Laura Chapman, retired arts consultant, predicts that the new “Every Student Succeeds Act” is a blow against professional teacher preparation. It offers carte blanche to the new institutions created by entrepreneurs and charter operators. She posted the following comment:
The biggest player in making teacher preparation an “anything goes” job is our US Congress with the passage of ESSA.
TITLE II—PREPARING, TRAINING, AND RECRUITING HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS, OR OTHER SCHOOL LEADERS is not just a bad joke for a title. It is cynically misleading.
ESSA marginalizes higher education’s role in teacher preparation. Scholarship is not required to prepare teachers or to be a teachers, or principal, or other school leader. All you need to do is be a producer of test scores as measures of “academic” achievement. All you have to do is let our governors expand the charter industry to teacher education by setting up an “authorizing entity” to approve “teacher preparation academies” for prospective Teachers, Principals, and other School Leaders.
Here are a couple of sections of ESSA that show the perverse incentives for awarding a master’s degree in a chartered
TEACHER , PRINCIPAL , OR OTHER SCHOOL LEADER PREPARATION ACADEMY .—The term ‘teacher, principal, or other school leader preparation academy’ means a public or other nonprofit entity, which may be an institution of higher education or an organization affiliated with an institution of higher education, that establishes an academy that will prepare teachers, principals, or other school leaders to serve in highneeds schools (not defined) and that—
‘‘
(A) enters into an agreement with a State authorizer that specifies the goals expected of the academy, including—
‘‘(i) a requirement that prospective teachers, principals, or other school leaders who are enrolled in the academy receive a significant part of their training through clinical preparation that partners the prospective candidate with an effective teacher, principal, or other school leader, as determined by the State, respectively, with a demonstrated record of increasing student academic achievement, including for the subgroups of students…, while also receiving concurrent instruction from the academy in the content area (or areas) in which the prospective teacher, principal, or other school leader will become certified or licensed that links to the clinical preparation experience; ‘‘
(ii) the number of effective teachers, principals, or other school leaders, respectively, who will demonstrate success in increasing student academic achievement that the academy will prepare; and ‘‘
(iii) a requirement that the academy will award a certificate of completion (or degree, if the academy is affiliated with, an institution of higher education) to a teacher only after the teacher demonstrates that the teacher is an effective teacher, as determined by the State, with a demonstrated record of increasing student academic achievement either as a student teacher or teacher-of-record on an alternative certificate, license, or credential; ‘‘
(iv) a requirement that the academy will award a certificate of completion (or degree, if the academy is affiliated with an institution of higher education) to a principal or other school leader only after the principal or other school leader demonstrates a record of success in improving student performance; and
(v) timelines for producing cohorts of graduates and conferring certificates of completion (or degrees, if the academy is affiliated with, an institution of higher education) from the academy; ‘‘
(B) does not have unnecessary restrictions on the methods the academy will use to train prospective teacher, principal, or other school leader candidates, including—
‘‘(i) obligating (or prohibiting) the academy’s faculty to hold advanced degrees or conduct academic research;
‘‘(ii) restrictions related to the academy’s physical infrastructure;
‘‘(iii) restrictions related to the number of course credits required as part of the program of study;
‘‘(iv) restrictions related to the undergraduate coursework completed by teachers teaching or working on alternative certificates, licenses, or credentials, as long as such teachers have successfully passed all relevant State-approved content area examinations; or
‘‘(v) restrictions related to obtaining accreditation from an accrediting body for purposes of becoming an academy; ‘‘
(C) limits admission to its program to prospective teacher, principal, or other school leader candidates who demonstrate strong potential to improve student academic achievement, based on a rigorous selection process that reviews a candidate’s prior academic achievement or record of professional accomplishment; and
‘
(D) results in a certificate of completion or degree that the State may, after reviewing the academy’s results in producing effective teachers, or principals, or other school leaders, respectively (as determined by the State) recognize as at least the equivalent of a master’s degree in education for the purposes of hiring, retention, compensation, and promotion in the State.”
