Mercedes Schneider reports that the new Every Student Succeeds Act has revised a key element of No Child Left Behind. NCLB referred to “highly qualified” teachers 67 separate times. It seemed to be important when this bill was written in 2001 that every child should be instructed by a highly qualified teacher. But as she explains, Teach for America got into the act and persuaded its champions in Congress to play around with the definition so that even a young college graduate with only five weeks of training could be considered “highly qualified.”
The new ESSA solves this problem by deleting any reference to “highly qualified” teachers. Instead, it refers to “effective” teachers.
Schneider writes:
What is interesting is that ESSA foregoes the NCLB language prohibiting emergency or provisional certification. In fact, ESSA does allow for provisional certification and the waiving of licensing criteria for states and schools receiving Title I funding (see page 143). Furthermore, it seems that provisional or emergency certification could be subsumed in “certification obtained through alternative routes.”
It appears to be up to states to decide to specify emergency or provisional certification as belonging under the heading of “alternative certification.”
In October 2013, Senator Harkin worked to include language into federal government debt legislation a provision that allowed teachers in training to be considered “highly qualified.” Such a provision was a gift to Teach for America (TFA), for it allowed TFAers with their five weeks of summer training to “highly qualify” to become full-fledged teachers under NCLB.
However, someone like 2014-15 Alabama Teacher of the Year Ann Marie Corgill, who had been teaching elementary school for over two decades, could not be allowed to teach in a Title-I-funded state under her National Board certification because Alabama does not count National Board certification as an “alternative” certification, nor could the state offer Corgill provisional status to teach fifth grade because such was expressly prohibited under NCLB.
The professional teaching world is on its head, my friends.
To bring it home: Under NCLB and additionally Harkin’s provision stealthily slipped into a debt bill and altering the definition of “highly qualified,” a five-week-trained TFAer is qualified to replace Corgill as a teacher in a state receiving Title I funding.
Be it noted that Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa had Teach for America on his staff, advising on education legislation. Be it also noted that Arthur Rock, a wealthy businessman in California, underwrites the entire cost of putting TFA interns into key Congressional offices ($500,000 a year). There the interns have protected TFA’s interests, getting them named “highly effective,” and now getting them protected in the ESSA.
Is this like the tobacco industry offering free interns to the Senators who regulate their industry?
Mercedes Schneider has one of the best investigative education
blogs out there. If you are able, please help us support her blog: https://www.gofundme.com/8jd7rwxs
Diane, would you please explain why study after study shows no difference in teacher effectiveness after the first three years? A piece of paper does not make someone effective. A little on-the-job training (3 yrs) and talent does that.
Isn’t Corgill’s solution to add NBCT (hello Robert) as an alternative pathway instead of ditching all the rest? What data do you have from anywhere that indicates after 3 yrs on the job, there is any difference whatsoever between teachers based on credentials?
Btw, both TFA and education majors alike need to get the on-the-job training so we should treat them equally.
Are you a teacher? You don’t sound like one. TFAs need to do the work of being a professional teacher instead of being a glorified substitute.
Teachers get plenty of “on the job” training. Ever hear of student teaching?
What do you mean by “teacher effectiveness”? Test scores? Who gives a …?
Do you want your kids subjected to first year teachers with 5 weeks training?
Susan, this guy pops up now and then to reestablish anti-teacher credentials and posting inflammatory comments. But it does keep the blog lively.
Do we also need “data” to determine if experience plays a role in the ability of doctors, lawyers, artists, and… wait, all professions?
Time in the profession is not everything, sure, there are 2 year teachers who are good and 20 year teachers who aren’t so good. But compare a first year teacher with that same teacher 3 years later, and 20 years later, and you’ll get your answer if it matters.
Emperor Virginia,
Explain what you mean by “teacher effectiveness,” and how are you going to measure/evaluate it, and why do you think it is verifiable to educators, school principals, teachers, students, and parents.
I wonder what else it can be done other than putting microchips on the jupiter to observe which one will be the fastest in orbiting the SGP
(Supernova Gaijin Planet) in your lab.
Words matter. Definitions matter. Assumptions matter.
