Highly qualified teachers

Last updated

The highly qualified teacher provision is one of the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. The term highly qualified teachers (HQT) comes from the original language of Title II (Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals) of the No Child Left Behind Act. Title II of NCLB designates federal funds to educational agencies for the purpose of improving the student achievement through the professional development of highly qualified teachers and principals. To qualify for this funding, states must comply with a series of conditions stipulated in NCLB, and track their progress toward goals each state sets. Title II was originally known as the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, [1] and has undergone several reauthorizations, though the original intent has remained relatively intact. The main goals of the highly qualified teacher provision is to ensure that every classroom is staffed by a teacher deemed "highly qualified" under conditions set by NCLB. [2] As some point out (e.g., Eric Hanushek), this section of NCLB is quite at odds with the general thrust of NCLB because it focuses on school inputs rather than student outcomes. [3] The sections of NCLB designated to HQTs allocates the majority of the funds to the states and does not clearly define at the federal level what is and what is not a highly qualified teacher, allowing for more local definitions of this term. This provision has come under much scrutiny, as it is up to states to decide how to measure highly qualified, and states are not holding their teachers to the same level of rigor across the country. Since its reauthorization in 2001, Title II has yet to reach its stated goal of ensuring that 100% of teachers in public schools in the United States are highly qualified. [4]

Contents

Brief overview of NCLB

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) was reauthorized in 2001 under the administration of former president George W. Bush and renamed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The ultimate goal of this act is to "To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind." [5] It is organized into ten "titles", each of which details one particular aspect of the goals of the act, and explains how funds will be allocated to State education agencies (SEAs), local education agencies (LEAs), and State agencies for higher education (SAHEs). Title II, Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals, focuses specifically on improving the quality of teachers and principals in publicly funded schools and created the term highly qualified teacher (HQT). [5] Title II of No Child Left Behind aimed to have a highly qualified teacher in every classroom in the United States by 2005. It also gives states greater freedom on spending as it relates to teacher qualify, in the hopes that schools will be able to retain their highly qualified teachers. [2]

History of teacher quality reform: 1965–2001

When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was first created, Title II was known as the Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Regional Consortiums Program. Its goals were to provide financial assistance to states to support the professional development of their math and science teachers. In 1984, this was reauthorized as the Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Program under Title II, Part A of the ESEA, and funding for the program began in 1985. [6] It was developed in the wake of the Nation at Risk Report of 1983 to allocate funds to educational agencies and non-profits through the states. In particular, the Eisenhower Program focused on the professional development of math and science teachers, as the findings of A Nation at Risk indicated that the United States was falling drastically behind the rest of the world in these fields. [7] This report, issued by former President Ronald Reagan, made a series of recommendations to improve the quality of education across the United States based on its findings. One of these recommendations was improved teaching. The report found that teachers were not adequately trained, not well paid, and were not qualified to teach their subject area. [7] The report recommended school boards should hold teachers to higher expectations, teacher training programs should be improved, and that teacher salaries and incentives should be increased. [8]

Reauthorization through the Eisenhower Program built off of the recommendations of the Nation At Risk Report and expanded the focus of professional development to include all core subject areas. The original goals of the program were to support the professional development of teachers of core subject, target those teachers who teach "at-risk" students, integrate other reform efforts to ensure all aspect of the education system were geared toward the same goals, and track the progress of states and local education agencies against a series of performance indicators. States were required to measure their performance using a series of six objectives aimed to develop highly qualified teachers and a system of highly qualified teachers. When ESEA was reauthorized in 1994, this program was also reauthorized and renamed the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. [9] Finally, in 2001 with the latest reauthorization and rename of ESEA, the Eisenhower Program was renamed Title II: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals.

Currently, it is the job of the states to define what it means to be "highly qualified" and to monitor their own progress. [10] States are required to complete and submit three annual reports on the progress they are making. Schools of education need to report their graduation pass rates for teacher certification to the state in April. States then report "information on certification and licensure requirements, pass rates on state assessments disaggregated and ranked by institution, and other information" to the U.S. Department of Education in October. The U.S. Secretary of Education then releases an Annual Report on Teacher Quality which synthesizes this data. [11]

Summary of Title II

The purpose of Title II funding is to provide federal grants to State education agencies (SEAs), local education agencies (LEAs), and State agencies for higher education (SAHEs) in order to (Section 2101):

  1. increase student academic achievement through strategies such as improving teacher and principal quality and increasing the number of highly qualified teachers in the classroom and highly qualified principals and assistant principals in schools; and
  2. hold local educational agencies and schools accountable for improvements in student academic achievement. [12]