These specification appear to come from the training models offered by the recently formed “Coalition” of charter teacher prep academies and programs well-funded by foundations. These programs have token or no ties to higher education. Charter residency programs are operated primarily to offer a “pipeline of talent” for charter schools. The new “Coalition” is a functioning as a lobby to keep students’ academic test scores as the measure of effective teaching and teacher preparation programs funded by ESSA. The Coalition includes Urban Teachers, Aspire Public Schools, Blue Engine, Boston Teacher Residency, Match Teacher Residency, National Center for Teacher Residencies, Relay Graduate School of Education (a darling of Bill Gates), Teach for America, and TNTP (formerly The New Teacher Project).
In ESSA, Congress has expressed absolute contempt for professional preparation of teachers. They approved a law that insists on… “no restrictions” on faculty academic qualifications, “no restrictions” on where academies exist, “no restrictions” on course credits (including undergraduate and academy programs), and freedom to operate with no accreditation “as long as such teachers have successfully passed all relevant State-approved content area examinations.”
The law is conspicuously tilted to support high scores on academic tests as the measure of “effectiveness.” Effectiveness is not formally defined but in ESSA it is used 150 times
(5) “TEACHER RESIDENCY PROGRAM —The term ‘teacher residency program’ means a school-based teacher preparation program in which a prospective teacher— ‘‘
(A) for not less than 1 academic year, teaches alongside an effective teacher, as determined by the State or local educational agency, who is the teacher of record for the classroom;
‘‘(B) receives concurrent instruction during the residency year
‘‘(i) through courses that may be taught by local educational agency personnel or by faculty of the teacher preparation program; and
‘‘(ii) in the teaching of the content area in which the teacher will become certified or licensed; and
(C) acquires effective teaching skills, as demonstrated through completion of a residency program, or other measure determined by the State, which may include a teacher performance assessment.
As I read Part 5, the teacher residency program is ambiguous. A teacher residency is typically a paid full-time co-teacher position, with the novice having full responsibility for classes well before the end of the school year, including securing proofs of their ability to increase the academic achievement (test scores) of their students. Meanwhile most residencies also require job-specific coursework (in addition to the full-time residency) that will justify earning a master’s degree. However, Part C seems to permit a direct path into teaching by taking a state approved performance assessment such as edPTA.
I can vouch for one thing about ESSA. It is a patched together law which deserves and F for clarity, wisdom, and sound investment of tax dollars.
Title II of ESSA calls for a four-year appropriation totaling $11,079,417,150. That is a huge investment, given the estimated demand per year for about 160,000 new teachers to take the place of teachers who will retire in the next four years.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
$11 billion is only about 1.8% of the total annual expenditures for public education in the U.S.
What would it cost to fund a year-long, paid teacher residency program tied to a masters degree in education as a requirement to become a teacher in addition to earning a BA in the area a teacher ends up teaching in?
I am so sick of the tawdry games these politicians and oligarchy play to get their way and destroy public education.
This country is full of drama kings and queens. Insanity!
See … ESSA is ridiculous. Nothing of substance changed, just the SPIN.
These people pushing this crap should spend a day teaching kindergarten, and then they will realize how “easy” teaching is. This at bottom is sexism against women. They expect these women and their largely ineffective unions to sit back and take it.
This aspect of the ESSA seems to have been written by the alternative teacher preparation lobby. It was not written by those interested in improving and elevating teaching and learning. It is a clear dumbing down of requirements and preparation. They want to fast track the process so they can churn out facilitators, not teachers, whose sole purpose is better results on bubble test results. This narrow focus indicates a lack of understanding of what a teacher is and does on a day to day basis. The sole intent of this legislation is to undermine traditional teacher preparation programs. It is another example of the disdain the corporate establishment has for teachers despite the fact the business community has no training in or understanding of what constitutes an effective teacher. This is another tool of more privatization.
You are correct. ESSA Title II, pours money into an agenda that matches the TeachStrong.org campaign, and the McKinsey & Co agenda (2010) marketed by the Obama administration as RESPECT (Recognizing Educational Success, Professional Excellence, and Collaborative Teaching) project.
