Monday, February 27, 2012

Regulations Would Link Teacher-Prep Quality, Aid Eligibility

This from Teacher Beat: 
A set of draft federal regulations under discussion this week proposes requiring states to classify their teacher-preparation programs into four categories, from low- to high-performing, based in part on outcomes indicators such as surveys of graduates, school districts, and student-achievement results.

The draft would also restrict states to permitting only those programs scoring at the highest level to offer federal TEACH grants, which subsidize training for candidates who agree to serve in high-needs fields.

Though still preliminary, the draft gives the clearest sense to date of how the U.S. Department of Education envisions refashioning the reporting and accountability requirements for teacher education housed in the Higher Education Act—one of the pieces of a comprehensive policy proposal for teacher education unveiled last fall.
The draft is a product of the negotiated-rulemaking process. Under this process, negotiators selected by the Education Department can alter the draft, but by the end of the rulemaking process—which continues through March—they must all agree on its format. If they don't, the department can issue its own rules. (See prior EdWeek coverage of this rulemaking here, here, and here.) ...

" The same trends that are corrupting K-12 education 
in this country, and the teaching profession, 
are rapidly advancing into Higher education."
-- Diane Ravitch

Diane Ravitch Addresses NAICU 2012 Annual Meeting from NAICU on Vimeo.

"In that state of the union address [President Obama] 
threatened to reduce the federal aide to colleges and universities 
unless they reduced their tuition. 
That's not the job of the president of the United States. 
It perhaps could be the job of Congress, but that's not going to happen."
--Rep Hal Rogers

At the same conference, Hall Rogers (introduced by Paul Patton) addresses NAICU:
Rep. Hal Rogers Addresses NAICU 2012 Annual Meeting from NAICU on Vimeo.


Anonymous said...

Let me see if I understand this correctly; if a university's graduate teachers serve in a district whose K-12 students do not perform well, then those universities' students would not be given acces to loans specifially designed for individuals who wish to teach in "high need fields." So as a College of Education if I am going to try to get my pre-servce teachers recruited without harming my program, I am only going to steer them toward higher performing distsricts for experiences an employment.

In the same token, if I am an undergraduate who wishes to teach math or science, then I am going to avoid going to institutions who geographically seem to serve at risk regions of the country and certainly avoid employment in those districts.

So lower performing schools not only get fewer teacher candidates but they also become disengaged from stewardship and training relationships with universities who do not wish to make themselves less marketable to the most in need pre-service teacher undergrads.

Yes that makes perfect sense. . . if we are trying to maintain the gap between low performing and high performing schools.

It is sort of sad because our leaders want to impose some sort of quantitative free market paradigm on schools with the belief that competition will raise student performance. They are simutaneously devaluing the intrinsic, sacrificing commitment of teachers for the sake of a fabricated illusion of measurement but at the same time seem reliant upon those very same human qualities as the basis for attracting and serving children at low performing schools.

Anonymous said...

I don't see how we are going to admit more kids coming from failing schools with lower test scores to universities which the President says can't raise tuition in order to support their remediation or pay to have the teachers the university is training avoid working in those same K-12 schools.

Anonymous said...

Hal Rogers has it right. Presidential responsibilities do not include unilaterally determining funding. Similarly, I doubt that any legislator is going to support anything that takes money from their states.

Richard Day said...

February 27, 2012 1:20 PM: Yeah. The corporate school reform movement wants everyone to have "a little skin in the game," as Commissioner Holliday puts it.

Whatever "skin extractor" is being used, it should be fair. It is counterproductive if the system identifies good teachers for elimination - and with error tolerances skyrocketing at 35%, the one thing we know for sure is that using it will be an injustice to some unacceptable percentage of teachers.

February 27, 2012 7:31 PM: Just like the situation above, it's another corporate approach that misses its target.

...just as NCLB was a right motivation - implemented 180 degrees backward.

Punishing those universities whose state support is evaporating doesn't make any sense - unless the president wants to punish them for not producing wiser congressmen and legislators in the first place.

February 29, 2012 10:27 AM: He might be right, but when Hal Rogers says it, I can't help but remember that there was no greater federal spender than he was - or not many.

And, to be fair, when he brought it back to Kentucky, I didn't mind too much.