The
lack of a major new teacher-related initiative in the Alexander-Murray ESEA draft doesn’t have us especially worked up. It
shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that NCLB’s highly qualified teacher (HQT)
provisions are nowhere to be found in the Senate draft, which does include some
nods to—but no requirements around—teacher effectiveness.
HQT
has been on a slow path to ignominy, with many viewing its focus on teacher
qualifications over performance to be an anachronism. But HQT deserves much
credit for shining a spotlight on teachers’ need for subject-matter knowledge.
As a result, content tests are now a standard part of
teacher licensure and out-of-field teaching is much less common.
All
but four states now require all elementary teachers to pass a content test as a
condition of initial licensure. Forty-three states require content tests for
secondary teachers, and every state now requires secondary teachers to have a
major in their subject area. Just 24 states required majors for secondary
teachers in 2001 before the passage of NCLB, and only 13 did in 1991.
Call
us optimists, but we believe content testing is now so fully ingrained in the
certification process that states don’t need federal carrots or sticks to make
sure teachers know the subjects they are licensed to teach. As for the very few
holdouts, if the feds didn’t force compliance in the last dozen years, why
would anything change now?
On
another TQ front, we weren’t expecting to see a teacher evaluation mandate, but
we’re also not shedding any tears over its exclusion. This is another place
where states have come a long way over the life of NCLB. Actual state policy
that requires annual evaluations and evidence of student learning is preferable to vague promises to the feds
any day.
We
were pleasantly surprised to see a little gem that limits the use of Title II
Part A funds for class-size reduction to “evidence-based levels.” With so much
of this funding currently supporting small reductions that, according to
research, make no difference in student outcomes, this nugget could
dramatically change how districts use these dollars.
With
the House not sharing the Senate’s bipartisan approach to reauthorization, the
path forward for ESEA is far from clear. But another bill may have a greater
chance at moving soon, and this one—FERPA—has
us truly worried.
FERPA
is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act that gives parents protections
over their children’s educational records. With so much focus on data leaks and
privacy rights, it’s not surprising that a FERPA overhaul would be on Congress’
agenda.
Data
privacy is not really in NCTQ’s wheelhouse, and parents are certainly entitled
to know that information about their children is safeguarded. We’ll leave it to
those
with privacy expertise to
talk more about that.
What
has us so concerned are provisions in the draft currently circulating that
would allow parent opt-out of any use of student data by a third party. By our
read, this could not only devastate educational researchers’ access to student
information, but could also wreak havoc on the use of performance data for
accountability purposes, if the state or district contracts any of that
analysis to a third party.
How
will we put stock in any research study when we won’t know if the results are
skewed due to the exclusion of students whose parents opted out? How will we
know that school accountability or teacher evaluation results are
representative and accurate?
Surely,
we can protect parents and children without sacrificing our accountability
mechanisms and important research.
Are you worried, too? Let your friends on the
Hill know.