The reincarnation of these change-the-teaching profession initiatives come from Education Policy operations at the Center for American Progress, led by Catherine Brown (with several prior posts, including vice president of policy at Teach for America, policy adviser to Hillary Clinton, senior education policy adviser for the House Committee on Education and Labor.
In a November 2015 press release, Catherine Brown said: Our goal is to have policymakers at every level of government coalesce around modernizing and elevating the teaching profession as the top priority for education policy – in the next election cycle and beyond.
The key words “modernizing” and “elevating” were tested against “support” and “respect” in a push survey conducted for the CAP by Hart associates. The TeachStrong campaign is using “modernizing” and “elevating” through out this campaign, terms carefully chosen IN SPITE of the preferred language of teachers favoring “support” and “respect.”
The worst part is that 60 organizations have signed on to nine principles, all one-liners, endorsing the TeachStrong agenda, reinforcing the credibility of nine one-line “principles” served up without elaboration at the time they signed on. The meaning of the principles and recommendations to policy makers are being rolled out piecemeal, about once a month. Two have been released so far, and they are doozies.
Much like the bait and switch marketing of the Common Core, the endorsing organizations–much less the public–did not have the full agenda in detail.
The details are ammunition for “elevating”two-thirds the likes of TFA and Relay Graduate School of Education with Doug Lemov’s no-nonsense formulary for managing students of color living in poverty.
Of the 60 organizations signing on, including both teacher unions, two-thirds have been on the dole from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, including the Center for American Progresss. The Gates Foundation is known to only award money to those who promote the foundations “strategies.” My spreadsheet documents that since 2009, the Foundation has invested a total of $333,751,744 in the “cooperating” organizations.
Brown says: “We are calling for support from political candidates who support bold changes to teacher recruitment, preparation, support and compensation, ensuring that the U.S. can attract and retain talented teachers in every classroom.” “We hope to make this issue a pressing national priority, the way higher standards and strong accountability systems have been for the past two decades.”
“Step one is to get thought leaders using common language to articulate their shared vision.”
“Step two is to operationalize it through policy. This will probably take a decade or longer, the same way the movement to raise student learning standards did.” https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2015/11/10/125052/release-40-education-organizations-unite-to-launch-teachstrong-a-campaign-to-modernize-and-elevate-the-teaching-profession/
“Modernizing” equals crushing legitimate schools of education. This is the same MO in the privatization of public schools. It is all about making fast money and union busting.
It’s already happened in Utah. The state school board (the majority of whom support charter schools, particularly the two or three who own charters) just adopted a policy to allow ANYONE with a bachelor’s degree who can pass a content test, get the ethics training (which takes about 20 minutes online), and pass a background check can teach.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/4092920-155/new-route-to-teacher-certification-gets
“Knowing content” isn’t knowing how to teach. The notion teachers must be “experts” in a subject area is one of the biggest lies of the reform movement. If you do not know HOW to do something, you will never be able to do it This is true for every single occupation. ONLY teaching is denigrated, again by the same sexists who devalue “women’s work” because women dominate in a field.
In teaching, knowing HOW to teach is absolutely vital, and yes, theory is important because you have to be able to apply it to the classroom. Regurgitating what you learned in college is not teaching, and nobody can do that anyway. You have to lesson plan, you have to prepare, and you have GOT to know how to present the material to students and manage that classroom.
This is a new kind of “Apprentice” show. The apprentice certifies the apprentice’s apprentice.
In all fairness (and please know I would much rather see good teacher training programs coming through our universities than any other place), but wasn’t there a time BEFORE there were teacher training programs in universities? Teachers came from somewhere. . . where? I know my own mother trained in a Presbyterian School for Christian Ed in the 1960s and was granted a teaching license for public schools by the state of Virginia (and btw, I learned more from my mother about good teaching than I did in any of my own university teaching courses, just sayin’)—-but has anything been lost in the process of establishing a stream-lined approach to training teachers in universities?
I get it about turning a profit and privatizing and nefarious methods for control and all that. . .I understand. But there was a time in history where teaching prep programs established in states with certification just didn’t happen. Moving backwards, maybe . . .but what about restoring some aspects that were lost? Any chance some of that might be happening?
