Race to the Top, a contest that awards money to states demonstrating the greatest effort to reform public school education, has garnered headlines all over the nation. So far two states have won, mostly due to one category, “Great Teachers and Leaders,” the 9 criteria of which account for 138 of the 500 possible points. Regardless of whether the contest is abolished completely for the second round, Pennsylvania’s failure in the first round can be traced back to two specific sub-criteria in this category, D1 and D4, which deal with providing high-quality and improving existing pathways for new teachers and principals.
The main criticisms of D1 and D4 were that “none of [the alternative teacher education] programs operate independently from institutions of higher education,” “[no alternative routes to principal preparation] currently exist in the state,” and that “there is no indication that successful programs will be provided a greater share of state dollars...” Essentially, no educator preparation programs exist outside of the education establishment, and if they did, there are no plans to reward or replicate successful programs.
First, whoever wrote Pennsylvania’s first application was apparently unaware that Teach for America and The New Teacher Project both operate in their state as neither organization was mentioned. In the second application they appear as two alternative routes mentioned in the first sentence of the appropriate section. We’re off to a good start.
Then, in a direct answer to Zach Blattner’s (MGA, 2010) editorial, bill 441, which currently is undergoing reconciliation, enables that “teachers and principals who complete alternative routes will have the same certification as individuals who complete traditional routes” (p. 450 of Appendix 2). This is a definite improvement.
Yet then the application stumbles. Both TFA and TNTP train teachers, not principals. While the second application highlights that 441 would allow new routes for principals, no new program is explicitly identified. In fact, the most detailed the second application gets is that 441 would enable “Principal Certification Programs operated by entities other than institutions of higher education”—which are?
One would hope that those in charge are aware of New Leaders for New Schools—and the potential points up for grabs from involving them. The organization, regarded as one of the premier alternative principal education programs, is not included in the application, a startling oversight given what the organization could have brought to the table: the CEO is a lead advisor to the Race to the Top.
Things only get worse from there. In response to encouraging successful educator preparation programs, the first application’s reviewer wrote that “the applicant’s only plan to support and extend effective programs… is through increased demand for their students prepared through those programs” and then is even so nice as to suggest a better reward: money. Ditch the market approach—if you know some program is preparing excellent teachers, give them more money. So how does Pennsylvania respond?
Well, it does not. While the second application ambiguously writes that when alternative programs “offer especially promising results, the Department will work with the program to increase its recruitment and expand its enrollment,” it goes on to state that “we do not provide any specialized funding to teacher preparation programs directly” but will hope that demand will increase enrollment, essentially repeating the first application (Narrative and Budget, D-46, 47).
Pennsylvania’s refusal to fund successful alternative programs is puzzling: why insist that they be left empty-handed?
A possible answer appears in the second application. This states that PA “invests over a half a billion dollars annually in Higher Education” (Narrative and Budget, D-47), which mostly flows to The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education—a network of fourteen state colleges offering education degrees. In section D on page 6, the application also writes that “a majority of our needs are met through traditional pre-baccalaureate programs,” which apparently means performing as low as 19th on NAEP nationwide rankings and having a school district that comprises nearly a tenth of statewide enrollment rank 15th out of 18 large urban districts in performance. Yet the state chooses to fund these programs.
And this is a costly choice. Pennsylvania’s refusal to fully endorse alternative preparation routes—both through their inability to name a principal training program and their refusal to fund, or even consider funding, successful teacher education programs—may stand in the way of up to $500 million dollars, funding the state could desperately use at this time.
Race to the Top applications are currently being reviewed, and winners will potentially be announced near the end of the Summer if the contest funding is not used to prevent teacher layoffs.
No comments:
Post a Comment