Order Code RL30834
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
K-12 Teacher Quality:
Issues and Legislative Action
Updated March 26, 2003
James B. Stedman
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action
Summary
The quality of elementary and secondary school teachers is increasingly
recognized as a critical element in improving education. Policymakers seeking to
address teacher quality face many serious challenges. Among these challenges are
the lack of consensus on what makes a teacher effective, the vast size and
decentralized organization of K-12 education, and problems with teacher supply and
demand.
The federal government is not responsible for the preparation, hiring, and work
life of teachers; these responsibilities rest with states and localities. Nevertheless, the
federal government, primarily through the U.S. Department of Education, directs
substantial resources to K-12 teachers.
Recently, the focus of federal support has expanded beyond in-service training
to include teacher preparation, recruitment, and hiring. Further, the federal
government is attempting to strengthen accountability for teacher quality. Interest
in providing broad, flexible assistance coupled with accountability for outcomes is
expected to remain keen in the 108th Congress.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110) reauthorized the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), replacing the Eisenhower
Professional Development program and the Class Size Reduction program with a
single formula grant program supporting an array of activities to improve the
elementary and secondary teaching force. In addition, among other provisions, the
reauthorized ESEA includes a separate program of math and science partnerships to
improve teaching in those fields and continues a program for preparing prospective
teachers to use technology. In other action, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance
Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-147) created an above-the-line deduction for up to $250 a year
for classroom expenses incurred by teachers and others in schools. Further, the
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368) authorized
the National Science Foundation (NSF) to administer various teacher-related
programs and activities to improve math and science instruction, including math and
science partnerships.
This report will track major legislative action as it occurs.
Contents
Recent Legislative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Teachers at the Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Identifying What Makes a Teacher Effective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
K-12 Organization and Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Teacher Supply and Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Certification Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Out-of-Field Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Teacher Preparation and Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Unionization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Federal Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Changing Federal Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Selected Major Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
ESEA as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
HEA Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
K-12 Teacher Quality:
Issues and Legislative Action
Since the early 1980s, educators and policymakers at all levels have sought to
improve the quality of public K-12 education. Despite these efforts, many remain
concerned about the performance of today’s schools and students. Throughout this
process, a recurrent objective has been improvement of the public K-12 teaching
force. The attention being paid to teacher quality has risen dramatically in recent
years. This was particularly true as the Congress reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 2002. It remains true as the 108th Congress
considers the Higher Education Act (HEA) for reauthorization.1 The HEA authorizes
programs to improve K-12 teacher preparation and recruitment.
This report provides a brief overview of some of the most salient issues
regarding the K-12 teaching force, describes the current federal role in this area,
describes major federal programs, and tracks major legislative action by the
Congress. It will be updated as major action occurs.
Recent Legislative Action
Major action related to K-12 teachers by the 108th Congress will be described
here as it occurs. Relevant legislation enacted by the 107th Congress included the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110) that, among several teacher-related
programs and provisions, established a formula grant program supporting a wide
array of activities to improve the elementary and secondary teaching force and a
program of math and science partnerships. FY2003 appropriations legislation for the
U.S. Department of Education (ED) enacted in the 108th Congress provides $2.93
billion for the broad-based teacher program and $100.3 million for math and science
partnerships (both figures reflect ED estimates of the impact of the across-the-board
reduction required by the FY2003 appropriations legislation).2 The teacher-related
provisions of this legislation are described in more detail later in this report. The Job
Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-147) created an above-the-
line deduction for up to $250 a year for classroom expenses (including those for
books, supplies, computer equipment, other equipment, and supplementary materials
used in the classroom) incurred by teachers and others in schools. The National
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368) included several
programs to improve K-12 math and science teaching. FY2003 appropriations
legislation provides $127.5 million for a program administered by the National
1 CRS Issue Brief IB10097, The Higher Education Act: Reauthorization Status and Issues,
by James B. Stedman.
2 Unless noted, all FY2003 appropriations levels cited in this report reflect the estimated
impact of the across-the-board reduction.