The history of teacher education is akin to that of other professions. There used to be informal ways of getting prepared as a lawyer without going to law school and learning to be a doctor without going to medical school. As the professions evolved, university training became mandatory to weed out frauds. The politicians now seem determined to remove the trappings of professionalism from teaching but they won’t mess with medicine or law.
“…but they won’t mess with medicine or law.”
Not law, of course, because most politicians are lawyers. But they sure as heck have messed with medicine. Have you noticed how hard it can be to get an appointment with your doctor? That’s because doctors (especially PCPs) are fleeing the field just like teachers (because the insurance companies tell them what to do just like the rephormers tell teachers what to do). But don’t worry, you can always go see a physician’s assistant at your local Target or Walgreens and they’re just as qualified! Just like that TfA kid with 5 weeks of training is just as qualified as a regular teacher!
My old high school started out as The Girls Normal School in Philadelphia and was one of the earliest teacher training schools in the country in 1848. A lot has changed since then, and we now know that there is content, theoretical framework, child psychology and development as well as changing methodology that all contribute to a need for a program with a greater depth of understanding along with opportunities to practice what has been learned.
The title of “teacher” should have to be earned. That is one of the reasons that states have certification standards. If I follow an electrician, an accountant or a lawyer around for a year, I do not acquire professional status by osmosis. There are criteria I have to meet as there are for teachers in a state. This ESSA alternate plan is the product of those that are investing in fake schools of education because their goal is to make teaching a short term Walmart job. Once again this plan is based erroneous assumptions and bad mouthing of traditional programs because business is attacking all aspects of public education. Where is their evidence that what they propose has merit? Once again this “reform” notion is both sexist (75% of teachers are women) and racist (as most of these faux teachers will wind up in schools with concentrations of poor minority students). This is another example of social engineering that typifies this movement. As for Lamar Alexander and his committee, they should know better than to accept such a flawed bait and switch idea.
Retired teacher, I like that you use ‘social engineering’ to describe ed-deforms’ [ESSA’s] unwinding of sensible requirements for teacher certification. Right-wingers, especially teachers’ union haters and ‘govt school’ haters, use the term all the time to describe their conception that public school ed = ‘liberal indoctrination’. This solution– though in fact it bears mainstream-politicians’ cynical stamp of deregulation to usher in privatization– will no doubt be sold to the knee-jerk right as getting the fed out of ed. When in fact it is social engineering: the de-professionalization of teaching.
That is because medicine and law are traditionally male-dominated fields. It is also because most lawyers and doctors are not paid through taxpayer monies.
The sexism is obvious here. People cannot walk off the street and teach. People outside of the field have NO idea how hard the job is.
So the federal and state governments continue to put nails into the coffin that is public education. TFA regularly “confers” weekend jiffy-lube masters degrees on its most fortunate best and brightest “teachers” and pays for their educations as well by paying off their loans. Broad “Academy” turns business men and women into Superintendents, in a mere few weekends. Relay Graduate School does its part. TNTP and TFA do their part. The federal government issues incentives to open charters, and programs like RTTT which turn into programs to further beat teachers into the ground and out of business.
All of this is hailed as “quality charters” by our government. Think ahead 20 years when some of us will be dead. What do you see as the future for education?
As I looked through this section of ESSA, I wondered if this is not another example of federal overreach. I thought each state was in charge of standards for issuing teaching certifications for its state. Isn’t this just as much a violation of the Constitution as national standards and testing? Under the old Title 1 rules teachers had to be certified and qualified as per state law. The feds did not have any authorizing power for teachers. Shouldn’t this be true with ESSA?
Retired teacher, totally agree. What’s next, lawsuits by TFA et al against the ‘unreasonable restrictions’ in state cert reqts??
Better yet, lawsuits challenging the authority of the federal government to create national certification standards. Shouldn’t this be within the purview of the states?
RT, that’s a good point about national standards; but didn’t National Boards sort of start that mindset?
I agree that lawsuits should be questioning the constitutional role of the federal government in education, from teacher recruitment to imposing testing. This is an assault on the teaching profession disguised as support and improvement.