our future our teachers

7/30/2019 Our Future Our Teachers

1/24

U.S. DEPAR MEN OF EDUCA ION

Te Obama Administrations Plan for eacher Education Reform and Improvement


2/24


3/24

Our Future, Our eachers Te Obama Administrations Plan for

eacher Education Reform and Improvement

United States Department o Education

September 2011

i


4/24

U.S. Department of Education Arne DuncanSecretary o Education

September 2011

Tis publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department o Education, Our Future, Our eachers: Te Obama Administrations Plan or eacher Education Re orm and Improvement, Washington, D.C., 2011.

Tis document contains contacts and website addresses or in ormation created and maintained by otherpublic and private organizations. Tis in ormation is provided or the readers convenience. Te U.S.Department o Education does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or com-pleteness o this outside in ormation. Further, the inclusion o in ormation or addresses, or websites orparticular items does not re ect their importance, nor is it intended to endorse any views expressed, orproducts or services o ered.

Tis publication is available at the Departments website at http://www.2ed.gov/inits/ed/index/html

ii


5/24

ContentsFigures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Support or Re orm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Te Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Te Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Te Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

iii


6/24

FiguresFigure 1. New eachers Report Feeling Unprepared or Classroom Realities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Figure 2. Low Per orming or At-Risk Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Figure 3. A Comprehensive Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Figure 4.Our teaching orce does not re ect the increasing diversity o our students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13


7/24


8/24

Still, Im optimistic about whats happening across the country. Tanks in part to investmentsthat our Administration has made to support new data systems, over a dozen states now link teacher preparation programs with meaning ul P-12 impact data on how their graduatesare per orming in the classroom so programs can improve themselves. Investments in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act have supported dozens o colleges o educationacross the country as they develop new clinical programs that provide students with trainingin the concrete skills they will need to be e ective in the classroom. Leaders rom all teacherpreparation pathways, both traditional and alternative route programs are uniting around a vision o teacher preparation that puts student results and e ective teaching ront and center.

We want to build on this emerging consensus and on the re orms that our Administrationhas supported to re-design the No Child Le t Behind Act and spur a Race to the op inour schools. Tis package o teacher preparation initiatives will support and urther thetrans ormation already underway in how we recruit and prepare teachers in this country.

Under this plan, teacher preparation programs will be held to a clear standard o quality that includes but is not limited to their record o preparing and placing teachers who deliverresults or P-12 students. Te best programs will be scaled up and the lowest-per orming willbe supported to show substantial improvements in per ormance. Signi cant new scholarshipunding will help recruit the next generation o teachers to attend the most success ul teacherpreparation programs across the country. We will invest needed resources in developing ateaching work orce that re ects the diversity o our students. And standards or entry intoteaching will rise to a level worthy o this great pro ession.

Our goal is simple: We want every teacher to receive the high-quality preparation andsupport they need, so that every student can have the e ective teachers they deserve. Tisadministration looks orward to working with Congress, with leaders in the elds o teacherpreparation and development, and with all who share this vision to bring this plan to li e.


9/24

Support for ReformWe need to take the lead in recruiting and training teacher candidates. Letsstart by giving them the best preparation anyone could imagine on the ront end,be ore they ever set oot in a classroom. Students need and deserve our best e ortsand our best educators. The Administra ons proposal Our Future, Our Teachers provides a strong roadmap for promo ng and highligh ng excellence inteacher prepara on programs and providing long overdue support for teacherprepara on programs at minority-serving ins tu ons.

Dennis Van Roekel President National Education Association

Research has shown that teachers are the most important school-based actor indetermining student achievement. Comprehensive teacher e ectiveness re orm mustinclude bringing accountability to teacher preparation. Ul mately, colleges of educa onshould be reviewed the same way we propose evalua ng teachers - based primarilyon student learning. We applaud the Administra on for taking an important stepin advancing these reforms, collec ng be er outcome data, and suppor ng statereforms .

