Tag: NCLB

Posted on

Highly Qualified Teachers: Should Federal Requirements be Removed?

The federal provisions that define “highly qualified teachers” in the No Child Left Behind Act could soon be a thing of the past if U.S. House legislation is signed into law. The Student Success Act, drafted by Minnesota Republican John Kline, calls for removal of teacher hiring requirements at the federal level. Kline and other proponents of the Student Success Act, say the current outdated policies in place are actually hurting K-12 schools because things like credentials get in the way of hiring the best teachers. Individual states could still enforce stringent credentialing for teachers but the federal government would have no input. The term “highly qualified teachers” (HQT) would be removed from federal law.

Predictably, Democrats on the Education and the Workforce Committee that drafted the legislation hate it. Representative Pete Gallego, a Democrat from Texas, says the bill is a recipe for disaster when it comes to federal oversight and protection for disadvantaged students. He says:

“This legislation guts the core goal that all students should receive a quality education. It leaves children behind by taking resources from kids who need it most.”

Also at issue is the removal of funding for professional development for teachers and lack of protection for collective bargaining action.

A different K-12 bill supported by mostly Democrats has already passed the Senate that maintains the HQT policy but hands over a little more control of hiring teachers to states. The Strengthening America’s Schools Act would keep in place federal requirements that insist teacher evaluations, including student achievement, be used in personnel decisions.

Both bills allow states to use Title II funding to further develop teachers and administrators and for reduction in class size (though the House bill limits that to 10 percent of funds). Both bills also call for teacher evaluations to be used to determine equity in distribution. The biggest difference between the Senate and House bills is the inclusion and exclusion, respectively, of the HQT federal requirement.

At least on paper, the federal HQT provision looks good. HQTs must have state certification, at least a bachelor’s degree from a four-year institution and demonstrate competency in the core academic subject area. That seems pretty standard to me. If a state license, college degree and expertise on a subject being taught are somehow keeping qualified teachers from the classroom, what requirements should there be instead?

Critics of the HQT federal mandate say that the requirement focuses too much on the upfront status of the teacher. While those three conditions are a starting point, the real measure of a teacher should lie in student outcomes. To help K-12 teachers reach their full potential in the classroom, provisions that allow for continued training and development need to be emphasized, not taken away. Further, since the strength of college-level education programs vary and the licensing exams are different between states, how can the federal government really mandate what constitutes a HQT?

Proponents of the HQT provision concede that states must do more than the basic requirements when it comes to hiring and cultivating teachers, but that without that federal mandate, students will suffer – particularly minority and low-income children. The concern is that without the three HQT provisions, inexperienced and unqualified teachers will find their way into Title I schools. The promotion of equitable distribution of teachers in all classrooms – particularly ones with at-risk students – would be detrimentally impacted if federal HQT mandates are eliminated.

So what control should the federal government truly have over teacher qualifications? Should it be up to states to decide what their student bodies really need from teachers? To what end will disadvantaged students be harmed if either legislation is signed into law?

Posted on

Why K-12 Education Still Needs Federal Oversight

Educating American children has always been a responsibility that has fallen heavily on the states. As the public school system matured in the 20th century, however, it became increasingly apparent that states left to their own educational devices meant dangerous consequences for many children—especially students with disabilities and those living in poverty, for example. Historically, the federal government has always been the one to pick up the slack in K-12 education when states have fallen short.

In his piece for The Daily Beast, Jonah Edelman of Stand for Children warns that members of the newly-seated Congress have already voiced intentions to reduce accountability and transparency over states’ educational systems, while providing additional flexibility with federal funding.

Contrary to what some states-rights activists claim, states do not always act in the best interests of their residents, especially when it comes to education. Left to their own devices, states tend to enact discriminatory practices.

My home state of Mississippi is an example of state control gone awry. If its schools were wholly reliant on the state to outline learning benchmarks and divvy up funding (based on a state population with 24 percent in poverty and over 70 percent of its students eligible for free-and-reduced-price lunch), the inequalities would compound exponentially.

And those inequalities are already startling. For example, while 83 percent of high schools in New Hampshire offer calculus, only 41 percent of those in Mississippi do.

Mississippi has never quite been able to recover from its rampant poverty that began after the Civil War. Even when freedom was granted to slaves in the state and nearby, the African-American population was not able to elevate its quality of life due to the barriers erected by segregation and Jim Crow laws. Less-overt inequalities still exist that keep each new generation of African-American students in the state from breaking the cycle of poverty at home and underachievement in the classroom.

