Teachers

As we discussed last week, the House Education and Workforce Committee recently introduced two new bills as part of its piecemeal approach to reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, currently known as the No Child Left Behind Act). The first bill provides new language for Title I of the law, while the second revamps Title II and several other programs. Among the changes to Title II, which authorizes federal programs focused on teacher quality, the House’s “Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act” would alter the way the federal government distributes formula funds for Improving Teacher Quality State Grants to place equal emphasis on state population and poverty.

The Improving Teacher Quality State Grant program provides formula grants to states to support teacher quality activities such as recruitment and retention efforts, teacher placement, and training. The states use part of the funds to make competitive subgrants directly to local school districts. These grants are primarily used for professional development and class-size reduction.

Currently, grants to states are allocated based on the allocation each state received for the program in 2001 prior to the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act. Any additional funds remaining after the initial allocation are distributed among the states based 35 percent on each state’s share of the total 5-17 year old population and 65 percent on each state’s share of the 5-17 year old population living in poverty. Additionally, no state can receive an additional allocation that is less than one-half of one percent of the remaining funds. In 2011, this meant that the smallest allocation (for which 12 states qualified) was just over $11.5 million while the largest (California) was nearly $271 million.

Under the House’s Title II proposal, the grants would be allocated to states based 50 percent on each state’s share of the total 5-17 year old population and 50 percent on each state’s share of the 5-17 year old population living in poverty. Additionally, no state could receive a grant that is less than one-half of one percent of the total appropriation for the program. In 2011, this would have meant a minimum grant of over $12.3 million for the 12 states that qualify for the small state minimum.

What would this formula change mean for states? First, it would eliminate the initial allocation based on state allocations prior to NCLB (which took into account each state’s share of the student population and the relative size of its Title I allocation), setting a new baseline for each state’s allocation that could be either higher or lower than what it currently receives. This is most likely an improvement over the current system, which is based on ancient state data. However, it could cause problems for states that would suddenly receive far less than they currently do.

It would also guarantee the smallest states a higher minimum grant size than they currently receive. As we have written many times before, small state minimums typically mean that the smallest states, which often have relatively small poor populations, receive far more federal funds per pupil than others, disadvantaging low-income students in other states.

Most problematically, however, it would place equal weight on both state population and student poverty in the formula. This would almost certainly benefit medium and large states with relatively small poor populations while hurting lower-income states most in need of federal support for teacher quality. By contrast, current law places more weight on student poverty in states, using it to account for 65 percent of each allocation.

While it is impossible to know what inspired the House to make this change to the Title II formula, it seems like it could mean trouble for states with large low-income student populations. Ed Money Watch will do a more thorough analysis once data become available on what actual state allocations will look like under the proposed formula. Check back for that and continuing coverage of the House’s ESEA proposals.

Teacher training and quality has long been a topic of discussion among policymakers, especially as states have expanded access to alternative teacher training programs outside of traditional schools of education. While many remain skeptical about the effectiveness and worth of such programs, 45 states have implemented alternative routes to certification and 11 percent of teacher trainees attend such programs. The issue was no doubt important enough that in 2008 Congress required that the U.S. Department of Education collect and report data on participation in various types of teacher training programs. The Department made that data available late last year through a report called “Preparing and Credentialing the Nation’s Teachers: The Secretary’s Eighth Report on Teacher Quality Based on Data Provided for 2008, 2009, 2010.”

The report includes a host of interesting data on teacher training, participation in various programs, and state policies on teacher credentialing. But one table particularly stuck out to us. The table (see page 14 of the document), which focuses on enrollment in various types of teacher programs by demographics in 2008-09, divides teacher training programs into three groups: traditional, alternative-based in an institution of higher education, and alternative-not based in an institution of higher education.

Interestingly, the table shows that alternative teacher training programs are much better at attracting male prospective teachers than traditional programs – only 24 percent of students enrolled in traditional programs are male, while 31 and 34 percent are male at alternative programs that are or are not based at higher education institutions, respectively.