CRS-2
Science Foundation (NSF) supporting math and science partnerships (impact of
reduction in FY2003 appropriations legislation to be determined).
Teachers at the Center
Many education reformers have long recognized the importance of improving
the K-12 teaching force while, concurrently, marshaling teachers’ support for the
process of reform. The increasing focus on teacher quality has been fueled by several
recent analyses concluding that, among all school-based factors, teacher quality is the
most important; that some teachers are much more effective than others with similar
students; and that teacher quality may specially affect the achievement of
disadvantaged students.
Challenges
Policymakers face many serious challenges in their efforts to improve teacher
quality. Some of these challenges are considered briefly below.
Identifying What Makes a Teacher Effective. Although some research
has found certain teacher attributes positively related to student achievement, such
as verbal ability, subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, years of
experience, and certification status, there is no consensus on what makes a teacher
effective. Nevertheless, policymakers are focusing on improving certain of these
attributes, particularly subject matter knowledge and certification status, in an effort
to increase the likelihood that teachers will be effective with their students.
K-12 Organization and Size. The organization and size of the public K-12
educational enterprise poses a significant challenge to teacher quality improvement.
Over 2.8 million teachers are employed in more than 89,000 schools located in some
14,800 school districts. This is a decentralized system; states and localities have
legal and administrative responsibility for K-12 education. The recruitment, hiring,
compensation, and retention of teachers are matters typically controlled by districts
and, in part, schools and states. Teacher preparation generally takes place in higher
education institutions. Teacher assignments and evaluations are often the domain of
schools. Teacher certification and tenure are the province of states.
Teacher Supply and Demand. It may be difficult in the coming decade to
raise K-12 teacher quality when concerns about teacher quantity are growing.
Warnings of a potential shortage of teachers abound, precipitated by projected
increases in student enrollment and an anticipated surge in retirements. This has
prompted states and localities to initiate many recruitment efforts.
Some analysts question whether a rising demand for teachers necessarily
portends a shortage. They point out that teaching can draw from a large reserve pool
(those who might be newly drawn into teaching and those who have taught but are
no longer teaching), and that teacher preparation programs prepare more individuals
for teaching than go into teaching. Also, many teachers leave the profession early in
their careers. Efforts to stem this attrition may help address supply issues and raise
teacher quality (reportedly leavers may be higher academic performers than stayers).
CRS-3
Certification Standards. State certification standards governing who can
teach clearly contribute to the quality of the teaching force, as well as to the number
of individuals available for teaching. Some critics of current certification practices
call for a very substantial raising of standards, a call which some states have heeded.
Other critics of current certification complain that raising the certification hurdles can
impose unreasonable barriers to the entry of potentially high quality teachers,
particularly mid-career changers, or may prompt districts to circumvent these
requirements. Many observers assert that teacher quality and quantity may be served
under well-designed alternatives to traditional certification, though some analysts
warn that poorly designed alternative certification may create a “backdoor” into
teaching for unprepared individuals.
Out-of-Field Assignments. Another major challenge for policymakers is
reducing the extent to which teachers are currently teaching out-of-field, that is,
teaching classes for which they have inadequate content knowledge. In 1999-2000,
over a fifth of secondary school students took at least one class from a teacher who
neither majored nor minored in that subject in college; over a third received
instruction in at least one class from a teacher who was not certified in the subject
taught and did not have a major in that subject.3 Out-of-field teaching assignments
are a function of many local, primarily school-based, factors. How to change these
practices and policies is an open question, as is the impact of such action on the
supply of qualified teachers.
Teacher Preparation and Professional Development. Efforts to
address the quality of the teaching force often look to the preservice training process
and to professional development (i.e., in-service training) for current teachers. There
is concern that graduates of teacher education institutions are inadequately prepared
to teach to high standards. Some states are holding these institutions accountable for
the quality of their graduates; these institutions are taking steps to strengthen their
programs.
Traditionally, professional development has been delivered to current teachers
in a sporadic and uncoordinated fashion. Efforts to improve professional
development are being undertaken with the goal of remedying the academic and
pedagogic deficiencies of current teachers, a daunting task given the magnitude of
the teaching force.