Chie s or Change Teacher prepara on must, in the words of a recent NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel report,be turned upside down. We have to raise the bar for teacher prepara on so thatexcellent programs and prac ces are the norm across our na on. We applaud thee orts of the Administra on in its strategic plan Our Future, Our Teachers to developa comprehensive agenda that will promote e ec ve teaching at every stage of thecareer pipeline . We are eager to work together with the Department and with allstakeholders to build a new system o teaching e ectiveness that serves all our nationslearners. James G. Cibulka President, National Council or Accreditation o eacher EducationPresident, Council or the Accreditation o Educator Preparation

Our Future, Our eachers makes clear that the ability to teach is something to learn, andthere ore to be taught. Tis report puts the ocus where it should be: beginning teachersreadiness to practice independently. Setting per ormance requirements or responsibleteaching is one o the most important improvements that the U.S. could make to ensurelearning by all students. Clear standards or what teachers should be able to do whenthey enter the classroom would shi t the ocus away rom arguments over who shouldprepare teachers and how to select program entrants and toward beginning teachersactual instructional skills.The Administra ons teacher educa on plan takes animportant stand -- its the outcomes of teacher prepara on that ma er most.

Deborah Lowenberg Ball Dean, School o EducationUniversity o Michigan at Ann Arbor


10/24

Iden fying and learning from top-performing teacher-prepara on programsis an important strategy to further the teaching profession in our country. It iscritically important to analyze regularly the e ectiveness o our teacher-preparationpathways, and that analysis should include an objective and rigorous examination o the average learning gains o students. States that annually conduct such analyses, suchas Louisiana and ennessee, are providing valuable eedback to teacher-preparationprograms, including each For America, and helping to in orm school and districthiring decisions.

Wendy Kopp CEO and Founder each or America

Te quality o the nations new teacher pipeline has a tremendous impact on the overallquality o education that our students receive. Te U.S. Department o Educations insistencethat states truly hold teacher preparation programs accountable will make it harder or weak programs to escape scrutiny. By investing in selective programs that take care to recruitminority teacher candidates and train them in e ective methods o instruction, particularly inreading, the Department will establish a strong model or other programs to emulate. And by awarding ellowships to high achievers, the country will recruit the talent into the classroomour students deserve. The Administra ons plan will get us closer to the day when schoolsof educa on come to be seen as invaluable to the teaching profession as medical schoolsare to doctors.

Kate WalshPresident National Council on eacher Quality

Understanding the in uence o teaching training programs on student learning is animportant rst step toward creating a system which supports ambitious teaching andlearning or our nations youth.The U.S. Department of Educa on is right to demand statesuse mul ple measures to assess teacher training program quality, and I welcome theadministra ons support of emerging tools like new teacher performance assessments that can be used to support deep program improvement in teacher education.

om Stritikus Dean, College o EducationUniversity o Washington

Our Future, Our eachers provides a valuable roadmap or the uture o teacher education as we seek to improve the ways our teachers are recruited, selected and prepared or their criticalpositions.

David Ritchey Executive Director Association o eacher Educators


11/24

Te Challenge eacher preparation programs play an essential role in our elementary andsecondary education system, which relies on them to recruit, select, and prepare

approximately 200,000 uture teachers every year.1 Strong programs recruit, select,and prepare teachers who have or learn the skills and knowledge they need to behired into teaching positions, be retained in them, and lead their students to stronglearning gains. Weak programs set minimal standards or entry and graduation. Tey produce inadequately trained teachers whose students do not make sufcientacademic progress.

Un ortunately, while there are shining examples o strong programs throughoutthe country, too many o our teacher preparation programs all short. As a whole, America is not ollowing the lead o high-per orming countries and recruiting thenations best and brightest into teaching. Instead, only 23% o all teachers, and

only 14% o teachers in high-poverty schools, come rom the top third o collegegraduates.2 Our di erences with other nations are not due to teacher preparationalone. We must do more to support and reward excellent teaching at various stages

in the education system. However, we can do more in the area o preparation. A ter admission, toomany programs do not provideteachers with a rigorous, clinicalexperience that prepares them orthe schools in which they will work .Only 50 percent o current teachercandidates receive supervisedclinical training. More than threein ve education school alumnireport that their education schooldid not prepare them or classroomrealities.3

