
29
Tab, E .D. (2006, May). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education
Surveys Program of 2005. Adult Education Participation in 2005 (NCES 2006-007) Table 4. Number And Percentage Of
Adults Who Gave Selected Reasons For Participation In Formal Work-Related Courses or Training: 2004-05. Retrieved from:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006077.pdf
30
Bessinger, Dana (2009). Teaching Teachers citing Merriam, S. B. & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A
comprehensive guide. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from:
http://www.adulteducation.wikibook.us/index.php?title=Teaching_Teachers
31
Page 31
The Triple Pay Off: The Leap to Teacher Program
Dauber, Ronnie (2008, May 27). Why Do Teachers Want To Teach? Helium. Retrieved from:
http://www.helium.com/items/1058641-why-do-teachers-want-to-teach
32
Counsel for Adults and Experiential Learning (2000). Serving Adult Learners in Higher Education; Principles of Effectiveness.
Executive Summary. Retrieved From:
http://www.cael.org/alfi/PDF%20files/Summary%20of%20Alfi%20Principles%20of%20Effectiveness.pdf
33
Counsel for Adults and Experiential Learning (2000). Serving Adult Learners in Higher Education; Principles of Effectiveness.
Executive Summary. Retrieved From:
http://www.cael.org/alfi/PDF%20files/Summary%20of%20Alfi%20Principles%20of%20Effectiveness.pdf
34
Rochester Institute of Technology (n.d.) Adult Learners, R.I. T. Online Learning
http://online.rit.edu/faculty/teaching_strategies/adult_learners.cfm
35
D’Amico, Debby (2006). Growing Teachers From Community Roots: Expanding and Extending Successful Paraprofessional
Education (Grant proposal, Murphy Institute).
36
Andrew, Tammy (2009, Feb 25). Teacher Attrition Rates: Data Shows Teachers Leaving Education
http://www.suite101.com/content/teacher-attrition-rates-a98726#ixzz1B7FFD6Bd; see also Alliance for Excellent Education,
Issue Brief (2005). Teacher Attrition: A Costly Loss to the Nation and to the States. Retrieved from:
http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/TeacherAttrition.pdf
37
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, Digest of Educational Statistics (2010) Table 71. Highest degree
earned, years of full-time teaching experience, and average class size for teachers in public elementary and secondary
schools, by state: 2007-08. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_071.asp?referrer=list
38
Ehrich, Thomas (2006). Measuring Up 2006 Civic Engagement, National Report Card on Higher Education. National Center
for Public Policy and Higher Education, Retrieved from http://measuringup.highereducation.org/default.cfm
39
40
Abramovitz, Mimi (2011). Triple Jeopardy: Women Lose Public Sector Services, Jobs, and Unions. Labor Forum (in progress).
Boyd, Donald, Pamela Grossman, Marsha Ing, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, & James Wyckoff (2009). The Influence of
School Administrators on Teacher Retention Decisions. Retrieved from:
http://www.teacherpolicyresearch.org/portals/1/pdfs/TeacherRetentionAdministrators22May2009.pdf
41
Futernick, K. (2007). A possible dream: Retaining California’s teachers so all students learn. Sacramento: California State
University. Retrieved from: http://www.calstate.edu/teacherquality/documents/possible_dream_exec.pdf
42
Teachers Attrition and Retention (2004). A Staff Report of the New York City Council Investigation Division to Member for
the Committee on Oversight and Investigation. Retrieved from:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/1024teachersal.pdf
43
Boyd, Donald, Pamela Grossman, Marsha Ing, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, & James Wyckoff (2009). The Influence of
School Administrators on Teacher Retention Decisions. Retrieved from:
http://www.teacherpolicyresearch.org/portals/1/pdfs/TeacherRetentionAdministrators, 22 May 2009.pdf
44
Attewell, Paul & Lanvin, David (2007). Passing the Torch: Does Higher Education for the Disadvantaged Pay Off Across the
Generations? American Sociological Association’s Rose Series in Sociology. Russell Sage Foundation: New York.
45
Page 32