Compensation. Reform of teacher compensation is a frequent element in
initiatives to improve K-12 teacher quality (see CRS Report RL30217, Performance-
Based Pay for Teachers). It is argued that highly qualified individuals are dissuaded
from entering or staying in teaching because current compensation is not competitive
and does not reward quality. Past compensation reforms have generally been short-
lived, partly because it has proven difficult to address concerns about whether
different pay schedules, particularly merit based pay systems, can be implemented
objectively, fairly, and consistently. Some compensation reform may be particularly
expensive as well.
3 Education Week, Quality Counts 2003: Ensuring a Highly Qualified Teacher for Every
Classroom, January 9, 2003.
CRS-4
Tenure. Some educators and policymakers see state tenure laws as a
substantial challenge to teacher quality improvement. To its critics, tenure protects
incompetent teachers, creating a dismissal process that is too costly and time
consuming. To its defenders, tenure protects K-12 teachers from arbitrary, biased,
and unfair dismissal, and may provide for a stable workforce. States have been
reforming tenure by, for example, extending the period in which beginning teachers
can be evaluated and dismissed, expanding the reasons for dismissal, and creating
time limits for the dismissal process.
Unionization. The vast majority of teachers are members of teachers’ unions.
Critics have posited that the major teachers’ unions have been substantially more
interested in job protection and higher salaries than in improving the quality of the
teaching force. Union proponents point to examples of cooperation with different
reform efforts, including steps to assist underperforming teachers and to remove
teachers who do not make necessary improvements. Nevertheless, as reform efforts
increasingly focus on teacher quality, the challenges to union policies and practices
are likely to increase.
Federal Role
The federal government is not responsible for preparing, recruiting, certifying,
compensating, testing, tenuring, and structuring the working conditions of K-12
teachers; these responsibilities rest with states and localities. Traditionally, these
areas have been viewed as largely outside the reach of the federal government.
Nevertheless, over the past several years, the federal government has become
increasing involved in issues of teacher quality and quantity.
The federal government funds many programs supporting K-12 teaching. Some
of these are explicitly targeted to teachers; others with a broader focus nevertheless
support such activities as teacher training. Over the past several years, the Congress
has been redefining the federal role relative to targeted support of K-12 teachers.
Funding. Although federal aid in this area comes from multiple federal
agencies, ED is the primary source. Over $3.3 billion of the Department’s FY2003
appropriation is for activities directed specifically to K-12 teachers. This funding
includes $2.93 billion for the Principal and Teacher Training and Recruiting Fund
added to the ESEA in 2002 by P.L. 107-110 (described below), $70.5 million for the
Troops-to-Teachers and Transition to Teaching programs (described below), $62.1
million for the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology program
(transferred by P.L. 107-110 to the Higher Education Act, described below), and
$89.4 million for the Higher Education Act’s Teacher Quality Enhancement program
(described below). Significant levels of funding also support teachers under other
programs that are not targeted to teachers (e.g., the ESEA Title I program).
Changing Federal Role. The No Child Left Behind Act marked a
significant shift in the federal role with regard to K-12 teachers and teaching, but, in
some ways, it is the most recent in a series of congressional actions modifying that
federal role. These changes in the federal role are described below.
CRS-5
Immediately prior to the 105th Congress, federal aid for K-12 teaching was
largely focused on in-service training, with limited funding for preservice training
and recruitment. The 105th Congress began a shift in this focus by enacting
amendments in 1998 to the Higher Education Act (HEA) that included the Teacher
Quality Enhancement program. Significantly, these amendments also had broad-
based accountability requirements for teacher education programs (see CRS Report
RL31254, Pass Rates as an Accountability Measure for Teacher Education
Programs). Funded states and their higher education institutions are now required
to report publicly on teacher preparation, including the pass rates of graduates on
certification assessments. States must identify low-performing teacher preparation
programs. If low-performing programs lose state approval or financing, their
institutions cannot receive professional development funding from ED and cannot
accept or enroll any HEA-aided student in the teacher education program.