Programs o ten do not respond toschool district needs or teachersprepared to teach in high-needsubjects like science, technology,engineering, and math, and high

need elds like teaching English

5

1 Julie Greenberg, Laura Pomerance and Kate Walsh,Student eaching in the United States (Washington, DC: NationalCouncil on eacher Quality, 2011), 1, http://www.nctq.org/edschoolreports/studentteaching/docs/nctq_str_ ull_report_ nal.pd 2 Byron Auguste, Paul Kihn, Matt Miller,Closing the talent gap: Attracting and retaining top-third graduates to careers inteaching (Washington, DC: McKinsey & Company, 2010), 5,http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/Social_Sector/our_practices/Education/Knowledge_Highlights/~/media/Reports/SSO/Closing_the_talent_gap.ashx3 Arthur Levine, Educating School eachers (Washington, D.C.: Te Education Schools Project, 2006), 32, http://www.edschools.org/teacher_report.htm


12/24

Learners and students with disabilities. Over hal o all districts report difculty recruiting highly quali ed teachers in science and special education, and over 90%o high-minority districts report difculty in attracting highly quali ed math andscience teachers.4

Finally, in a challenge that transcends any individual preparation program, the teaching work orce does not re ect the diversity o the nations students, with a student body that is increasingly black or Hispanic being taught by a teaching orce that remainspredominantly white.5

Tese challenges persist or many reasons, including a lack o accountability or teacherpreparation program per ormance. Despite requirements under the Higher Education Act that states identi y and improve low-per orming programs in their states, ew states hold programs to any meaning ul standard o quality. In the most recent yearor which data is available, states identi ed only 37 low-per orming programs at

the over 1,400 institutions o higher education that prepare teachers and 39 statesidenti ed no low-per orming programs at all. Tirty-nine didnt identi y a single low-per orming program. Over the last dozen years, 27 states have never identi ed a singlelow-per orming program.6

4 U.S. Department o Education, Policy and Program Studies Service Report Highlights: State and Local Implementation o the NoChild Le t Behind Act Volume VIII eacher Quality Under NCLB: Final Report (Washington, DC, 2009), 3, http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/ teaching/nclb- nal/highlights.Pd 5 U.S. Department o Education, Secretary Arne Duncans Remarks to National Council or Accreditation o eacher Education on6 November 2010 (Washington, DC), http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-national-council-accreditation-teacher-education6 Chad Aldeman, et al., A Measured Approach to Improving eacher Preparation(Washington, DC: Education Sector, 2011), 4 16,http://www.educationsector.org/publications/measured-approach-improving-teacher-preparation

6


13/24

Te Opportunity Despite this grim picture, there are signi cant causes oroptimism. At the program level, Fayetteville State University, ahistorically black university with an acceptance rate o 61% andin-state tuition o less than $4,000, is preparing some o the moste ective high school teachers in North Carolina.7 At KansasEmporia State University, clinical training isnt simply an add onsemester a ter years o instruction in educational theory. Instead,academic training supplements an intensive and continuingclinical experience that begins in a students sophomore year andcontinues through to graduation. Additionally, some alternativepathway programs are attracting new talent into the pro ession anddeveloping new models or rigorously preparing and supportingtheir teachers. eacher residency programs in Boston, Chicago, andDenver are pioneering a new vision or preparing teachers and postingextraordinary early results a vision strongly supported by the Obama Administration through the eacher Quality Partnership grantprogram.

At the state level, Louisiana and ennessee have developedstatewide systems that track the academic growth o a teachersP-12 students backto the preparation program rom which thatteacher graduated. North Carolinas Institute or Public Policy hasdone the same or all public college teacher preparation programs inthe state. Te picture these eedback systems paint o di erentiationin teacher preparation program e ectiveness is striking. In ennessee, a ter controlling or elementary and secondary studentpopulation di erences, the most e ective programs producegraduates who are two to three times more likely to be in thetop quintile o teachers in a subject area in the state, while theleast e ective programs produced graduates who are two to threetimes more likely to be in the bottom quintile.8 Tats power ulin ormation or hiring superintendents and or teacher preparationprogram leaders who can use the data to drive program changes andimprovement.

Moreover, there are marked di erences within institutions. ennessees data suggest that while one o its colleges o education

excels in producing high-per orming math and science teachers, inthe past it has been less e ective in preparing English language artsteachers. Tats important or the program to know in improvingits teacher preparation program and or public schools to know when recruiting and hiring new teachers. Te early lessons rom

Reports fromLouisiana Louisiana was the rststate to systematically break the silos separating teacherpreparation and K-12 schools.Now, K-12 student results arelinked to teachers and mappedback to the higher educationprograms that prepared thoseteachersI applaud the U.S.Department of Educa onfor working to take theLouisiana-model na onwide.Teacher prepara on programaccountability for K-12 resultsis an idea whose me hascome.

