Using Competitive Grants to Promote High-Quality GYO Programs

In addition to preparing teachers to fill gaps in hard-to-staff geographic and subject areas, high-quality GYO programs usher greater ethnic, racial, and linguistic diversity into the teaching workforce.¹ Many programs recruit candidates from middle and high schools, which arguably offer the largest pool of potential future teachers of color.² Another common approach is recruiting district employees, such as paraeducators, who more closely mirror student demographics than today’s teachers.³ By recruiting from these pools, GYO programs can cultivate teachers who can boost the attainment of students who share their background⁴ and are more likely to continue teaching in communities where they have ties.⁵

While the core work of recruiting a diverse group of candidates must happen locally, state decisionmakers can incentivize it with a thoughtfully designed competitive grant program. First, state leaders should ensure that the recruitment and selection of ethnically, racially, and linguistically diverse candidates is a clearly articulated priority in the state statutes, application materials, and resources that shape the grant program. During the grantmaking process, priority points should be awarded to GYO programs that have measurable goals, plans, and a track record of preparing these candidates. Funding should reward programs that recruit paraeducators, secondary students, and other pools of candidates that match the demographic profile of local students. In addition, special consideration should be given to funding GYO programs that include tribal college and minority-serving institution partners, as these programs have a history of preparing Native American teachers and teachers of color.⁶

State Spotlight

➞ California. The Golden State offers one example of how to successfully invest in recruiting teachers of color by funding a paraeducator pipeline. In operation from 1995 to 2011, the California Paraprofessional Teacher Training Program funded expenses associated with community college, bachelor’s degrees, and teacher preparation for over 2,500 paraeducators, the majority of which were bilingual candidates and candidates of color.⁷ This strategy was rebooted in 2016–17, with a $45 million investment in a new program, the California Classified School Employee Teacher Credentialing Program, which competitively funds school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools that support 2,250 school employees in earning undergraduate degrees and teaching credentials. Funding includes $20,000, per participant, to fund tuition, fees, books, and support services. Over half of the current candidates identify as Black or Latinx.⁸

➞ Minnesota. Through a sweeping bipartisan piece of legislation passed in 2017, the Increase Teachers of Color Act (ITCA), Minnesota provided $1.875 million in grants to expand two types of GYO efforts: dual enrollment courses that encourage high school students to pursue teaching and graduate-level teacher residency programs in school districts that enroll at least 30 percent students of color.⁹ Importantly, the state’s goal of reaching parity between student and teacher demographics is explicit in the ITCA. Entities receiving state funds are “strongly encouraged” to recruit American Indian candidates and candidates of color, and they are required to annually report how many of these candidates participate in the program. Subsequent changes proposed to ITCA in 2018, 2019, and 2020 have aimed to expand funding eligibility to GYO programs that enroll candidates seeking a bachelor’s degree. Another proposed change calls for eliminating the threshold percentage of students of color that a district partner is required to have, to ensure limited state funds are directed to teacher candidates of color regardless of the percentage of students of color in a district. However, none of these changes have passed the full legislature.¹⁰ While it is still early to tell whether the state’s investments will pay off, the ITCA is good example of how to enshrine the goal of improved teacher diversity into authorizing language that undergirds statewide GYO programs.

In addition to recruiting candidates of color, high-quality GYO programs aim to prepare culturally responsive teachers¹¹ who improve conditions in their local schools and communities.¹² University partners typically have legal responsibility for teacher preparation curriculum in GYO programs and some use this discretion to develop coursework that prepares candidates to affirm and draw from students' home languages, cultural backgrounds, and personal experiences.¹³ Some district partners also play a role by ensuring GYO candidates have access to relevant district professional development while they work as non-certified staff.¹⁴ National programs such as Educators Rising, which recruit secondary students, have developed curricula that help ensure aspiring teachers value student diversity.¹⁵

State decisionmakers can incentivize and support this work by making the preparation of culturally responsive teachers a priority area during the grant-making process. For example, state leaders should reward programs that have goals, plans, and a track record of embedding culturally responsive practices into their curriculum. In some cases, legislators can also propel programs to revamp their curriculum. For example, Washington lawmakers charged a state agency with updating the curriculum of high school courses for aspiring teachers so that it better incorporates standards of cultural competence.¹⁶ While it did not pass, a bill recently proposed by U.S. Senator Doug Jones (D-Alabama), which aimed to provide grants for GYO programs, would have required that these programs integrate “curriculum and coursework with principles of culturally responsive education woven throughout, in addition to a scaffolded sequence of coursework explicitly teaching culturally responsive pedagogy”¹⁷ (see: "What is the federal role in funding GYO programs?" below).