In an effort to improve student performance, the 105th Congress also
appropriated funding for the general hiring of new, qualified teachers to reduce class
size. The program was appropriated funding for 3 fiscal years ($1.2 billion for
FY1999, $1.3 billion for FY2000 and $1.623 billion for FY2001). This program
broke new ground with its explicit and primary focus on federal support for the hiring
of teachers. Further, until enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, this program
and the Eisenhower Professional Development program (Title II of the ESEA under
prior law) had been the two largest federal initiatives targeting support to K-12
teachers and teaching. The Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund in
the reauthorized ESEA replaced those two programs and is the largest single source
of federal support directed to K-12 teaching.
The 106th Congress continued this redefinition of the federal role in this area.
For FY2001, the Congress specified that appropriated amounts for the Eisenhower
program above the FY2000 level ($335 million) were to be spent on such activities
as reducing the percentage of teachers without certification or with emergency or
provisional certification, the percentage teaching out of field, or the percentage
lacking requisite content knowledge. These excess funds could also be directed to
such other activities as mentoring for new teachers, multi-week institutes providing
professional development, and retention efforts for teachers with a record of
increasing low-income students’ academic achievement. Among other new money
for teachers approved in the FY2001 appropriations for ED was $3 million for the
Troops-to-Teachers program (supporting entry of former military personnel into
teaching), available for transfer from ED to the Department of Defense;4 and $31
million for new teacher recruitment activities targeting mid-career professionals in
other occupations and highly qualified recent college graduates with BAs in fields
other than education.
The 107th Congress further expanded the federal role in issues of teacher quality
and quantity. On January 8, 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was signed
into law (P.L. 107-110). In amending and reauthorizing the ESEA, this legislation
4 P.L. 106-65 (National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000), signed on October 5, 1999,
transferred the Troops to Teachers program from the Defense and Transportation
Departments to the Education Department.
CRS-6
authorized federal support for a broad array of activities to improve K-12 teaching,
ranging from recruitment to hiring to retention. It more firmly focused federal
interest on teacher quality by, for example, requiring all core academic subject
teacher to be “highly qualified” by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. The
programs and provisions added to the ESEA by the No Child Left Behind Act are
described in the following section.
Selected Major Programs
This section provides descriptions of the major federal programs addressing K-
12 teaching. Its primary focus is on the programs in the ESEA as amended by the No
Child Left Behind Act.
ESEA as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act. In amending and
reauthorizing the ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act continued ESEA Title II as
the primary title for teacher programs. The major teacher-related provisions in Title
II and elsewhere in the ESEA are described below.
Requirement That All Teachers Be Highly Qualified. Each state
educational agency (SEA) receiving ESEA Title I, Part A funding (compensatory
education of disadvantaged students) must have a plan to ensure that all teachers
teaching in core academic subjects within the state meet the definition of highly
qualified no later than the end of the 2005-2006 school year.
To be highly qualified, a public elementary or secondary school teacher must
meet the following requirements:
! Any public elementary or secondary school teacher must have
full state certification (a charter school teacher must meet the
requirements in the state charter school law) and must not have had
any certification requirements waived on an emergency, temporary,
or provisional basis.
! A new public elementary school teacher must also have at least a
BA and have passed a test demonstrating subject knowledge and
teaching skills in reading, writing, math, and other basic elementary
school curricular areas (such tests may include state certification
exams in these areas).
! A new public middle or secondary school teacher must also have
at least a BA and have either demonstrated a high level of
competency in all subjects taught by passing rigorous state academic
tests in those subjects (may include state certification exams in those
subjects), or completed an academic major (or equivalent course
work), graduate degree, or advanced certification in each subject
taught.
! An experienced public elementary, middle, or secondary school
teacher must also have at least a BA and either meet the
requirements just described for a new teacher (depending upon his
or her level of instruction), or demonstrate competency in all
subjects taught using a state evaluation standard. Among other
CRS-7
requirements, such a standard must provide objective information
about the teacher’s content knowledge in subjects taught and
considers, but is not primarily based on, time teaching those
subjects.
