* The current preparation of teachers is
inadequate; 
The Higher Education Act (HEA) was one of President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs designed to provide financial support for low-income youth to pursue postsecondary education. The HEA, like many large federal programs, is periodically examined by Congress and updated through amendments. This process is called reauthorization and occurs approximately every five years. In 1996 Congress began one of these reviews, which culminated in November 1998 with President Clinton signing the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-422).
During the review of HEA, concern about the quality of teacher education emerged (Earley, 2000). Although Federal programs to strengthen the teaching force through teacher preparation and professional development grants existed for over 15 years in Title V of HEA, Congress used the 1996-1998 amendment process as an opportunity to make major revisions in that portion of the law. This was done by abolishing the Title V programs and creating a new Teacher Quality section in HEA known as Title II. The new Title II had two purposes: Sections 202-205 established grant programs for partnerships between K-12 schools and institutions of higher education and for states to improve teacher quality, while sections 206, 207, and 208 laid out new accountability requirements for states and institutions that prepare teachers (Higher Education Amendments, 1998). It is the accountability provisions in Sections 207 and 208 that are the focus of this digest.
The high visibility given to What Matters Most in the press led to some vocal opposition to teacher education (Earley, 2000). This opposition came primarily from groups and individuals who supported elimination of teacher licensure and endorsed a free-market approach to teacher recruitment and hiring (Ballou & Pordgursky, 1997). Thus, as Congress considered how to revise HEA, the information lawmakers heard about teacher education could be classified into three general messages:
* The current preparation of teachers is
inadequate;
* Teacher education should be guided by strong
standards (as proposed by NCTAF); and
* Formal teacher
education is unnecessary, as characterized by NCTAF
critics.
Because the federal government is limited in its ability to impose college-level curriculum or to set state licensure standards for educators, the Congress focused on the first message. It addressed perceived deficiencies in teacher preparation by mandating through Title II that any institutions preparing teachers that receive funds through HEA for any purpose, and any states that receive HEA monies submit to Congress annual reports on their efforts to improve the quality of teaching. Sections 207 and 208 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 detail these reporting requirements.
* The pass rates of students who
have completed a teacher education program on each of the state's
licensure examinations. (Examinations taken by fewer than 10
students are included only in aggregated data in order to protect
public disclosure of exam results when only a few students take the
exam each year.)
* The number of students enrolled in teacher
education programs.
* The number of hours each teacher education
student is required to complete in practice teaching and the
faculty-student ratio in this part of the program.
* Whether or
not the college or university's teacher education program is
approved or accredited by the state.
* Whether or not the state
has identified the institution's teacher education program as
low-performing. In addition, the law specifies that institutions
may submit supplemental information about their program, such as
characteristics of students they enroll, the community they serve,
the institution's mission, and the like. The optional supplemental
information may be used to present a broader institutional picture
than that given by exam pass rates and other quantitative data.
Colleges and universities must also make this information available
to the public, potential students, and prospective employers of
their teacher education graduates (Higher Education Amendments,
1998).
Strong sanctions are associated with Title II. Institutions that do not submit reports or intentionally provide inaccurate information could be fined $25,000. Moreover, each state is required by law to develop criteria to flag low-performing colleges and universities. These criteria may or may not include test scores, but once in place, if an institution is identified as low-performing and has not improved after receiving technical assistance from the state, it may lose eligibility to receive federal grants to support educator professional development and may not enroll a student in its teacher education program who receives student financial aid under Title IV of HEA.
* Describe its licensure
requirements and all assessments that are used as part of the
teacher credentialing process.
* Explain the extent to which
there is alignment between the teacher education licensure
requirements and K-12 content standards.
* Report the
qualifying scores and percentage of candidates who pass each teacher
licensure exam for each program in the state. (This provision was
subsequently modified by the U.S. Department of Education to require
that institutional comparisons within states be done by "adjusted
quartiles.") (U.S. Department of Education, 2000).
* The number
of licensure waivers granted by the state disaggregated by teaching
subject and by high- and low-poverty school districts.
* A
description of any alternative routes to teaching in the state and
the percentage of students in these programs who pass the licensure
exams.
* The criteria used to approve a teacher education
program unit.
* Information about any and all subject matter
examinations teachers or future teachers must take. Beginning in
2001 and each year thereafter this information must be reported to
the U.S. Department of Education to be used by the Secretary of
Education in an annual report to the Congress on teacher
quality.
Reporting guidelines for use by institutions and states covered under HEA, Title II, were published in May 2000 (U.S. Department of Education, 2000), yet some issues had not been fully resolved. What will be the cost to institutions and states to comply with this law? Do the Title II reporting guidelines go beyond or reinterpret provisions in Sec. 207 and Sec. 208? Inasmuch as Title II data are not to be used for cross-state comparisons (U.S. Department of Education, 2000), will the data available to the Secretary of Education in October 2001 provide useful information for policymakers? Implementation of Title II, the burden on institutions and states, and the quality of the data the reports produce are being carefully monitored by the Congress (Miller, 2001). However, there will be limited opportunity for significant changes in the Title II requirements until the next reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 2003 or 2004.
Earley, P.M. (January and March 2000). Finding the culprit: Federal policy and teacher education. Educational Policy, 14(1), 25-39.
Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-244. [On-line] Available: http://thomas.loc.gov/ cgi?bin/bdquery/D?d105:1:./temp/~bdn75F::|/bss/d105query.html
Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (2nd Edition). Boston: Little Brown.
Miller, G. (2001). Preparing the next generation of teachers: Title II of the Higher Education Act. Policy Perspectives, 2(5), 1-4.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York: Columbia University Press.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Reference and reporting guide for preparing state and institutional reports on the quality of teacher preparation: Title II, Higher Education Act, NCES 2000-089. Washington, DC.
-----
This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, under contract number ED-99-COO-0007. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views of or policies of the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]