House Subcommittee Hearing on Teacher Preparedness

On Thursday, the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness held a hearing on preparing teachers for the classroom. The subcommittee discussed proposals for efficiently using Title II funds to ensure adequate instruction and preparation for those going into the teaching field. The discussion included Title II funding under both No Child left Behind (NCLB) and the Higher Education Act (HEA). With both pieces of legislation slated for reauthorization this year, the education community has the opportunity to amend the provisions under both national programs.

Subcommittee Chairman Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) opened the hearing by stressing the importance of having effective teachers in public elementary and secondary schools. The process for ensuring effectiveness, Hinojosa conceded, begins with the college and university programs that educate those teachers. The first step, as always seems to be the case, is highlighting the failures of the system. Chairman Hinojosa pointed out that the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey shows that 41.2% of teachers in the country had limited English proficient (LEP) students in their classrooms, yet most are not trained to teach these students. According to the report, only 12.5% of teachers had more than 8 hours of training in how to teach these students.

Together, NCLB and HEA put about $3.6 billion into Title II programs annually, $3 billion under NCLB and $60 million under HEA. The witness testimony at the hearing centered on how to adequately funnel those funds to improve teacher quality. Witnesses at the hearing, representing organizations such as the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Region One Education Service Center, the Carnegie Corporation, and National Center for Alternative Certification, suggested that the reauthorized laws should authorize funding for:

· Better state data systems, which would be designed to track teachers from their preparation programs into schools;

· Stronger clinical fieldwork experiences, especially in high-need urban school districts;

· Professional development programs tied to specific state standards and curricula;

· Sustained induction programs for new teachers; and

· Performance-based assessments for teachers that include components requiring teachers to reflect upon and change their practices.

All of the suggested reforms attempt to gear the nation’s public education towards more effective teachers instructing the neediest students in elementary and secondary public schools. However, the discussion on Thursday focused more on educating current and future teachers, and did little to address ways to entice already effective teachers to high-need districts. Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) seemed to be the only subcommittee members to address the issue as a top priority, but was unable to generate more discussion before the subcommittee adjourned. While the hearing is only a preliminary step towards ensuring teacher quality, it is likely the beginning of a controversial debate on ways of measuring teacher effectiveness, a prime concern for NCLB reauthorization.

Resources:
Stephen Sawchuk, “Subcommittee Puts Title II Funds Under Microscope,” Education Daily, May 18, 2007.
Author: SAS