As part of this plan, each Title I-funded state must establish annual measurable
objectives for each local educational agency (LEA) and school that, at a minimum,
include annual increases in the percentage of highly qualified teachers at each LEA
and school to ensure that the 2005-2006 deadline is met, and an annual increase in
the percentage of teachers receiving high quality professional development.
Each LEA receiving Title I Part A funding must have a plan to ensure that all
of its teachers are highly qualified by the 2005-2006 deadline. In addition, beginning
with the first day of the 2002-2003 school year, any LEA receiving Title I funding
must ensure that all teachers hired after that date who are teaching in Title I-
supported programs are highly qualified.
Questions were raised about the scope of the application of these requirements,
that is, whether they apply to all teachers, including vocational education teachers,
special education teachers, or others not teaching core academic subjects. Final
regulations for the Title I program published December 2, 2002, in the Federal
Register apply these requirements only to core academic subject teachers. ED noted
that these requirements would apply to a vocational education teacher or a special
education teacher providing instruction in a core academic subject.
The final regulations also clarify that a teacher in an alternative certification
program will have a maximum of 3 years in which to become fully certified without
being in violation of the highly qualified requirements regarding certification. This
allowance is made only for a teacher in an alternative certification program who is
receiving high quality professional development, intensive supervision, and making
satisfactory progress toward full certification.
States and LEAs must publicly issue annual reports describing progress on the
state-set objectives.
Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund. ESEA Title II,
Part A replaced the Eisenhower and CSR programs with a new state formula grant
program authorized at $3.175 billion for FY2002 and such sums as may be necessary
for the 5 succeeding fiscal years. The FY2003 appropriation is $2.93 billion.
State Allocation Formula. The allocation formula for Title II Part A provides
each state with a base guarantee of funding equal to the amount it received for
FY2001 under the Eisenhower and CSR programs. Any excess funding is allocated
by formula among the states based 35% on school-aged population (5-17) and 65%
on school-aged population in poverty. Each state is assured 0.5% of this excess. At
the state level, 95% of the state grant is to be distributed as subgrants to LEAs, 2.5%
for local partnerships (the Secretary calculates an alternative percentage if 2.5% of
the state grant would generate a total for all states in excess of $125 million for
partnerships), and the remainder for state activities.
CRS-8
LEA Subgrants. LEA subgrant funding is distributed first as a base guarantee
of the FY2001 Eisenhower and CSR grants to individual districts, with the remainder
distributed by formula based 20% on school-aged population and 80% on school-
aged population in poverty.
LEAs are authorized to use their funding for one or more of various specified
activities. Among the authorized activities are the following: assistance to schools
in the recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers (see definition above),
principals, and, under certain conditions, pupil services personnel; assistance in
recruiting and hiring highly qualified teachers through such means as scholarships
and signing bonuses; use of these teachers to reduce class sizes; initiatives to increase
retention of highly qualified teachers and principals, particularly in schools with high
percentages of low-achieving students, through mentoring, induction services during
the initial 3 years of service, and financial incentives for those effectively serving all
students; professional development, including professional development that
involves technology in teaching and curriculum and professional development
delivered through technology; improvement of the quality of the teaching force
through such activities as tenure reform, merit pay, and teacher testing in their subject
areas; and professional development for principals and superintendents.
Partnership Subgrants. These funds are awarded competitively to
partnerships that must include a higher education institution and its division
preparing teachers and principals; a higher education school of arts and sciences; and
a high need LEA (defined as one with at least 10,000 poor children or a child poverty
rate of at least 20% which, in addition, has either a high percentage of out-of-field
teachers or a high percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional, or temporary
certificates). Other entities, such as charter schools or another LEA, may be part of
these partnerships. Partnerships must use their funds for professional development
in the core academic subjects for teachers, highly qualified paraprofessionals, and
principals.