Paul G. PastorekFormer State Superintendent o Schools Louisiana Department o Education

All adults, including thosepreparing teachers, must be heldresponsible or the outcomesin our public schools. We have waited ar too longThe U.S.Educa on Departments planis right on target.

Diane Roussel Former Superintendent o Jeferson Parish Public Schools Jeferson Parish, Louisiana

7 Fayetteville State University Ofce o Institutional Research,Fact Book Fall 2010 (Fayetteville, 2010),17,http://www.unc su.edu/ir/FactBook/ Fall_2010_Fact_Book_dra t_copy.pd 8 ennessee Higher Education Commission, Report Card on the Efectiveness o eacher raining Programs (Nashville, 2010), http://www.tn.gov/thec/Divisions/ ttt/report_card_teacher_train/Report%20Summary.pd

7


14/24

ennessee, Louisiana, and North Carolina are in orming work being doneby every Race to the op winning-state developing similar eedback systemsand by states and teacher preparation programs across the country looking toupgrade their teacher training programs.

In many ways, most heartening is that leaders within the teacher educationcommunity are recognizing the urgency o the challenges acing teachereducation and leading re orm e orts. A recent Blue Ribbon panel convenedby the National Council or Accreditation o eacher Education (NCAE)called or teacher preparation to be turned upside down and laid out anambitious plan or re orming programs through greater selectivity, morerigorous accountability, and a ocus on clinical practice.9 Te American Association o Colleges o eacher Education (AAC E), which endorsedthe report, is working with 21 states to develop a teacher per ormanceassessment that will replace low-level pencil and paper licensure tests withan assessment built around high pro essional expectations to which bothteachers and preparation programs would be held accountable. AAC Ehas called or teacher preparation program accountability based on studentoutcomes as well as program input characteristics.

Te ederal role is to support states in their work. It is not to usurp thesigni cant progress already being made across the country. It is not toprescribe any particular model or how teachers should be prepared. Butthe right set o ederal policies and investments can accelerate and supportprogress already underway, and the ederal government can shine a spotlighton exemplary models or replication and scaling. It can and should addresschallenges that or too long have been neglected by supporting state-

level policies that reward the best programs, improve the mid-per ormingprograms, and trans orm or ultimately shut down the lowest-per ormers.

9 Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships or Improved Student Learning,rans orming eacher Education Trough Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Efective eachers (Washington, DC:National Council or Accreditation o eacher Education, 2010), http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx? leticket=z zeiB1OoqPk%3D&tabid=715

eacher preparationhas been shaken-up inLouisiana. Weve lived

through the difcultredesign years and werecontinuing to work outthe kinks o the value-

added data system. Teproposed initiatives willprovide impetus to seek

improvement in new areas o need in teacher

preparation.. . . Bo omline: I support Secretary

Arne Duncansini a ve.

Vickie S. Gentry, Ph.D.

Dean, College o Education & Human

Development Northwestern State

University Natchitoches,

Louisiana

In the e ort to assuredistricts that theirteachers will add

the most value tostudent achievement,preparation programs

have been care ully redesigned and some

even closedTheLouisiana model is

one...that should be

replicated in otherstates.

Barbara Freiberg

President, East BatonRouge School Board East Baton Rouge,

Louisiana


15/24

Te Plan

I. A Focus on Results: Institutional Reporting and State Accountability (Higher Education Act itle II Regulations)

Tis plan begins with nally providing prospective teacher candidates, hiringschool districts, and teacher preparation programs themselves with meaning uldata on program quality to in orm academic program selection, improvement,and accountability. Existing reporting and accountability requirements underthe Higher Education Act have not led to meaning ul change, in part becausethe data collected under them is not based on meaning ul indicators o programe ectiveness. Rather than ocus on the measures that matter most or eachprogram, institutions and states are asked to ll out a questionnaire with 440 eldsheavily ocused on program inputs as opposed to outcomes.