As I see it: the tone of “highly qualified” suggests a professional, whilst “effective” sounds more like someone that is efficient at providing a product to customers.
🙄
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
Reading Patty Murray’s statements about the bill one would think it’s all about early childhood education:
Democrats are apparently planning on pursuing their bold strategy of refusing to talk about their actual public school agenda by promoting their theoretical pre-k agenda.
It’s sheer brilliance 🙂
“It’s sheer brilliance :)”
You got the wrong “b” word, Chiara. “It’s sheer bullshit 😉
There are lots of opportunity for corporations to exploit this loophole in Title 1 services. Title 1 is intended to provide funding for direct service to students requiring compensatory services such as remedial reading, math, ESL and some special education services as well. Public schools have generally provided the services using certified, qualified teachers using Title 1 funding. This provision of ESSA will allow corporations to insert themselves into schools providing cheap, less effective alternatives while corporations cash in on various “Pay for Success” schemes. It may be possible to hook ELLs up to Rosetta Stone and remedial readers to Accelerated Reader or other such systems that students can game, or a TFA clone, and call it Title 1 service. Corporations will cash in on a windfall that will waste the funding intended for the neediest, and it will take at least a few years before they discover that this is a disaster. The clear message from this irresponsible proposal is that these students are not worth investing in as corporations have no idea of what is effective instruction for these needy populations. There is no magic “innovation bullet” that can address the needs of these groups, just lots of hard, targeted work from qualified human beings with empathy teaching content, skills and strategies to help these students.
Here’s a link to a petition against this provision of ESSA. https://actionnetwork.org/letters/remove-pay-for-success-from-essa?source=direct_link&referrer=badass-teachers-association
I’m disturbed by this and question the legality of sponsored “staff”. Can anyone help me here? I’m hoping that that this doesn’t exist in MD. Something more to add to my to do list.
“Be it noted that Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa had Teach for America on his staff, advising on education legislation. Be it also noted that Arthur Rock, a wealthy businessman in California, underwrites the entire cost of putting TFA interns into key Congressional offices ($500,000 a year). There the interns have protected TFA’s interests, getting them named “highly effective,” and now getting them protected in the ESSA.”
SMH!!!! Under NCLB changes, I had to work my tail off in a six-month time span to become a “highly qualified” teacher despite having obtained multiple degrees, being certified by the state six times, completing over 2000 hours of inservice, and having already taught for more than 15 years!! And on top of that, I was TEACHING college level courses in mathematics to teachers seeking highly qualified in mathematics status. And someone with “five weeks of training” is instantly at that status? Again – follow the money. It’s never about the kids – it’s always about whose pockets are being lined.
Last weekend I read the final numbers on Florida’s Best and Brightest plan. $8,400 are going to teachers that have highly effective evaluations and 1200 on SAT. In Florida, that potentially makes it possible for a 2nd year teacher to make about $2,000 less than me, a 25 year teacher. This law was pushed through for TFA kids to want to teacher. The legislature thought it was swell idea and want to do it next year.
Now I read the ESSA is essentially written to make it easy for TFA to teach, yet screws qualified, veteran teachers.
All I can say is, “I am done”. I cant do it any more. I have dedicated my life to this profession, only to be kicked to the curb. I will do like other Florida teachers are doing. As soon as something better comes up (and there is something out there), I will walk into my principals office and give my 2 week notice.
I would like all my testing fees returned please. These tests were expensive and now suddenly, I don’t have to be highly qualified. I teach in title one.
Firstgrademonkey, I am so happy you agree with me. Those extra credentials (masters, EdDs, NBCT, etc.) don’t correlate with any increase in effectiveness. I will gladly join your campaign for a refund if you will join me in calling for an end to all salary increases/bonuses for extra “credentials”. Deal?
Having a deja vu moment here. Back in 2002, after NCLB became law, I was working as a Teacher in Residence for NBPTS. We were studying the new “highly qualified teacher” language–and there was a section describing which credentials (majors, minors, special certificates) made teachers HQ.