State Activities. States must use their funding for one or more of several
specified activities. Among these activities are the following: teacher and principal
certification reform; mentoring and intensive professional development for teachers
and principals, including those new to their careers; assistance to LEAs and schools
in the recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers, principals, and, under
certain conditions, pupil services personnel; tenure reform; subject matter testing for
teachers; projects to promote teacher and principal certification reciprocity across
states; training to help teachers integrate technology into the curriculum and
instruction; assistance to help teachers become highly qualified by the end of the
fourth year of state funding; and a clearinghouse for teacher recruitment and
placement.
Accountability. If, after the second year of the plan to ensure that all teacher
are highly qualified (see above), an LEA has failed to make progress toward the
annual objectives in such plan, it must develop an improvement plan. Failure after
CRS-9
the third year coupled with failure to make adequate yearly progress5 for 3
consecutive years requires the SEA to identify the professional development the LEA
will use and, generally, precludes use of Title I Part A funds for paraprofessionals.
In addition, the SEA provides funding directly to schools in the LEA to enable their
teachers to choose their own professional development activities.
National Activities. The Secretary of Education is authorized to use national
activities funding for several specific activities. Authorized activities include a
national teacher recruitment campaign, which may include activities through a
national teacher recruitment clearinghouse, to help high need LEAs recruit and train
teachers and to conduct a national public service campaign about the resources and
routes into teaching; a national principal recruitment program of competitive grants
to help high need LEAs; support for advanced certification of teachers, including
grants to entities to develop teacher standards, and to encourage teachers to pursue
advanced certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards or
the National Council on Teacher Quality, among others; a grant to the University of
Northern Colorado to help other higher education institutions train special education
teachers; a program to support professional development of early childhood
educators; and a national panel on teacher mobility to study ways of facilitating the
mobility of highly qualified teachers. National activities funding is at such sums as
may be necessary for FY2002 and the 5 succeeding fiscal years. The FY2003
appropriations legislation provides $37.3 million of which $12.4 million is for
principal recruitment, $9.9 million is for advanced credentialing of teachers, and
$14.9 million is for early childhood educator professional development.
Mathematics and Science Partnerships. Title II Part B authorizes
funding for partnerships to improve math and science instruction. An eligible
partnership must include an SEA (if funds are awarded competitively), the
engineering, mathematics, or science department of a higher education institution,
and a high need LEA. Other entities such as LEAs and charter schools may be
included as well. The annual authorization of appropriations is $450 million for
FY2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the next 5 fiscal years. The FY2002
appropriation was $12.5 million; the FY2003 appropriation is $100.3 million. When
the annual appropriation is less than $100 million, the program’s 3-year grants are
awarded competitively; otherwise, funds are awarded to SEAs based on school-aged
population in poverty with a 0.5% small state minimum.
Partnerships must use their grants for one or more of several specific activities.
Among them are the following: professional development to improve math and
science teachers’ subject knowledge; activities to promote strong teaching skills
among these teachers and teacher educators; math and science summer workshops
or institutes with academic year followup; recruitment of math, science, or
engineering majors to teaching through signing and performance incentives, stipends
for alternative certification, and scholarships for advanced course work; development
or redesign of more rigorous, standards-aligned math and science curricula; distance
5 For information on adequate yearly progress under the reauthorized ESEA, see CRS
Report RL31487, Education for the Disadvantaged: Overview of ESEA Title I-A
Amendments Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne Riddle.
CRS-10
learning programs for math and science teachers; and opportunities for math and
science teachers to have contact with working mathematicians, scientists, and
engineers.
The Secretary is to consult and coordinate activities with the Director of the
NSF, particularly regarding the appropriate roles of the two entities in workshops,
institutes, and partnerships.
Each partnership must have an evaluation and accountability plan that includes
objectives measuring the impact of the funded activities. Among these objectives
must be improvement of student achievement on state math and science assessments.