Even more interesting are the variations in enrollment by race. Alternative programs, especially those not based at institutions of higher education, are much more likely than traditional programs to enroll prospective teachers who are Hispanic or African American. At traditional programs, only 7 percent of students were African American in 2008-09, while 16 percent were African American at alternative programs not based at institutions of higher education.

Why does this matter? Many experts believe that male and minority students are more likely to respond to and make connections with teachers that come from similar backgrounds as they do, improving their academic performance and motivation. But public schools in America have long struggled to attract more male and minority teachers into classrooms for a variety of reasons including prospective compensation, access to training programs, and perceived stigma around teaching.

The Department of Education’s latest report on teach training suggests that alternative training programs have made headway in attracting male and minority teachers when traditional training programs have not. There are many reasons why alternative programs could be more appealing to these prospective teachers: they are often more accessible, provide more flexibility, make it easier for second-career teachers to change jobs, and allow students to get on-the-job experience while in school. But which of these aspects matters the most to these high-need teachers? That’s a question worthy of some more research.

Similarly, we wonder whether alternative programs are doing something more or different to attract these teachers. Can traditional programs replicate this success and bring more male and minority teachers into classrooms? After all, traditional programs still make up the bulk of teacher training and likely will in the future -- only 11 percent of prospective teachers are currently enrolled in alternative training programs.

The federal government provides several funding streams aimed at improving teacher training in both traditional and alternative settings. It is clear that traditional programs have some things to learn from their alternative peers, particularly with respect to attracting male and minority candidates. Perhaps these funds can be used to facilitate this knowledge sharing. Hopefully as the Department of Education continues to release more data and information on these issues through the reporting requirement on alternative training programs, we will be able to answer these questions and many more.

Debates over how to improve teacher preparation have been central to the education reform conversation over the past several years. Researchers, reformers and stakeholders called for a number of exciting, yet sometimes contradictory ideas: improving coursework on child development; moving to a model that includes more meaningful practice for prospective teachers in diverse classroom settings; holding teacher prep programs accountable; strengthening state regulatory rules for teacher prep programs; opening the doors for more alternative certification options; and more. Here at New America we joined the conversation, releasing a paper that focused on how to improve the preparation and licensure of prospective early grades teachers (PreK-3rd), and recommending that states reduce the overlap between early childhood and elementary teacher licenses.

As 2011 comes to a close, we took a few minutes to review the progress – and pitfalls – of early childhood education news over the year. So before we jump into another year of news and analysis, here’s a look at some of the major stories featured on Early Ed Watch this year. Happy New Year!

I used to be a teacher: I wanted to excite children about learning and help shape the minds of the next generation. But like nearly 50 percent of teachers, I left the classroom before my fifth year. And while a higher salary would have been nice, it would not have kept me in the classroom.

If you’ve been following Early Ed Watch recently, you know that a bi-partisan group of U.S. Senators has proposed a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). A few weeks ago, we wrote about Title I, Part A, providing details on how early childhood education, birth through third grade, is included.

Today, we will do the same for Title II. This part of the law is important because it governs the way the U.S. Department of Education provides funding to states for teacher training, among other programs.

Today, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) proposed a draft piece of legislation for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (currently known as No Child Left Behind). The current law expired in 2007 (though it has been extended) and education stakeholders have been impatiently waiting for Congress to take up a real reauthorization attempt. While the bill is full of interesting new proposals for the law, we thought we would first take a look at how the law deals with teacher comparability, a hot button issue among teachers unions, civil rights groups, and researchers. The Harkin bill makes great strides in comparability, including some ideas that we have supported to eliminate many of the current problems with the rule.

As a refresher, teacher comparability refers to a current provision of Title I that requires school districts to provide equitable state and local resources to both their low-income (Title I schools) and their higher-income (non-Title I schools).  School districts currently demonstrate that they are meeting the comparability requirements under Title I by comparing state and local resources (i.e. per pupil expenditures) provided to their low-income Title I schools and their higher-income non-Title I schools. To meet the comparability requirement, resources provided to the Title I schools cannot be more than 10 percent below those provided to non-Title I schools.