Part A, Subpart 1, which includes Section 2102 and 2103, define terms and authorizes the appropriations of these funds to state, LEAs, and other partners. [12]

Subpart 2 (Sections 2111–2113) of Title II details how grants will be disbursed to the states. It explains specifically how the law determines the allotment of funds to each state, the conditions with which the state must comply in order to apply for and be approved for funding, and how the states may use the funds. States must provide a detailed description of how they will use the money, and what they will do to monitor their progress toward becoming "highly qualified." The law also explains that 95% of the grant must go directly to the local education agencies in the form of subgrants. The remaining 5% of funds are to be used for other partnerships and other state activities which may require funding. However, the majority of the grant money is distributed to LEAs for the improvement of teacher quality. [13]

Subpart 3 (Sections 2121–2123) focus specifically on the LEAs' use of funds. It explains that to be eligible for the funds, LEAs must apply to the state and specify: what activities they plan to use the money for, how these activities are scientifically based in research that shows they will have a positive impact on teacher performance and student academic achievement, how the LEA plans on targeting teachers of at-risk students, what professional development to teachers and principals they will offer, how the LEA will integrate technology, the results, and any additional training that may be provided to teachers. It specifies that the use of these funds should be to recruit and develop highly qualified teachers, and then create mechanisms to retain these teachers in the schools. LEAs should also provide professional development and incentivize teacher retention. [14]

Subpart 4 describes the measures states will take to hold themselves and LEAs accountable for the use of this grant money. Subpart 5 of Part A of Title II describes the National Activities that will take place surrounding HQTs. [15]

A full outline of Parts A, B (Mathematics and Science Partnerships), and Part C (Innovation for Teacher Quality) can be found on the U.S. Department of Education's website. [15]

Initial Reactions to 2001 Reauthorization of Title II

When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was reauthorized as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001, it called for major improvements in teacher quality across the board. Teacher quality has long been regarded as the essential component when it comes to factors that affect a student's education. Indeed, the Coleman Report claimed this to be true in 1966, and subsequent studies have reported this research. [4] Excellent teaching can result in more than one year's growth of education, while poor quality teaching can result in loss of years of learning. Given the strength of these findings, it is not surprising that NCLB chose to focus on improving teacher quality. Indeed, the 2001 act included statues that required for 100% of core subject classes be taught by highly qualified teachers by the close of the 2005–2006 academic year. It required states to create and to publish their plans for achieving this goal. It also required for states to track their progress towards this goal, and to publish the progress every year.

State failures to meet performance criteria

States did not hit the 100% highly qualified mark by the end of the 2006 academic year. However, by end of the 2009–2010 academic year, the Department of Education reported that 98% of elementary core classes were taught by HQTs and 96% of secondary core classes were taught by HQTs. 41 of 50 states reported an increase in the overall percentage of HQTs from the 2003–2004 academic year to the 2009–2010 academic year. Furthermore, 13 states reported 99% of core classes were taught by HQTs. However, the Department of Education also reported that low-poverty schools had a greater percentage of HQTs than high-poverty schools in 47 of 50 states. [16]

Controversies and debates about teacher quality

According to NCLB, a highly qualified teacher must have "1) a bachelor's degree, 2) full state certification or licensure, and 3) prove that they know each subject they teach." Beyond that, NCLB does not define its terminology, and it leaves requirements up the states. States are allowed the liberty to determine how teachers can prove their content knowledge. Many states have chosen to approach this issue with standardized content exams. However, the exams, themselves, are not standardized. This means that "qualification" has a different meaning in each state. A teacher who may be deemed "highly qualified" by Alabama standards, may not be deemed "highly qualified" by California standards. Some scholars point out that "from a practical standpoint, interstate differences in what it meant to be certified provided the federal government with few assurances that, across the board, the nations' teachers were qualified to teach". [17] There is also widespread disagreement about what it means to be a highly qualified teacher.

According to the National Commission on Teaching and America's future, HQTs should "graduate from accredited institutions, pass licensing examinations that include both content and performance components, and be certified when they obtain advanced levels of competence". [18] While others point out that standardized test scores and prestigious degrees neither effectively prepare HQTs for the classroom nor capture the qualities necessary to be an effective teacher.