The NB Teachers in Residence could easily see how HQT regs would be a nightmare for small and rural districts, where flexible assignments are essential, especially in covering all the courses that small schools would like to offer. Did–for example–a HS Science teacher need to have majors or minors in Chemistry, Physics, Earth Science, Physical Science, Botany, Biology, Anatomy, etc to teach a range of secondary science courses in a single day? Small schools move their teachers around a lot, and give them multiple responsibilities–they have to, to cover the courses/grades/special instruction they need to offer to reach all students.
There was, however, a reference in the initial signed draft of NCLB to “advanced certification.” What the law meant by “advanced certification” was not delineated–but if you had it, you could supersede the more concrete requirements of HQT: a major, an appropriate licensure and degree. It seemed to us that NB Certification–which had some broad coverage in disciplines and developmental levels–would be very desirable in a time when NCLB was narrowing and limiting the definitions of who could teach what. Frankly, besides Masters degrees, we saw no other “advanced certifications” beyond National Board Certification.
I was the person designated to call the US Dept of Ed and clarify. So I did. The first person I talked to didn’t know what “advanced certification” referred to, so she sent me up the food chain, admitting they were all trying to figure out NCLB, just like we were. The next person I talked to was a long-time ED employee with a title. Yes, he assured me–National Board Certification was definitely an option for “advanced certification,” and teachers who had it would be assured that their NB Certification parameters would constitute “highly qualified” practice in those subjects and developmental levels.
This was good news for NBPTS–a strong selling point.
About an hour later, I got a call back from the US ED. Hold on. I had been given the wrong information. New federal certification requirements would trump the old state requirements, period. Was National Board Certification an “advanced certificate?” Yes, but not for the purposes of HQT. So — I asked them. What *is* an advanced certificate, if not NB? They were still working on that. They would get back to us. But of course, they never did.
Nancy Flanagan,
To show how flexible “highly qualified teacher” really was, the law was amended to permit TFA with five weeks of preparation to be considered “highly qualified teachers.”
I remember–and reading Alexander Russo’s (hate to admit it, but well-done) piece on just how TFA gained and pushed policy-making influence clarified just who had the power inside the Beltway and how they got it: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/-left-out-of-no-child-left-behind-teach-for-americas-outsized-influence-on-alternative-certification_145912598416.pdf
Made me wonder: why didn’t the National Board have that of kind pull? They’d been around longer, they’d been researched (and validated) extensively, and ED had supported them financially for over a decade. If there was ever an initiative that deserved to be labeled “advanced certification” in 2002, they were it. Alas.
I teach a course called “Teacher as Change Agent” and we use Russo’s piece as a primer on how policy is influenced. The teachers in my course are appalled. The trick is getting them to organize, and take action.
I see today, December 13, NEA Education Insider states in the second bullet that ESSA reduces the number of Standardized tests? Am I mistaken, I read that we are still testing in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. The states and locals are now given responsible for the details. Well our local and most other locals are now giving 6 interim math and 6 interim English tests besides the one Standardized test. This means we are now doing MORE testing and the interim tests are produced by the same corporation as the Standardized high school math and English tests and they are basically parallel versions of the Standardized tests. Why is NEA making this ESSA sound like it is a huge victory. It may be a very small step, but it may be the same as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic after hitting the iceberg. NEA with the help of incompetent or lazy news reporters may be misleading all of us. What ever happened to investigative journalism? I keep hearing stuff in the news that makes me remember the feelings I had when hearing a person’s fingernails on a chalkboard. I am not a supporter of any candidate at this time because I am still trying to find out their thoughts on many issues, but the attacks and comments this morning make me wonder about our people involved in the news and media business. Do they really believe what they say is factual? Have they forgotten about the St. Louis ocean liner with more than a thousand Jewish refugees that our President and Country turned away in 1938 and most of them were sent back to a fate worse than death or the Japanese Internment camps? NEA should be setting an example of balanced journalism and honestly talk about the issues ahead for their members and the nation. Yes, enjoy the moment, but kept it in perspective; it is done, so let us start the long and difficult journey to create once again, the finest educational system which is totally inclusive for all our children, not a few special subgroups.