Teacher Preparation

Teacher-Prep Negotiators Divided Over Federal Rules

By Stephen Sawchuk — March 05, 2012 5 min read

The tenor of discussions held here last week by negotiators rewriting federal rules on teacher preparation underscored deep-seated philosophical divisions within the field, including the thorny issue of how much responsibility schools of education should bear for producing effective teachers.

Though the panelists did reach compromises on several occasions, negotiators differed on the degree to which teacher-preparation programs should be rated on outcome measures; how aggressive the federal government should be in holding programs accountable for such results; and the ramifications of any new requirements on states with training programs of varying sizes and missions.

The negotiated rulemaking concerns the reporting and accountability requirements for teacher colleges, which are housed in Title II of the Higher Education Act, and the TEACH grants, a financial-aid program created under a budget-reconciliation bill five years ago. TEACH grants subsidize the tuition of teacher-candidates who commit to high-needs schools and fields.

‘Inputs’ and ‘Outputs’

The rulemaking is one part of the U.S. Department of Education’s blueprint for overhauling teacher training, which was formally unveiled last fall.

It was unclear by the end of this week’s sessions whether negotiators, who hail from such areas as public and private training programs, alternative routes, the financial-aid sector, and the classroom, would reach a final consensus on draft regulations. If they do not, the Education Department can issue its own set.

In meetings held Feb. 27-29, negotiators nominated by the field marked up a draft set of regulations put forth by the department. Under that proposal, states would be required to classify their teacher-preparation programs into four categories, from “low performing” to “exceptional.”

In addition to state-chosen indicators, such judgments would need to include outcomes indicators, such as surveys of graduates and school districts, teacher-placement rates, and student-achievement results based on state or local tests.

Over the course of the discussions, a cadre of negotiators led by Segun Eubanks, the National Education Association’s representative on the panel, successfully lobbied to add a fourth required performance indicator: training “inputs.”

States would need to factor in accreditation results or certify that programs adequately convey content and pedagogical knowledge, provide clinical training, and set exit criteria.

Such measures are necessary to get the full picture of program quality, Mr. Eubanks argued. Witout them, “you could in fact determine your teacher ed. program is failing without ever visiting an institution, without ever interviewing a graduate, simply by looking at these mathematical formulas. ... We’ve been down this road with teacher-preparation programs and even AYP,” he said, referencing the controversial adequate yearly progress school rating at the heart of the No Child Left Behind Act.

The negotiators also tentatively agreed that no program should earn an “effective” or “exceptional” rating if it could not satisfactorily prove that its graduates help students to learn.

Even then, the negotiators worried about how to require states to disseminate the results fairly for all programs. For example, Mary Kay Delaney, the head of the education department at Meredith College, in Raleigh, N.C., noted that small programs take several years to generate enough data to be plugged into “value added” test-score calculations. She urged negotiators to ensure that that factor wouldn’t prevent such programs from successfully demonstrating student-learning outcomes or from earning the top performance rating.

One key question remained unsettled: Just how good does a teacher-preparation program need to be before it should be permitted to tap federal financial aid for teacher-candidates?

TEACH Deadlock

By law, TEACH grants are only supposed to go to “high-quality” programs, a term never defined in law. But several panelists pushed back on an attempt by the Education Department to define only those programs scoring at the top level of each state’s performance system as high quality for the purpose of offering such grants.

When it comes to addressing the needs identified in the TEACH grants, “I’m not sure why ... only those that are the crème de la crème of teacher preparation get to qualify,” said David P. Prasse, the dean of Loyola University of Chicago’s school of education. “If you’re [deemed] sufficient, if you’re satisfactory, why would we eliminate those institutions from eligibility?”

Several negotiators pushed to allow programs scoring at the top two performance levels to offer the grant. But that raised red flags forothers, who argued that it mirrors the current accountability system, under which states have identified few programs—if any at all—as low-performing.

“You run a risk of perpetuating a fundamental problem,” said David M. Steiner, the dean of the Hunter College school of education, in New York City. “In my judgment, given the choice between ‘effective’ and ‘ineffective,’ a state will plunk a lot of institutions in the ‘effective category,’ and that’s it, end of story.”

The Education Department’s representative on the panel, Sophia McArdle, echoed Mr. Steiner’s concerns. But by the time the negotiating session had ended, the agency had not put forward an alternative suggestion.

Negotiators did not have time to discuss at length the state and institution “report cards” required under the law, on which each institution or program’s designations would be listed.

Draft changes put forth by the department, however, would eliminate a number of data points not required by statute, while expanding the reporting to include the minimum and median grade point averages of candidates; their minimum and median SAT and ACT scores; and the median GPA for program completers, among others.

Education Department officials will prepare another version of the draft regulations and report cards before the final negotiating session in April.

Related Tags:

A version of this article appeared in the March 08, 2012 edition of Education Week as Thorny Issues Hamper Teacher-Training Rules

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School & District Management Webinar
How Schools Can Implement Safe In-Person Learning
In order for in-person schooling to resume, it will be necessary to instill a sense of confidence that it is safe to return. BD is hosting a virtual panel discussing the benefits of asymptomatic screening
Content provided by BD
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being Webinar
How Districts Are Centering Relationships and Systemic SEL for Back to School 21-22
As educators and leaders consider how SEL fits into their reopening and back-to-school plans, it must go beyond an SEL curriculum. SEL is part of who we are as educators and students, as well as
Content provided by Panorama Education
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Achievement Webinar
The Fall K-3 Classroom: What the data imply about composition, challenges and opportunities
The data tracking learning loss among the nation’s schoolchildren confirms that things are bad and getting worse. The data also tells another story — one with serious implications for the hoped for learning recovery initiatives
Content provided by Campaign for Grade-Level Reading

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Teacher Preparation Opinion Far Too Many Educators Aren’t Prepared to Teach Black and Brown Students
Teacher-prep programs can help address that inadequacy, writes Sharif El-Mekki.
5 min read
A group of multicolored people stand together looking in both directions
Ada DaSilva/DigitalVision Vectors<br/>
Teacher Preparation Teachers Can Take on Anti-Racist Teaching. But Not Alone
Teachers want to do better by their students of color, but many don’t know how. Madeline Will examines the gap between intention and action.
3 min read
BRIC ARCHIVE
Illustration by Jamiel Law
Teacher Preparation You Have Anti-Racist Curriculum Resources. Now What Do You Do?
Teachers need spaces to explore how power dynamics have shaped the subjects they teach, explains Sarah Schwartz.
4 min read
BRIC ARCHIVE
Illustration by Jamiel Law
Teacher Preparation We All Live Racialized Lives: The 'Identity Work' Teachers Need to Do
Understanding the Black experience also means seeing white privilege, writes education professor LaGarrett King.
3 min read
BRIC ARCHIVE
Illustration by Jamiel Law