Across the country, the vast majority of states have opened the door to alternative certification routes, which allow individuals without a traditional teaching degree to enter the profession.¹⁸ Because teachers of color are about twice as likely to participate in these routes than their white peers,¹⁹ alternative pathways that are equal in rigor to traditional programs²⁰ provide a vital route into the profession. However, few alternative pathways focus on recruiting homegrown talent or prospective teachers who have not yet earned a bachelor’s degree.²¹ Because many teachers of color start their teaching careers at community colleges,²² there is a need to develop clearly articulated pathways that support homegrown teachers through their associate degree, bachelor’s degree, and teaching credentials.²³ While it may take more time and resources to prepare candidates without bachelor’s degrees, these investments pay their full dividend when these candidates reflect student demographics, fill hard-to-staff areas, and remain in local schools.

State leaders should create competitive funding streams for GYO programs that help candidates earn a bachelor’s degree in addition to their teaching credentials. State leaders should also make “2+2” programs, which offer well-articulated ladders to four-year universities, eligible for funding.²⁴ Also worth investing in are secondary-level GYO programs, particularly those that give high school students access to university coursework.²⁵ In addition to providing funding for programs, state leaders should consider expanding teacher alternative certification policies to create pathways for candidates who do not have bachelor’s degrees but do have an associate degree (or some college credit) and significant experience as non-certified instructional staff. This would allow aspiring teachers to earn a bachelor’s degree and a teaching certification while they work in classrooms as instructional support staff, who gradually take on more responsibilities under the supervision of experienced mentors .²⁶ To expand access while maintaining quality standards, states might consider piloting performance-based assessments, which allow teachers to earn a teaching certification based on their effectiveness in the classroom.²⁷

State Spotlight

➞ New York. With the goal of addressing shortages in hard-to-staff areas and diversifying the state’s teacher pipeline, New York’s Teacher Diversity Pipeline Pilot provides $500,000 in competitive funds, over five years, to partnerships that help paraeducators earn a bachelor’s degree and a teaching credential. The program strategically directs resources to support candidates with the greatest need by supporting paraeducators who have not yet earned a bachelor’s or more than 60 college credits. Although a few districts have asked the state’s department of education to consider funding paraeducators with bachelor’s degrees for aid,²⁸ officials maintain that “individuals who have already earned more than 60 credits are likely to be further along in the pipeline and thus require less extensive recruitment and academic support, on average.”²⁹ The core purpose of the grant program is “to draw into the pipeline individuals who currently lack the resources and academic preparation necessary to become teachers, and provide them the extended support they need to be successful.”³⁰

➞ Washington. With financial support from the state legislature, the Washington Professional Educator Standards Board has designed the “next generation” of alternative route programs, which more closely align to the GYO model. Through a competitive program, the Alternative Routes Block Grant program, the state provides funding of $420,000 each year (for a maximum of two years), to community-rooted alternate route programs that offer one of four pathways into teaching. One route is exclusively for instructional district staff with associate degrees who are interested in teaching in a shortage area.³¹ Candidates in this route typically earn their bachelor’s degree while they work as paraeducators, giving them an opportunity to bring to life the theory they learn in their coursewrork day to day.³² These programs take a maximum of two years to complete and offer eligible candidates $8,000 each year if they make progress in the program and agree to teach in a public school in the state for four years. In addition to this competitive grant program, Washington offers the Pipeline for Paraeducators Conditional Scholarship, which provides $4,000 per academic year to help graduates of the state’s high school GYO program (the Recruiting Washington Teachers program),³³ and paraeducators pursue their associate of arts degree.³⁴

Non-traditional candidates often face disproportionate obstacles to entering teaching. A lack of access to high-quality K–12 schooling, language barriers, and years away from school can all make it challenging for these candidates to fulfill the coursework and certification requirements necessary to become teachers.³⁵ Money is another critical barrier for many aspiring teachers, including a good number of aspiring teachers of color.³⁶ To help candidates overcome these barriers, high-quality GYO programs provide tutoring, academic counseling, cohort models, assistance navigating credential requirements, and assessment support.³⁷ Helping candidates pass state testing requirements for licensure is of primary concern, given that these assessments disproportionately screen out candidates of color.³⁸ In addition, high-quality programs ease the burden of tuition and additional expenses such as books, technology, testing, credentialing fees, transportation, and child care. These programs provide financial support in the form of scholarships and stipends, avoiding reimbursement models that unduly burden candidates who cannot pay up-front costs.³⁹ Some programs also ensure that candidates are hired as paid employees at a partner district so they earn a salary and benefits while they obtain their teaching credentials.