Where states are today

Ultimately, while the Department of Education may state 97% coverage of HQTs in core content classrooms, the true meaning of "qualified" remains vague and transient.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Department of Education</span> U.S. federal government department concerning education

The United States Department of Education is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. It began operating on May 4, 1980, having been created after the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was split into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services by the Department of Education Organization Act, which President Jimmy Carter signed into law on October 17, 1979.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">No Child Left Behind Act</span> 2002 United States education reform law; repealed 2015

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was a U.S. Act of Congress that reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; it included Title I provisions applying to disadvantaged students. It supported standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals could improve individual outcomes in education. The Act required states to develop assessments in basic skills. To receive federal school funding, states had to give these assessments to all students at select grade levels.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elementary and Secondary Education Act</span> 1965 US law, part of Johnsons War on Poverty

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed by the 89th United States Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on April 11, 1965. Part of Johnson's "War on Poverty", the act has been one of the most far-reaching pieces of federal legislation affecting education ever passed by the United States Congress, and was further emphasized and reinvented by its modern, revised No Child Left Behind Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Individuals with Disabilities Education Act</span> United States law

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a piece of American legislation that ensures students with a disability are provided with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that is tailored to their individual needs. IDEA was previously known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) from 1975 to 1990. In 1990, the United States Congress reauthorized EHA and changed the title to IDEA. Overall, the goal of IDEA is to provide children with disabilities the same opportunity for education as those students who do not have a disability.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) was a measurement defined by the United States federal No Child Left Behind Act that allowed the U.S. Department of Education to determine how every public school and school district in the country was performing academically according to results on standardized tests. As defined by National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), AYP was "the amount of annual achievement growth to be expected by students in a particular school, district, or state in the U.S. federal accountability system, No Child Left Behind (NCLB)." AYP has been identified as one of the sources of controversy surrounding George W. Bush administration's Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Private schools were not required to make AYP.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bilingual Education Act</span> Language education law of the United States

The Bilingual Education Act (BEA), also known as the Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967, was the first United States federal legislation that recognized the needs of limited English speaking ability (LESA) students. The BEA was introduced in 1967 by Texas senator Ralph Yarborough and was both approved by the 90th United States Congress and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on January 2, 1968. While some states, such as California and Texas, and numerous local school districts around the country already had policies and programs designed to meet the special educational needs of elementary and secondary school students not fluent in the English language, this act signaled that the federal government now also recognized the need for and value of bilingual education programs in U.S. public education. In 1969 there was a 50% drop out rate among Mexican American students who struggled to keep up with their English-speaking peers in school; Representative Tony Abril argued that the Bilingual Education Act would reduce this number. Passed on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement, its purpose was to provide school districts with federal funds, in the form of competitive grants, to establish innovative educational programs for students with limited English speaking ability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IDEA 2004</span>

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 is a United States law that mandates equity, accountability, and excellence in education for children with disabilities. As of 2018, approximately seven million students enrolled in U.S. schools receive special education services due to a disability.

The English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act - formerly known as the Bilingual Education Act - is a federal grant program described in Title III Part A of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 and again as the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015. This section is specifically targeted to benefit Limited English Proficient (LEP) children and immigrant youth. The statute states that LEP students must not only attain English proficiency but simultaneously meet the same academic standards as their English-speaking peers in all content areas. Federal funding is provided to assist State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in meeting these requirements. In 2011, ESEA Title III awards were granted to 56 SEAs and the average award given to an individual SEA was $12,158,046.

The Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act or SKILLS Act is proposed legislation introduced in the United States Congress.

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative is the only federal funding source dedicated exclusively to afterschool programs. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) reauthorized 21st CCLC in 2002, transferring the administration of the grants from the U.S. Department of Education to the state education agencies. Each state receives funds based on its share of Title I funding for low-income students. Funds are also allotted to outlying areas and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.The No Child Left Behind Act narrowed the focus of 21st CCLC from a community learning center model, where all members of the community benefited from access to school resources such as teachers, computer labs, gymnasiums and classrooms, to an afterschool program model that provides services only to students attending high-poverty, low-performing schools. The services they provide include Academic enrichment activities that can help students meet state and local achievement standards. They also provide additional services designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic program, such as: drug and violence prevention programs, counseling programs, art, music, and recreation programs, technology education programs, and character education programs. Programs also may provide literacy and related educational development services to the families of children who are served in the program.

School Improvement Grants (SIGs) are grants awarded by the U.S. Department of Education to state education agencies (SEAs) under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The SEAs, in turn, award subgrants to local educational agencies for the purpose of supporting focused school improvement efforts. In 2009, the Obama administration, and specifically U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, challenged the education community to make the lowest-achieving schools its highest priority.

Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs (SASA) is a division of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that administers programs of financial assistance to State and local education agencies (LEA) and to colleges and universities. Under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, SASA administers several Title I programs of supplementary instruction and other services. This includes programs such as the Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs and the Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk. Under Title III of the ESEA, SASA administers the State Formula Grant Program for English Language Acquisition and Language Enhancement. SASA also administers the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program authorized by the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act.

