NAICUSE Summer Meeting
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Hotel del Coronado
San Diego, CA
Basic DC Views of Teacher Prep
 Negative perception of teacher programs is not new
 Not going to blame teachers, but programs
 No recognition of improvements in the field
 Alternative routes are better
 Think tanks have better accountability proposals
NCLB/ESEA Delay
 Congressional inaction on ESEA reauthorization
 House committee
 Senate committee
 Administration MO to legislate through regulatory
process
K-12 Reform Meets Higher Ed
 2009 Stimulus bill got feds more into state policy
 Race to the Top
 MOE
 State longitudinal databases
 K-12 reform model applied to higher education:
 Data-driven system
 National standards at state level
 Outcomes based quality
 States as federal agents of change
 50-state pilot
2012 Negotiated Rulemaking
 Title II Report Cards and TEACH Grants
 No consensus
 Anticipate NPRM this summer? This calendar year?
 NAICU represented at the table
 Practitioners v. reformers
4 Major Concerns
 “Value-added" assessments
 Federally-mandated state criteria for teacher program
assessment
 Rating programs based on the federally-mandated
state criteria
 Precedent setting link between student aid eligibility
and program quality
Weeds
New Part Title II Reporting
 612.4 State Report Card Requirements
Using a state report card prescribed by the Secretary, states must report on the quality of all
approved teacher preparation programs. States must make meaningful differentiation in
teacher preparation performance using at least four performance levels: low-performing, atrisk, effective and exceptional, based on the indicators in 612.5 including a significant part,
student learning outcomes. Effective or exceptional can only be with satisfactory or higher
student learning outcomes.
 612.5 Indicators: provide disaggregated data on academic content knowledge and
teaching skills must include at a minimum:
- student learning outcomes
- employment outcomes
- survey outcomes
- assurance of specialized accreditation or state approval that the program
provides quality clinical preparation; content and pedagogical knowledge; rigorous entry
and exit qualifications; and student survey results.
 New Title IV TEACH Grant language 686.2
TEACH Grants are available to high quality teacher preparation programs, which is an
effective or exceptional program based on the state’s analysis of the criteria in 612.5.
Proposed Link Among TEACH Grants, State Report Card Ratings and Title IV Eligibility
State Report Card
Institution
Ratings
TEACH Grant
( Proposed
(Title IV)
Title II 612.4 Regs)
Eligible for Title IV
Aid
Exceptional
High Quality
(as defined in 612.4)
Teacher Prep
Program reports
because has students
with Title IV aid
Effective
Only student at High
Quality Programs get
TEACH
At-Risk
Law
No Title IV aid for
students in Teacher
Prep Program
Low-Performing*
Regulation
Both
*Low-performing is defined in law, “solely by the state.” Proposed
regs provide a federal definition.
Why this makes us nervous
 Precedent setting for federal funding and regulation
 Shift away from need-based to quality-based federal student aid
 Administration’s Campus-Based Aid Proposal
 Creep into other program areas
 Accreditation as tool of government oversight rather than
self-regulation
 Frames next HEA reauthorization
What we’re for
 Accountability based on valid and reliable research
 Evaluations made using multiple measures
 No high stakes consequences before measures proven valid
 Data for improvement purposes
 All programs should be held to the same standards
 State responsibility, not federal mandate
NAICU Action Plan
 NAICU Teacher Prep List Serve
 NAICU membership heads up on NPRM
 Higher Ed Task Force on Teacher Prep with AACTE
 Hill visits with education committee staff
 Legislative alternatives
How NAICUSE Can Help
 Share your state story
 Local Press and national op-eds
 Congressional delegation
 Share your good examples with NAICU
 State reforms
 Improvements and reforms at your colleges
 Privates working with LEAs
 Self-regulation (state approval process; accreditation;
internal program review, etc.)