Beginning this all and continuing into the winter, the Department will work with theteacher preparation community to streamline regulations that reduce the reportingburden o these requirements and ocus instead on the best measures o programimpact. Te goal is to develop better regulation while reducing the reportingburden on states and teacher preparation programs. While the nal regulations will be developed in consultation with the eld, in general the Department aims toreduce input-based reporting elements that are not strong indicators o programe ectiveness or sa ety and replace them with three categories o outcome-basedmeasures:

9

Focus onoutcomes:K-12 studentgrowth,employmentoutcomes,and customersa sfac on.


16/24

1. Student growth of elementary and secondary school students taught by program graduates. Building on the lessons o the Race to the op states, Louisiana,North Carolina, ennessee, and the New York City school district, states would be asked to report on the aggregate learning outcomes o K-12 studentstaught by graduates o each preparation program. In doing so, they should usemultiple, valid measures o student achievement to reliably ascertain growthassociated with graduates o preparation programs.

2. Job placement and retention rates. In order to gauge the e ectiveness o programs in preparing, placing, and supporting teachers in a way that is aligned with school district needs, states would be asked to report on whether programgraduates are hired into teaching positions, particularly in shortage areas, and whether they stay in those positions or multiple years.

3. Surveys of program graduates and their principals. Finally, building on thelessons o the Cali ornia State University teacher education eedback system,to gather qualitative data that can in orm improvement e orts and provide acomplete picture o program quality, states would be asked to survey recentprogram graduates and their principals or gather other qualitative evidence asto whether relevant preparation programs provided graduates with the skillsneeded to succeed in their rst years in the classroom.

States would not be required to implement these measures immediately and the nalrequirements and timelines o these regulations will be determined only a ter extensiveinput rom the eld. In all likelihood ull implementation will be phased in over several years in recognition o the existing and near-term capacity o state data systems. Te good news is many have already implemented signi cant components o these

proposals. Many already track teacher employment data and link students to theirteachers and teachers to their preparation programs and others are making substantialprogress supported in part by $48.6 billion in ederal resources supplied along with theRecovery Acts State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and an additional $400 million in StateLongitudinal Data Systems grants.10

Regardless o the orm o the nal regulations and each states implementation choices,collection and distribution o outcome-based data can in orm better decision-makingat all stages o teacher preparation. States can make better decisions about whichprograms to approve and in which to invest. School districts and principals seekingreliable pools o e ective teachers can make better decisions about which programs to

10 According to the Data Quality Campaign (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org):

35 states already have systems in place that link K-12 student and teacher data;

28 states already share aggregate teacher efectiveness data with teacher preparation programs;

24 states already share graduate certi cation data with teacher education programs; and

14 states already share graduate employment data with teacher education programs.

StatewideRe orm:

No teacherlicensed or

cer ed

absent aperformance-based

indica on of quality.


17/24

partner with and rom which to hire. Prospective teachers can make better decisionsabout which program to attend. And the programs themselves can identi y areas orimprovement and re ne their curriculum.

II. Promoting Excellence: Presidential eaching FellowsBuilding on the data systems established as per HEA itle II regulations, thePresidents Fiscal Year 2012 Budget includes a $185 million state teacher preparationre orm grant program that would revamp and upgrade the existing $110 million

EACH grant program. Te revised EACH grant program, renamed thePresidential eaching Fellows program, would provide ormula aid to states thatcommit to establish rigorous systems or teacher certi cation and licensure andteacher preparation program accountability. Te bulk o unds (a minimum o $135million worth) would be used or scholarships o up to $10,000 or high-achieving,nal-year students attending high-quality traditional or alternative teacherpreparation programs. Te aim is to send EACH unds to the best programs orthe best students with a priority on those with nancial need.

State policies. Presidential eaching Fellows unds would be allocated by ormula tostates that commit to ensuring high standards or teacher preparation and entry intothe pro ession.

First, states would ensure that teacher certi cation or licensure is determinedon the basis o teacher per ormance, as measured by a per ormance-basedassessment or demonstrated evidence o e ectiveness. Certi cation nolonger would be based on simply passing a low-grade, paper-and-pencil testthat does not indicate an ability to teach e ectively in a live classroom.

Second, states would set rigorous standards or identi ying top-tier and low-per orming teacher preparation programs in their state based on in ormationthat includes but is not limited to outcome data collected under HEA itleII. States would assist rst, but ultimately have to withdraw approval romteacher preparation programs persistently identi ed as low-per orming, basedon three categories o outcome-based measures student learning growth, jobplacement and retention, and customer satis action survey results.