FY2002 Appropriation for Mathematics and Science Partnerships. As
noted above, the FY2002 appropriation was $12.5 million for the Mathematics and
Science Partnerships authorized in the amended ESEA. Some in the business, and
math and science education, communities were concerned that this FY2002 funding
was a sharp reduction in the prior funding level for math and science instruction
improvement.6 In response, others noted that, under the major ESEA program for
teachers, states and localities can support such math and science activities if they
choose.
Prior to enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, the ESEA authorized the
Eisenhower Professional Development program with a funding reservation targeted
to professional development for math and science teachers. This reservation was
added to the program in 1994 when its focus was expanded beyond math and science
to include other core academic subjects. It required, in part, that when the annual
appropriation exceeded $250 million, “[s]tate and local shares of the first $250
million of appropriated funds must be expended on professional development in
mathematics and science.”7 As implemented, the reservation did not dedicate a full
$250 million to math and science professional development.8 Further, the funding
reservation was waived for some states and districts in some years under various
ESEA and other waiver authorities. Complete, conclusive data on the amount of
Eisenhower funds actually supporting math and science professional development do
not appear to be available. An ED official is cited in a recent article as stating that
$375 million of the FY2001 appropriation for the Eisenhower program was spent on
math and science.9
6 Hoff, David J. Math and Science Could Be Big Losers Under New Law. Education Week,
January 16, 2002. (Hereafter cited as Hoff, Math and Science.)
7 U.S. Department of Education. Guidance for Title II, Part B, p. 6-7.
8 The proportion of the SEA, LEA and state agency for higher education (SAHE) funds
required to be spent on math and science professional development was based on the total
appropriation, but certain funds (SEA and SAHE administrative funds, and national
evaluation funds) were subsequently excluded from the actual implementation of the
reservation requirement.
9 Hoff, Math and Science.
CRS-11
Some would argue that the Mathematics and Science Partnerships were to
continue the focus on math and science originally supported under the Eisenhower
program, but that the FY2002 appropriations and ESEA reauthorization processes,
which overlapped extensively, failed to do so. The House-passed version of the
ESEA reauthorization legislation did not include a separate authority for
Mathematics and Science Partnerships; rather, it provided a funding reservation in
the new teacher program directing funds to such partnerships. The Senate-passed
version of the ESEA legislation included the Mathematics and Science Partnership
program as a separate authority. The House- and Senate-passed FY2002
appropriations legislation reflected this different treatment of the partnerships. The
House had no separate appropriation for the partnerships,10 while the Senate
appropriated $25 million for the partnerships. The final agreement on the No Child
Left Behind Act followed the Senate approach of a separately authorized program;
the FY2002 appropriations legislation enacted into law provided $12.5 million for
the program. The appropriation conferees acknowledged that under prior law the
Eisenhower program provided significant levels of support for math and science and
that high-quality math and science instruction is critical. As a result, they “strongly
urge the Secretary [of Education] and the States to continue to fund math and science
activities within the Teacher Quality Grant program [i.e., the new program for
teachers] at a comparable level in fiscal year 2002.”11
As noted, the FY2003 appropriation for ED’s math and science partnership
program is $100.3 million. At this level, the program is to be administered as a
formula grant to states.
NSF’s Mathematics and Science Partnership Program. The Congress also
provided $160 million in FY2002 funding to the National Science Foundation for a
Mathematics and Science Partnership program. The FY2003 level is down
somewhat at $127.5 million (impact of across-the-board reduction required by FY203
appropriations legislation not available). The National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 2002 included authorizing language delineating this program.
That legislation also, among other provisions addressing K-12 math and science
instruction, authorized the Robert Noyce Scholarship program providing scholarships
to college juniors and seniors majoring in math, science, or engineering, in exchange
for K-12 teaching service.
Other ESEA Programs and Activities. The ESEA authorizes a number
of other programs and activities targeting K-12 teachers and teaching. Some of these
are highlighted below.
Troops-to-Teachers. Title II Part C, Subpart 1, Chapter A authorizes funding
and administration of the Troops-to-Teachers program, an effort to facilitate the
movement of members of the armed forces into K-12 teaching. This legislation
10 At the FY2002 House-passed appropriation level for the House-passed version of the
teacher program in the No Child Left Behind legislation, roughly $450 million, at least,
might have been directed to the partnerships.
