The Latest ESEA Proposal: A Deeper Look (Part 2)

If you’ve been following Early Ed Watch recently, you know that a bi-partisan group of U.S. Senators has proposed a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). A few weeks ago, we wrote about Title I, Part A, providing details on how early childhood education, birth through third grade, is included.

Today, we will do the same for Title II. This part of the law is important because it governs the way the U.S. Department of Education provides funding to states for teacher training, among other programs.

The purpose of Title II, Part A – Continuous Improvement for Teachers and Principals – is to provide grants to states and subgrants to school districts to provide professional development to improve instruction and student achievement increase the number and improve the equitable distribution of high-quality teachers and principals.

Part B – Teacher Pathways in the Classroom – focuses on the recruitment, selection, preparation, placement, retention and support of teachers in high-need subjects or fields.

Part C – Teacher Incentive Fund Program – assists states, districts and non-profits in developing, implementing or expanding performance-based compensation systems for teachers, principals and schools that raise student achievement and close the achievement gap; and assists states and districts in establishing teacher and principal evaluation systems.

Below, we highlight what in the proposed law deserves thumbs up, what Congress should reconsider and a couple of other items not to miss.

Deserving of a thumbs up:

• Alignment between state plans and state early learning standards: States eligible for funds under Part A, would need to include in their applications a description of how professional development programs and other initiatives are aligned with the states’ academic standards and assessments. The descriptions must include, where appropriate, alignment with the states’ early learning standards for children younger than 5.
• Coordinating with early childhood programs: States would also need to explain in their applications how plans would be coordinated with the state agency responsible for early childhood education programs and with the State Early Childhood Advisory Council to strengthen the knowledge and skills of teachers and principals who work with children preschool through third grade.
• Technical assistance for smooth transitions: Under Part A, if a state has remaining funds after it makes subgrants to school districts, it can choose what to do with those funds. One option would be to provide technical assistance to districts to support children’s transition, around age 5, from preschool and childcare programs to elementary schools, improve school readiness and improve the academic achievement of young children.
• Professional development: Also under Part A, school districts receiving a subgrant from the state may use those funds to develop and implement training programs, which may include joint initiatives between educators at elementary schools and staff members in programs for children before kindergarten. We think allowing early education staff to be included in schools’ professional development initiatives could provide a more seamless path of education for young children by spurring collaboration and planning across pre-K and the early grades. We hope school districts take advantage of this new allowable use of Title II funds if it becomes law. The big challenge, however, is that this option is one of about 10 allowed activities, leaving it up to school districts to prioritize.
• Class size reduction: School districts may also use Part A grant funds to reduce class size for pre-K through 3^rd grade by an amount research has found to improve student achievement. Much of the research suggests that class size matters most in the early grades so we are pleased to see this included as an allowable use of funds. But again, it’s one of 10 allowable activities, competing with others that might be a higher priority for districts such as teacher and principal evaluation systems, rewarding high-quality teachers and principals for increasing student achievement, and making sure teachers are placed in high-need subjects or fields. It will be up to district leaders to decide where they will get the most bang for their grant bucks.

What Should Be Reconsidered:

• The first draft of the ESEA bill released by Sen. Harkin back in early October mandated states and school districts to develop teacher and principal evaluation systems. It was included as a requirement. If districts were to receive funds under Part A, their states would have to create these systems.  But Harkin quickly removed the requirement, instead making evaluation systems optional. We think ESEA should require school districts to have high-quality principal and teacher evaluation systems that consider student growth, encourage the use of observation-based tools for watching teachers work, and have the primary purpose of providing feedback to improve instruction and informing decisions about professional development and coaching.
• In Harkin’s first draft of this bill, one of the allowable activities under Part A was “providing meaningful and timely feedback to teachers and principals on evaluation results, and using those results to make decision about professional development.” This is missing from the newest version. We aren’t sure why it was removed, but we think it is a worthwhile activity and should be reinserted.
• Some pieces are missing from the list of activities states are required to support if they want to receive funding under Part B (the Teacher Pathways program). Currently the proposal says that states shall use the funds “to prepare teachers in classroom management, instructional planning and delivery, learning theory and cognitive development, literacy development, and student assessment.” Missing from that list are training teachers about child development and family engagement. Both of these should be included.

Other Changes of Note:

• The professional development program for early childhood educators that Congress established under No Child Left Behind – but then slowly zeroed out by 2008 – was not included in this proposed version of ESEA. The purpose of the program was to promote school readiness and improve the learning outcomes of young children by improving the knowledge and skills of early childhood educators who serve primarily children from low-income families. With this program eliminated, it would have been nice to see the new bill expand its focus on professional development funding for early childhood educators. Yes, the bill does allow funds for early childhood staff to participate in joint professional development in elementary schools. But again, that is one of 10 allowable activities.
• Let’s not forgot about Sen. Michael Bennet’s (D-CO) amendment that would insert language from the GREAT Act allowing states to establish or expand teacher or principal preparation academies. There is no mention in Bennet’s act about the training of pre-K teachers, nor is it clear whether early childhood education could be an area of concentration for these proposed academies.

We still don’t know if this bill will make it to the Senate floor. There is a busy Senate schedule already. The committee charged with producing this bill – the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee – did hold a hearing on the bill earlier this week. You can watch the recording here. Look for our next post in this series on ESEA reauthorization where we will take a deeper look at Title IV: Supporting Successful, Well-Rounded Students and Title V: Promoting Innovation.

Don’t miss our special page on early learning in ESEA.