Under the Harkin bill, starting in the 2015-16 school year, districts would be required to demonstrate comparability by showing that combined state and local expenditures per pupil – including actual expenditures on salaries and benefits – in their Title I schools (low-income) are not less than the average per-pupil expenditures in non-Title I schools. Districts where all of their schools are Title I would need to show that that the average per pupil expenditure in its higher-poverty schools is equal to that in its lower-poverty schools. Prior to the 2015-16 school year, districts would be held to the existing comparability rules to allow them to prepare for the transition.

These changes go a long way in fixing comparability as it currently stands. First, it eliminates the option for districts to demonstrate comparability through measures other than expenditures like teacher-student ratios. This means that comparability would truly become a measure of funds spent, rather than a comparison of easy to document but hard-to-quantify resources.

Second, it requires that expenditures in low- and high-income schools be equivalent – not within 10 percent. This would give districts far less leeway in variations in funding for their schools. While a 10 percent difference may seem small, it can mean the difference between several teaching positions in some schools or a faculty of less experienced teachers.

But most importantly, the Harkin bill closes what has come to be called the “comparability loophole” that allows districts to ignore variations in teacher compensation due to years of experience in their per pupil expenditure calculations for Title I and non-Title I schools. By allowing districts to overlook such variation in teacher pay, the current law perpetuates the uneven distribution of teachers. Because more experienced, and therefore higher paid teachers, tend to work in high-income schools, low-income Title I schools employ primarily less experienced, lower-paid teachers. As a result, high-income schools receive a greater share of state and local funds to pay for their teachers than low-income schools. Closing the loophole by requiring districts to use actual salary and benefits expenditures in schools will help ensure that low-income schools receive sufficient funds to either compensate more experienced teachers or implement other programs, like teacher incentives or additional after school support, to provide their students with the services and support they need. The bill also contains a provision that would require districts to make the comparability data publicly available.

While the Harkin bill does make great changes to comparability, it falls short in specifying how districts would be required to comply with this new, stricter version of the rule. Even for districts that are already using real measures of expenditures to demonstrate comparability, moving from a 10 percent comparability threshold to a complete equivalence will be a challenge. Past proposals for fixing comparability (like Congressman Chaka Fattah’s (D-PA) ESEA Fiscal Fairness Act) have either suggested phasing in the new threshold or requiring districts to submit plans for how they will reach the new threshold. The Harkin bill currently lacks such provisions. The Harkin bill also doesn't touch on the issue of teacher transfers as a means to meeting comparability - likely to be controversial with teachers unions and other groups.

Of course, the Harkin bill is the first draft of what is likely to be many in the process towards reauthorizing ESEA. Congress will have plenty of opportunities to tinker with the comparability provision, as well as the other major proposals in the bill. Check back with Ed Money Watch as this process continues.

What is it with documentaries offering silver bullet solutions for the woes of the American public education system?

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), along with several co-sponsors, has introduced a new bill that would establish charter-school-like teacher and principal preparation programs, termed “Preparation Academies.” The proposed legislation aims to better prepare students for college and careers by increasing the number of effective teachers and principals who serve high-needs schools and hard-to-staff subjects like science and math.

Early education stakeholders should watch the bill closely because while it doesn’t delineate what grade levels would be included, it is safe to say that it would include academies that prepare K-3 teachers and elementary school principals.  What is unclear is whether the bill could also apply to the training of pre-k teachers.

Teacher effectiveness is known to be a critical factor in student learning and success. California has made some notable efforts to strengthen teaching, but the most coherent state-level initiatives have been limited to the earliest stages of teachers’ careers. After the credentialing and induction phase, state policy does virtually nothing to ensure teaching quality or foster continual improvement.