Finally, states would approve any teacher preparation program, includingnon-traditional pathways, that can meet the same high teacher preparationstandard or approval.

A set-aside o up to 20 percent o unds would support state implementation o these activities. Further, states could set aside an additional 5 percent o unds,beyond the 20 percent, to develop a master teacher designation in consortia withother states. Master teachers would receive portable certi cation and could beeligible or leadership opportunities and additional compensation.

11

No barriersto e ec vealterna veroute teacherprep programs.


18/24

Scholarships.Te vast majority o Presidential eaching Fellow unds would go toteaching scholarships. States would give subgrant unds to top-tier programs regardlesso pathway. In turn, top-tier programs would award nal-year Presidential eachingFellow scholarships o up to $10,000 each to high-achieving students with a priority or students rom a low-income background. Tese students would prepare to teach ina high need subject, such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or in ahigh-need eld, such as teaching English Learners and students with disabilities, and would commit to teaching or at least three years in a high-need school.

Tis program would be a revision o the existing EACH Grant program, maintainingand strengthening the programs core purpose o providing scholarships to recruitteachers to work in high-need schools. Under the current program, approximately $110 million a year in grants are provided to all teacher preparation programs, withoutconsideration o quality, and to students as early as their reshman year, be ore they may have the maturity or experience to commit to the teaching pro ession. As aresult, nearly 80 percent o recipients are expected not to ul ll their teaching servicerequirement and will have to repay their grant with interest. Further, o the ew teacherpreparation programs that states currently identi y as at-risk or low-per orming, two-thirds receive unds under the EACH grant program. By targeting unds to top-tierprograms and to students in the nal year o program participation, thePresidential eaching Fellows program will provide a strong incentive to graduating students andbetter ensure that program unds support individuals who ul ll their service requirementand enter the pro ession with the skills, knowledge, and disposition to be e ective teachersin high-need schools and subjects.

Current EACH grant recipients would continue to receive grand ather aid or the

duration o their academic program. All teacher candidates, whether or not they attend a top-tier program, will have access to income-based loan repayment that capsmonthly ederal student loan payments to 10 percent o income and public service loanorgiveness that wipes clean remaining ederal student loan debt ollowing 10 years o public service work, including teaching.

Presiden alTeaching

Fellowsto receive

a $10,000scholarship and teach or

3 years in ahigh-need

school.


19/24

13

III. argeted Investments: Hawkins Centers for Excellence at Minority Serving Institutions

While the HEA regulations and Presidential eaching Fellows program will createconditions or re orm or all programs and students in a state, targeted investmentsare also necessary. Research indicates that disadvantaged students bene t academically and socially rom having teachers with whom they can identi y. But such teachers areunderrepresented in the work orce: 14 percent o teachers identi y as A rican-Americanor Hispanic, compared to 38 percent o students. Only 2 percent o teachers are A rican- American men and only 2 percent are Latino men.11

Minority-serving institutions (MSIs), which collectively prepare more than hal o allminority teachers, must play a major role in preparing the next generation o e ectiveminority teachers. While many MSIs struggle in signi cant part because o a lack o unds compared to peer institutions, a number o MSI teacher education programsdemonstrate better than average results despite being dramatically under unded. According to a recent and extensive University o North Carolina study, FayettevilleState University, a non-selective and relatively low tuition school, consistently producesteachers who generate higher than average K-12 student academic achievement gains.Fayetteville State is more success ul thancolleges with comparable incoming studentbody demographics and more success ul than colleges that are have more selectiveadmissions requirements.

11 U.S. Department o Education, Secretary Arne Duncans Remarks to National Council or Accreditation o eacher Education on 6 November 2010


20/24

o support teacher preparation programs at MSIs, the Administration is requesting$40 million or the Augustus F. Hawkins Centers o Excellence program. Tisprogram, authorized by Congress in 2008 but never be ore unded, would providecompetitive grants to teacher preparation programs at MSIs or MSIs in partnership with other institutions o higher education. Tese projects will undertake a series o re orms to be developed in consultation with leaders o preparation programs at thoseinstitutions. Potential re orms may include:

Heightened entry and/or exit standards or teacher candidates; Comprehensive interventions to help promising candidates meet heightened

standards, particularly passing rigorous entry and licensure exams; Redesign to ensure that programs are deeply, clinically-based with academic

coursework in orming and supplementing eld experience; raining o all candidates in evidence-based methods o reading instruction

and the use o data to drive classroom practice; and Partnerships with local school districts or with non-pro t organizations with

demonstrated experience and e ectiveness in preparing and placing high-quality candidates.