Although wraparound supports are organized locally, state leaders can assist by providing scholarships directly to GYO candidates,⁴⁰ and offering competitive funds to GYO programs that subsidize tuition and other supports.⁴¹ When disbursing competitive funds to GYO programs, decisionmakers should prioritize programs that have thoughtful proposals for, and a track record of, offering support services to non-traditional candidates. When dispersing funds to candidates, decisionmakers should consider conditional loans. These loans cover preparation costs with the expectation that recipients will teach in the district or state for a specified number of years, and they are a good way to steer candidates toward work in high-need content and geographical areas, thereby ensuring a return on the state’s investment. However, it is important to recognize that some candidates can fail to fulfill teaching requirements as a result of hiring freezes related to economic downtowns, so leaders should waive requirements or extend the timelines for meeting requirements to account for extenuating circumstances (see: "How could the coronavirus pandemic affect GYO candidates?" below).

State Spotlight

➞ Colorado. The Grow Your Own Educator Program provides competitive funds to help paraeducators earn their bachelor’s degree and teaching credential in exchange for three years of service in a high-need subject area.⁴² Colorado stands out as an example of how legislators can embed requirements for wraparound supports into legislation that governs competitive grant programs. By statute, districts that receive competitive funding from the state to support paraeducators are required to include these candidates in professional development, training, teacher mentorship, and early-career support through the duration of the program. This is important, given that many schools do not readily include paraeducators in their professional development opportunities.⁴³ The same law requires that university partners provide mentoring support throughout the program, including quarterly classroom observations and feedback, analysis of student data, and formal evaluations. However, this program has recently stopped accepting candidates.⁴⁴

GYO programs carry a range of costs, including those associated with candidate supports, administration, infrastructure, and recruitment. Overall expenses can be hard to pin down because programs differ in the degree of support they offer as well as their length, structure, university partners, and the number of candidates they serve. One of the few studies have gauged the price of GYO programs estimates that producing a teacher with a public institution partner costs between $7,380 and $21,713.⁴⁷ Some programs depend on state funds to cover part of this price tag, but available state funds do not meet the level of demand that exists today. In California, for example, applications for over 5,500 spots in the California Classified School Employee Teacher Credentialing Program were received in 2016, but the state budgeted funds for only 1,000 candidates.⁴⁸

While the need for additional funding is clear, the coronavirus pandemic will likely disrupt state budgets and put teaching positions in danger,⁴⁹ to say nothing of the programs that prepare teachers. Still, GYO programs are a wise short- and long-term investment. In high-quality programs, candidates work in classrooms while they obtain their certification, which means they can support students from their first day in the program. GYO programs are also an investment that pays off in the long run, with educators from diverse backgrounds prepared to meet heightened student needs. With the support of the federal government (see: "What is the federal role in funding GYO programs?" below), state leaders should strive to provide programs with funds that support candidates through their entire experience. Grants that provide funds on a year-to-year basis should be avoided, as they make it difficult for programs to recruit new candidates who are unsure if they will receive financial support through graduation.⁵⁰

In addition to contributing funding, state leaders can incentivize more sustainable funding models by promoting cost-sharing among GYO partners. Many GYO programs rely on one source of funding, which can result in programs shuttering or scaling back vital services when this source wanes.⁶¹ This can be averted if all GYO partners take financial responsibility for building a mutually beneficial pipeline of local teachers, whether by reallocating dollars, reducing costs, or reinvesting savings.⁶² For example, districts could use existing staff to support GYO programming and use existing budgets to hire candidates as paid employees. They can also reinvest any savings they see as a result of reduced teacher turnover toward providing mentor incentives and other supports. Higher education institutions could help students apply for existing state and federal financial aid assistance and provide discounted tuition, enrollment support, academic advisors. Meanwhile, philanthropic organizations may have the capability to fund student stipends and additional services such as childcare and housing. One way states can support this cost-sharing strategy is by providing matching funds or “last dollar” costs—that is, costs after other sources of local, state, and federal aid have been tapped. Additionally, decisionmakers can set criteria that require aspiring grantees to document the contributions of each partner, whether these are in dollars or in-kind.