Edelman mentions issues like desegregation as wins for the federal government when states refused to do the right thing for all students. Without federal intervention, for instance, we wouldn’t have programs like the DREAM Act, which encourages continued education for students who might otherwise have been eligible for deportation. Instead, because of this federal program, they can contribute positively to their communities and to our country.

For one, federal guidance is needed to measure how much students are learning from one state to the next. Establishing a common high bar for academic performance that includes rigorous college-prep expectations can only be brought forth through federal involvement in schools.

It will be interesting to see what twists and turns the NCLB rewrites take and certainly no group will ever be completely satisfied. But the basic principle that guaranteeing every student in every state equal access to education is one worth fighting for.

Posted on

3 Developments on No Child Left Behind

No Child Left Behind expired in 2007 after lawmakers couldn’t come to a compromise over its renewal. Fifteen years have blown by since the last time No Child Left Behind was updated. That’s a significant period of time when we are talking about the treatment of our students in every school of the nation.

But just because No Child Left Behind has not been updated does not mean that it has been forgotten. In fact, there are some relatively recent developments. Let’s take a look at three of them.

  1. “No Child” Waivers extended to 2018. The Department of Education has released a letter stating the new guidance for securing waivers from No Child Left Behind, President George W. Bush’s education reform law, for three or even four more years. The waivers stop states from being tied to the rigorous expectations of Bush-led Adequate Yearly Progress, but in turn, each state must adhere to education reforms encouraged by the Obama administration.

The DOE informed chief state school officers that they would be eligible to apply to renew their waivers through the 2017-2018 school year.

The Bush-era law has been due an update since 2007. In 2012, the administration began granting waivers to state if they met certain requirement such as adopting college- and career ready standards and developing teacher and principal evaluation systems based largely on how much students learn.

Currently, 43 states and the District of Columbia have received waivers from No Child Left Behind, which allow them to forego certain accountability requirements law in exchange for implementing education reforms backed by the Obama administration.

Some education advocacy groups were pleased with the emphasis placed on ensuring states have a plan to improve student achievement for all groups of students — including students with disabilities, those from low-income homes and English language learners — and prohibiting states from giving schools high scores on state accountability reports if they have large achievement gaps.

The requirements also sparked some widespread criticism across the political spectrum.

  1. The Senate attempted to rewrite NCLB. According to The Washington Post, No Child Left Behind faced a 600-page rewrite. The Senate HELP committee (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) worked on adjusting language and amendments that would seriously alter the bill’s impact.

Some of the revisions include a pivot towards allowing states to assume control over how teachers are evaluated and would drop the federal definition “of a highly qualified teacher.”

The bill  also gives additional support for charter schools by providing “incentives for states to adopt stronger charter school authorizing practices.”

No Child Left Behind expired in 2007 after lawmakers couldn’t come to a compromise over its renewal. But this time seems to be different. The bill has a bipartisan tone and any amendment that did not have support from Democrats and Republicans was withdrawn during the bill’s mark up.

Yet those amendments will likely appear again when the full Senate has an opportunity to vote on the measure. Republican Senator Tim Scott has an idea  to funnel federal money meant to help poor students into a voucher system that any child attending a high-poverty school may use to transfer into a new school district.

His amendment failed in committee but he will reintroduce on the Senate floor.

Other inclusions and provisions included are an update to federal testing requirements, the peer review process, and an alteration to funding for early childhood learning programs.

  1. The Senate approved the changes to the law in July, a move that finally sets up negotiations with the U.S. House on updating the federal law on education.

“The Senate-passed measure would prohibit the federal government from setting performance targets or requiring specific standards such as the Common Core curriculum. It would make states responsible for establishing systems of accountability, including how much weight should be put on testing to determine whether schools are succeeding.”

According to ReviewJournal.com, the bill faces critics that believe it doesn’t reach far enough to help “minorities and low-income students.”

It is highly unlikely that the Senate’s bill will end up being passed as the final version as there is too much wrangling left to do with the House.

But besides that point, what may catch the eye of educators as they follow along with the progress of No Child Left Behind is how heavily it leans on allowing states the make final decisions on education.

Instead of receiving direction from the federal government, each state may end up having the ability to create policy surrounding how it decides to approach education. If you think about it, that is a scary prospect and would go completely against the idea of national standards.

Even that, though, is sure to change before the final version actually passes.

What do you think of the changes being made to No Child Left Behind?

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.