Home ::
October 10, 2007
The Honorable Ruben Hinojosa
Room 2463 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Reauthorization of Higher Education Act
Dear Congressman Hinojosa:
The Texas Classroom Teachers Association, representing 51,000 teachers statewide, would like to take this opportunity to convey to you as Chair of the Higher Education Subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, the concerns we’ve had with previous iterations of the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act emanating from the House. In fact, we sent you a letter in April, 2006, outlining our issues with some of the provisions contained in The College Access & Opportunity Act (H.R. 609) from last session, and would like to reiterate those concerns again, given that the House is apparently working on its version of reauthorized HEA. We hope that these problematic provisions don’t re-emerge in the new legislation.
We were very concerned that H.R. 609 contained so many provisions emphasizing merit pay for teachers based on increased student achievement, and also contained provisions awarding funds to develop mechanisms to expeditiously remove incompetent or unqualified teachers. For example, H.R. 609, Section 202 (Title II, Part A (20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.) contained provisions for TEACHER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS FOR STATES AND PARTNERSHIPS in which $300 million was made available for fiscal year 2006, requiring that forty-five percent of those funds go to states to develop among other things, “merit pay compensation systems for teachers and to develop and implement effective mechanisms to ensure that local educational agencies and schools are able to remove expeditiously incompetent or unqualified teachers consistent with procedures to ensure due process for the teachers”.
SEC. 204 of the Act Title II (20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.) contained provisions for a TEACHER INCENTIVE FUND PROGRAM, which assisted States, local educational agencies, and non-profit or for-profit organizations in developing and implementing, or expanding, innovative compensation systems to provide financial rewards for teachers and principals who raise student academic achievement and close the achievement gap. The provision requires that any such system shall differentiate levels of compensation primarily on the basis of increases in student academic achievement.
Our concern is that these provisions were encouraging states to develop compensation systems for teachers based on student performance, despite the fact that there is currently no valid, proven model available to fairly and accurately evaluate teachers based on student performance. What we’re referring to is a system of measurement that will accurately isolate teacher effects upon student performance versus other effects (such as intervening events during the school year, family characteristics, socio-economic status, etc.). While much has been made of a “value-added” system of measurement to help isolate teacher effects, recent research reviewing these models has concluded that the research base is currently insufficient to support the use of value-added models for high-stakes decisions. (see Evaluating Value-Added Models for Teacher Accountability, RAND Corporation; Using Student Progress to Evaluate Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added Models, Educational Testing Service, Sept. 2005)
Accordingly, we think these provisions put the cart before the horse by encouraging states and others to develop a teacher evaluation system based on student performance, when the research base necessary to support such a system has not been developed and validated.
Further, another provision in this same section required that States using the grants had to show that they made substantial progress in increasing student academic achievement for all students, which may be measured through the use of value-added assessments, as defined by the eligible State and increasing the numbers of qualified individuals being certified or licensed as teachers through alternative routes to certification and licensure.
Again, we have the same concern about encouraging the use of value-added assessments when the research base is not there to support such a model. We also wonder why the grant was restricted to states which have increased the number of certified teachers only through alternative routes. Given the persistent shortage of certified teachers in the country, one wonders why Congress would want to limit incentives for increasing the number of certified teachers to one particular certification route.
We would note that the current Senate version of the reauthorized HEA, S 1642, does not contain any of the provisions we found objectionable in H.R. 609, although it does refer to the selection of mentor teachers based on measures of teacher effectiveness including “analysis of gains in student learning, based on multiple measures, that, when feasible, may include valid and reliable objective measures of the influence of teachers on the rate of student academic progress” (Sec 202 (2) Teacher Residency Programs). Although this language is far preferable to language in H.R. 609, in that it refers to “when feasible” and “may include valid and reliable objective measures”, we still note that we are not aware of any valid, proven model available to fairly and accurately evaluate teachers based on student performance, again, referring to a system of measurement that will accurately isolate teacher effects upon student performance versus other effects.
With regard to the new legislation to be developed, given the persistent shortage of certified teachers willing to teach, it would be helpful if the legislation focused on provisions that would improve teacher retention.
One mechanism that would help is to expand loan relief for more experienced educators. Loan relief for teachers was recently expanded by the Deficit Reduction Act, enacted in February 2006. That legislation tripled the amount of loan relief for highly qualified math, science, and special education teachers who commit to teaching in high-need K-12 schools for five years. The maximum federal loan forgiveness for such teachers increased from $5,000 to $17,500. However, it only did so for teachers who took out their FIRST Stafford or Direct Loan after October 1, 1998. More experienced teachers who took out these loans between July 1, 1993 and September 30, 1998, have NO forgiveness or deferment benefits unless these loans were paid in full before obtaining a new loan on or after October 1, 1998. Congress has not legislated the Stafford or Direct Loan forgiveness programs to include benefits for loans received prior to Oct. 1, 1998. We have many members who fall outside of the “window” funded by Congress to receive loan relief and many of them are the more experienced teachers. The Senate version of the reauthorized HEA does not provide for funding the loan forgiveness/deferment window that has been, thus far, left unfunded by Congress, and so we would encourage your strong consideration of including funding provisions in the House version of the HEA.
There are a few other examples of provisions that would improve teacher retention that we note are included in the Senate version, which we applaud. For example, in Section 202 of the bill (Teacher Quality Partnership Grants) there are provisions for funding partnerships to provide educator preparation programs that include well-designed induction/mentoring programs and high quality, intensive pre-service clinical experiences for students; and for partnerships to engage in activities for ongoing training of, high quality professional development for, and retention of general and special education teachers, principals, and early childhood educators, with a focus on high-need schools. We would encourage the House version of the bill to replicate many of these provisions.
We know that the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is a tremendous undertaking, and concurrently, it is an important and timely opportunity to address the pressing issues of teacher retention and preparation in this country. We appreciate your leadership in this effort, and thank you for your time and attention to our concerns.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Holly Eaton
Director of Professional Development and Advocacy