State Spotlight

➞ Texas. The Grow Your Own Grant Program competitively awards funds to GYO programs in an effort to increase teacher diversity and quality, particularly in small and rural districts.⁶³ The 2019–21 grant cycle funded a certification for more than 170 paraeducators, one-year residencies for almost 100 teacher candidates, and expanded education courses for 52 high schools.⁶⁴ One thing that is notable about this grant program is that state officials require aspiring grantees to demonstrate the ability to sustain their program beyond the grant. State officials ask programs to develop plans for coordinating federal, state, and local resources in a way that supports sustainability.⁶⁵ Application materials also ask grantees to consider how they will ensure their program is “integrated into, be supported by, and provide support for existing LEA or EPP initiatives and/or priorities.”⁶⁶ Promoting the use of multiple, existing resources at various levels ensures that programs are not forced to shutter in the event that one or two sources of funding change.

Teachers say that on-the-job experiences are the most important part of their training,⁶⁷ but some preparation programs require that candidates complete years of coursework before they step into a classroom for required student teaching, which can span from a few weeks to a few months.⁶⁸ Not only is this “clinical experience” often disconnected from what candidates learn in their coursework, but it also typically unpaid and requires that candidates pay their preparation program for the course credits awarded for the experience. This experience has been shown to burden non-traditional candidates with student loans.⁶⁹ In contrast, high-quality teacher preparation pathways offer residency-style opportunities under the supervision of a mentoring K-12 teacher, while students complete aligned coursework. In GYO programs, candidates gain hands-on training as paid paraeducators, co-teachers, or afterschool staff. These programs ensure a high level of flexibility, including online courses, that allows candidates to spend more time in schools.⁷⁰

High-quality clinical experiences must be arranged locally, but state leaders can promote them by establishing a minimum bar for the clinical experiences that state-funded GYO programs provide. For example, state leaders can require that grantees use state funds to offer paid, year-long residencies. Additionally, state decisionmakers who set grant priorities should reward programs that offer meaningful clinical experiences and flexible models for working candidates. State policymakers can also play a role in reducing redundancy in certification requirements for candidates who regularly spend time in schools. For example, if a GYO candidate is gaining classroom experience in their eventual licensure area, policymakers should ensure that it counts toward her certification or degree requirements, including required student teaching hours.⁷¹

State Spotlight

➞ Texas. The Grow Your Own Grant Program competitively awards grants to programs that offer one of three pathways into the profession, including one that funds a year-long residency for novice teachers.⁷² During the 2019–21 cycle, the program provided funding for almost 100 year-long supervised clinical teaching placements in the schools and communities where candidates intend to teach.⁷³ Participating candidates receive stipends during their clinical training, which reduces their financial barriers and gives districts access to instructional staff they would not otherwise afford. The state also funds a pathway for over 170 paraprofessionals.⁷⁴ Programs that offer this pathway must integrate flexibility and paid work-based opportunities into their model. By statute, they must “allow reasonable paid release time and schedule flexibility to candidates for class attendance and completion of course requirements.”⁷⁵

Too often districts and teacher preparation programs operate in silos, leaving teachers to broach the divide between what they learn in their teacher preparation curriculum and the work of teaching. In contrast, GYO programs feature strong collaboration between schools, districts, educator preparation providers, and community organizations which lead to more coherent clinical experiences, a greater number of new teachers who can meet local needs, and a better continuum of supports for candidates from pre-service to in-service. Forging these partnerships is not easy; they require resources and staff who can foster lasting relationships and ensure that programs function with shared goals and responsibilities.⁷⁶

Cultivating strong partnerships must happen locally, but state leaders can support by providing funding that allows GYO programs to hire staff who can coordinate efforts between partners. Additionally, state leaders can set clear guidelines, goals, and expectations for formal partnerships. A minimum requirement for grantees should be that they develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which outlines the roles and commitments of each partner across the areas of logistics, data-sharing practices, and fiscal responsibilities. MOUs should also outline common mission goals, benefits, and measurable goals such as the number of racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse candidates a program strives to enroll. To support that requirement, states should share guidance for developing strong MOUs and partnerships. State leaders might also foster partnerships between GYO programs (see: "Why develop partnerships across GYO programs?" below).