The Turnaround Model is one of four strategies available to American local education agencies (LEAs) under the Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants programs of the Obama administration. The other three programs include Restart, Transformation, and School Closures.

Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) is education policy from Title 2, Part B, Sections 2201-2203 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The purpose of MSP is to increase student achievement in science and mathematics by partnering IHE science, math, and engineering departments with elementary and secondary science and math teachers in high-need local educational agencies (LEAs) in order to develop teachers' content knowledge and instructional performance. SEAs may apply for competitive grants and then IHEs and LEAs may apply for a subgrant of the SEA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Student Success Act</span>

The Student Success Act is a bill that was introduced into the United States House of Representatives during the 113th Congress. The bill deals with education policy and would alter parts of both the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the No Child Left Behind Act. The Student Success Act passed in a House vote of 221-207 on July 19, 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act</span> United States legislative Act

The Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act is a bill that would amend and reauthorize both the Charter School Programs and the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Initiatives under Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 through fiscal year 2020 and combine them into a single authorization. This is intended to streamline and improve the grants process and increase the funding for these programs from $250 million to $300 million.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Every Student Succeeds Act</span> 2015 United States education reform law

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is a US law passed in December 2015 that governs the United States K–12 public education policy. The law replaced its predecessor, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and modified but did not eliminate provisions relating to the periodic standardized tests given to students. Like the No Child Left Behind Act, ESSA is a reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which established the federal government's expanded role in public education.

The 1981 Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), significantly deregulating education in the United States and shifting a number of responsibilities back to the state level. As part of the Reagan administration’s Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981, this act curtailed federal intervention and funding for domestic social causes while expanding the role of state and local government in administering education. This deregulation is symbolized by the reduced size of Title I, which was reduced from 75 pages to just 14.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Education for Economic Security Act</span> 1984 United States education law

The Education for Economic Security Act is a United States federal education law that was enacted in 1984. It provided funding for programs to support schools and teachers in the instruction of math and science, including grants, awards, and scholarships. The act funded teacher training programs and awarded schools and teachers that excelled in the instruction of math and science. The act also developed a program to combat asbestos in schools, fund magnet schools, and protect students from religious discrimination.

References

  1. ↑ No Child Left Behind: Title I Overview. Teachers of English Speakers of Other Languages, Inc., 2007.
  2. 1 2 Archived: Fact Sheet on No Child Left Behind. US Department of Education, August 2003.
  3. ↑ Eric Hanushek, "Building on No Child Left Behind." Science 326(November 6, 2009): 802-802.
  4. 1 2 Goldhaber, Dan. Everyone's Doing It, But What Does Teacher Testing Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources. University of Wisconsin Press. Fall, 2007: 766.
  5. 1 2 Elementary and Secondary Education: One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America. US Department of Education, March 2008.
  6. ↑ Archived Information: Evaluation of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development Program Part B. US Department of Education.
  7. 1 2 Archived Information: A Nation At Risk Findings. US Department of Education, October 1999.
  8. ↑ Archived Information: A Nation At Risk Recommendations. US Department of Education, October 1999.
  9. ↑ Archived Information: The Eisenhower Program and the Goals of the 1994 Reauthorization. December 1999.
  10. ↑ Elementary and Secondary Education: Title II Reports on the Quality of Teacher Preparation. US Department of Education, December 2010.
  11. ↑ The Secretary's Seventh Annual Report on Teacher Quality. US Department of Education, 2010.
  12. 1 2 Elementary and Secondary Education: Title II — Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals. US Department of Education, September 2004.
  13. ↑ Elementary and Secondary Education: Subpart 1—Grants to States. US Department of Education, September 2004.
  14. ↑ Elementary and Secondary Education: Subpart 2—Subgrants to Local Education Agencies. US Department of Education, September 2004.
  15. 1 2 Elementary and Secondary Education: Table of Contents. US Department of Education, December 2010.
  16. ↑ A Summary of Highly Qualified Teacher Data for School Year 2009-10. US Department of Education, June 2011.
  17. ↑ Walsh, Kate. Through the Looking Glass: How NCLB's Promise Requires Facing Some Hard Truths About Teacher Quality. The Clearing House. Sep-Oct, 2004: 23
  18. ↑ Cohen-Vogel, Lora and Thomas Smith. "Qualifications and Assignments of Alternatively Certified Teachers: Testing Core Assumptions." American Education Research Journal. Sept, 2007: 733
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.