Eligible institutions include Historically Black Colleges or Universities (HBCUs),Historically Black Graduate Institutions, Hispanic-serving Institutions, ribalColleges or Universities, Alaska Native-serving Institutions, Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, Asian American and Native American Paci c Islander-serving Institutions, and Native American-serving NontribalInstitutions with a quali ed teacher preparation program. Consortia o MSIs as well as

partnerships o non-MSIs and MSIs together are also eligible to apply. Te statutorily required minimum grant is $500,000, but awards are expected to average $2 millionper year. Grants would be awarded or three years, with an additional two years o continuation unding available conditioned on meeting per ormance targets. Eligibleinstitutions may use up to 2 percent o the unds provided to administer the grant.

$40million to

upgradeand

expand

MSIteachereduca on .


21/24

15

A Comprehensive Agenda Tese proposals are part o a broader e ort by the Obama Administration to ensure an e ective, well-supported teacher or every child. Tey build on work currently being advanced throughthe Race to the op and enabled by the Administrations re orm o the No Child Le t Behind

Act. ogether, these existing initiatives and the initiatives detailed in this document orm acomprehensive agenda to recruit, prepare, place, support, develop, and advance teachers topromote e ective teaching at every stage o the career pipeline:

Recruitment . Trough the EACH recruitment campaign, launched in October 2010 andaccessible at www. EACH.gov the Administration has worked to promote the teachingpro ession and recruit high-potential, diverse individuals, including recent graduates and mid-career pro essionals, into teaching. Better data around program quality will allow new recruits tomake more in ormed decisions in selecting preparation programs, and the $10,000 scholarshipso ered under the Presidential eaching Fellows program will support students enrolled in high-per orming programs.

Preparation. In addition to the proposals outlined in this document, the Administration hasalready invested over $140 million in innovative programs that provide intensive clinical trainingto prepare our next generation o teachers. With unds made available rom Congress throughthe American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Obama Administration was able to o er 5

years o support or 40 projects under the eacher Quality Partnership program. Tese grants will prepare teachers, based on the model o e ective teaching residency programs, supportingpartnerships between colleges, universities, and high-need schools to provide novice teachers

with comprehensive induction in their rst years o teaching and to support new pathways orthose entering the pro ession rom other elds.

In re orming the No Child Le t Behind Act , the Administration has proposed a $250 millioninvestment in a new eacher and Leader Pathways program, building o o the current eacherQuality Partnership Program to provide grants to school districts, nonpro ts, and universities

to create and scale up high-per orming teacher preparation programs, with an emphasis onprograms that o er a rigorous clinical experience and provide evidence o success in preparingteachers who achieve strong results in high-need schools. Regulatory re orm and the new Presidential eaching Fellows will put in place a stronger state system or ensuring the quality o teacher preparation, while this new investment supports and scales up individual high-per orming programs.

In-service development and support . Trough Race to the op and the AdministrationsESEA Flexibility plans, new state systems o teacher evaluation and support will ensure thatall teachers both veteran teachers and recent graduates o preparation programs receivepro essional development and career advancement opportunities that are aligned with theiridenti ed strengths and needs. o in orm these decisions, states and districts must work with

their teachers to set a clear and meaning ul de nition o teacher e ectiveness, one that considersboth a teachers success in achieving student growth, a teachers demonstrated contribution to aschools or districts success, and a teachers instructional skills as measured by multiple measureso pro essional practices, such as observations by trained observers against a rubric that is basedon clear standards and a shared understanding o what e ective teaching looks like and whate ective teachers should be able to do. Tis shared understanding o e ectiveness will supportcollaborative learning environments in schools where teachers can learn rom each other andbene t rom pro essional development that is aligned with their needs, and can allow districtsto reward, retain, and advance e ective teachers in a way that promotes the e ectiveness o alladults in a school building and ensures that every child has access to e ective teaching.


22/24


23/24

17


24/24

Te Department of Education's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

our future our teachers

Documents