State Spotlight

➞ Washington. One of the state’s key efforts to expand GYO programs involves funding alternative route programs that adopt the GYO model through the Alternative Routes Block Grant. This grant program specifically funds partnerships between teachers preparation programs and school districts (or a consortium of school districts) that recruit from their local communities. By statute,⁷⁷ an MOU is required between these partners that establishes the following: (1) an indication of commitment and description of the roles and specific duties of each partner; (2) the role of each partner in candidate recruitment, screening, selection, and oversight; (3) the role of each partner in field placement and student teaching; (4) the role of each partner in mentorship selection, training, and support; and (5) a description of how the district intends for the alternative route program to support its workforce development plan and advance its school improvement plans.

While the research into the impact of GYO programs is growing, few robust analysis have been conducted to understand whether these programs are meeting their desired impact, including cultivating a diverse group of teachers who remain in the classroom and are effective in the long term.⁸¹ The majority of states that offer competitive grant programs require that grantees collect and report some level of data that provide insight into their success recruiting and training candidates, but data required varies widely across and within states, making it challenging to conduct comprehensive evaluations of individual GYO programs and statewide GYO initiatives.

To make rigorous evaluations of GYO programs more prevalent, state leaders should establish common performance measures that all state-funded programs should report regularly such as data on candidate placement, retention, candidate feedback, and value-added data on students taught by GYO candidates. State leaders should require that grantees enter into data-sharing agreements. Currently, each of these data resides with different GYO partners and ownership concerns can make sharing data a herculean task. State leaders also have the ability to forge practice-research partnerships and earmark funds for evaluating the impact and cost-effectiveness of individual GYO programs and the statewide initiative. Any findings should be published regularly in the form of public-facing reports, websites, or dashboards and be used to implement ongoing improvements of programming. Additionally, state decisionmakers can support the formation of local GYO advisory boards that can regularly help review programs’ data, identify areas where programs struggle or excel, and use that information to alter recruitment strategies, supports offered, and other key program features.

Outside of a competitive program, state decisionmakers should establish a strong foundation for evaluating the impact of GYO programs by developing an integrated data system that connects metrics in the areas of candidate recruitment, retention, preparation, and effectiveness. This system would allow varied teacher preparation pathways, including GYO programs, to understand their graduates’ outcomes and their programs' ability to address shortage areas and recruit ethnically, racially, and linguistically diverse candidates. This system should include a unique identifier for GYO candidates that distinguishes these candidates based on the type of program they participate in (e.g., residencies, high-school programs, paraeducator pathways). Creating a more streamlined system for sharing data would also eliminate issues of data collection redundancy faced by grantees who currently have to share data about their programs to meet grant stipulations and again to fulfill other state reporting requirements. Notably, the federal government can also play a role in improving what we know about GYO programs by strengthening the data reporting requirements of educator preparation programs more broadly.⁸²

State Spotlight

➞ Illinois. The state’s well-known GYO Teacher Education Initiative funds programs that prepare community-rooted, racially diverse teachers to work in hard-to-staff positions and schools. Illinois’ strong focus on data collection and evaluation has provided valuable insights into the success of individual programs and the state’s GYO initiative over time. State law requires that an independent evaluator assess grantees’ effectiveness in preparing and placing new teachers.⁸³ To fulfill this requirement, researchers from the Center for the Study of Education Policy at Illinois State University visited, conducted interviews, and evaluated data from state-funded GYO programs over several years and shared key recommendations for improvements in a series of public reports.⁸⁴ More recently, an independent evaluator assessed the impact of former GYO teachers currently working in classrooms and found that they are highly rated by supervisors and colleagues when it comes to building student relationships, understanding the community, and improving student achievement.⁸⁵

➞ Washington. Among other GYO initiatives, the Professional Educator Standards Board competitively funds alternative route programs that follow the GYO model. By statute, PESB must report the following data on alternative route program participants: (1) the number and percentage hired as certificated teachers, (2) the percentage from underrepresented populations, (3) three-year and five-year retention rates of participants, (4) average hiring rates, and (5) the percentage hired by districts in which participants completed their alternative route programs.⁸⁶ Notably, the state's disconnected data system has prevented the collection and reporting of some of these required data.⁸⁷ At the same time, GYO partners were often tasked with reporting data twice: once to fulfill the requirements of the grant program and again to fulfill state reporting requirements. Moving forward, Washington is looking to create a system that connects programmatic, secondary, post-secondary, and educator employment data, which will help it evaluate the long-term success of its various GYO initiatives and reduce redundancies in data collection.⁸⁸