11 U.S. House of Representatives. Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3061, H.Rept.
107-342, p. 121.
CRS-12
authorizes the Secretary of Education to enter into a memorandum of agreement with
the Department of Defense for the actual administration of the program, which was
first enacted in the FY1993 Defense Authorization Act. The program assists eligible
members of the armed forces to become certified as elementary or secondary school
teachers or vocational technical teachers. A single authorization of appropriations
of $150 million for FY2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the next 5 fiscal
years is provided for the Troops-to-Teachers program and the Transition to Teaching
program (see below), of which the Secretary is to reserve not more than $30 million
in FY2002 for the Troops-to-Teachers program. The FY2003 appropriation provides
$28.8 million for this program.
Transition to Teaching. This is a continuation of a program to recruit mid-
career professionals and others to teaching that was first initiated through the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001. Under this ESEA authority (Title II Part
C, Subpart 1, Chapter B), the Secretary of Education may competitively award 5-year
grants to SEAs, high need LEAs, higher education institutions in partnership with
SEAs or high need LEAs, among others, for the establishment of state and local
“teacher corps” projects. These projects are to recruit highly qualified mid-career
professionals, highly qualified paraprofessionals, and recent college graduates to
teach in high need schools. Among the activities these programs can support are
financial incentives effective at retaining teachers in high need schools in high need
LEAs; pre- and post-placement support such as mentoring; payments for the costs of
hiring these teachers or subsidies to participants; and state or regional clearinghouses
for recruitment and placement. Participating teachers are to be placed in high need
schools in high need LEAs with a priority on schools in areas with the highest
percentages of low-income students. Participants have a 3-year service commitment.
Projects failing to make substantial progress by the end of their third year toward
goals and objectives established in their applications have their grants revoked. The
FY2003 appropriations legislation provides $41.7 million for this program.
Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology. The new legislation
amends and reauthorizes the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology
program, moving it to Title II of the Higher Education Act. This program is intended
to support the training of prospective teachers to use advanced technology in their
teaching. It authorizes the Secretary of Education to fund consortia, each including
at least one higher education institution that prepares individuals for teaching, one
SEA or LEA, and one or more of other entities, such as higher education institutions,
higher education schools of education, higher education schools of arts and sciences,
museums, foundations, etc. Federal funds are provided in the form of matching
grants. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for
FY2002 and for FY2003. The FY2003 appropriation is $62.1 million.
Teacher Liability. The No Child Left Behind Act included the Paul D.
Coverdell Teacher Protection Act of 2001, which provides liability protection to
school employees (including teachers, administrators, and school board members)
acting to control, discipline, expel, or suspend a student or to maintain order in the
classroom or school.
HEA Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants. Title II of the Higher
Education Act authorizes the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants program. The
CRS-13
program includes three kinds of grant programs – state grants, partnership grants,
and teacher recruitment grants – targeting improvement in K-12 teacher preparation
and recruitment. Each of these grants is awarded competitively. The annual
appropriation is to be divided 45% to state grants, 45% to partnership grants, and
10% to recruitment grants. Recruitment grants can be awarded to either states or
eligible partnerships. The FY2003 appropriation for these grants is $89.4 million.
As noted previously, this legislation includes a series of accountability
provisions that essentially apply to all teacher preparation programs in the country.
These provisions seek to hold teacher preparation programs accountable for the
knowledge and skills of their graduates. In doing so, they require institutions and
states to report on the rates at which teacher education graduates pass teacher
certification exams, and require states to develop and implement procedures for
identifying teacher education programs as low-performing. Any higher education
institution with a teacher preparation program that loses state approval or financial
support because of its designation by the state as a low-performing program is
ineligible for any professional development funding from ED, and cannot accept or
enroll in its teacher preparation program any student receiving assistance under HEA
Title IV. These accountability requirements are delineated in CRS Report for
Congress RL31254, Pass Rates as an Accountability Measure for Teacher Education
Programs.