Educator Policies & the Every Student Succeeds Act

The dierence that an eecve teacher can make in

the trajectory of a student's life is oen discussed and

well documented. Research indicates that teachers

are the most important school-based factor for

student growth and achievement. A single year with an

ineecve teacher can cost a student up to one and a

half years’ worth of achievement. On the other hand,

ve consecuve years with an eecve teacher could

nearly close the achievement gap.

In the 16 years since the inial passage of No Child Le

Behind (NCLB), the body of research around the impact

of teachers and state policy experimentaon on how

to measure eecveness have grown. This brief traces

the evoluon from the “Highly-Qualied Teacher”

provisions of NCLB to the teacher evaluaon systems

of the 2011 Elementary and Secondary Educaon Act

(ESEA) waivers to the present Every Student Succeeds

Act (ESSA), which refrains from being prescripve

on how states choose to address this queson, but

does oer several opportunies for innovaon and

experimentaon.

By Casey Wyant Remer,

Director of Policy & Research

ESSA

Educator

Policies & the

Every Student

Succeeds Act

Educator Policies & ESSA

In 2001, the Elementary and Secondary Educaon Act was reauthorized as No Child Le

Behind (NCLB). Among the general public, NCLB is probably best known for spurring the

implementaon of statewide standards and assessments and the reporng of the results

of those assessments annually. But the law also introduced a new term to the policy

discussion: highly-qualied teacher (HQT).

Highly-Qualied Teacher (n.) An educator who meets the following three

requirements: 1) Holds a bachelor’s degree; 2) Holds full state cercaon

or licensure; and 3) Demonstrates subject maer competency.

NCLB required that all core academic subjects be taught by teachers who were “highly

qualied,” but le it to states to individually dene the term. Evaluaons of NCLB

implementaon found that most teachers met the HQT requirement as determined by their

states—and also that those who did not were more likely to be found in special educaon,

science, and schools serving higher concentraons of low-income students. In addion,

because the specic criteria were set by the state, the denion varied widely, parcularly

when it came to the bar for subject-maer competency.

A 2007 survey conducted by the Center on Educaon Policy found that a majority of

state and district leaders reported that the HQT requirement had minimal or no impact

on student achievement. To explain this nding, crics would point to the focus on inputs

rather than outputs.

Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, the Highly-Qualied Teacher requirements

are eliminated beginning in the 2016-17 school year.

ESSA does not set a minimum requirement for entry into the teaching profession.

States may set standards for cercaon and licensure as they see t.

2009-2015 | Priority: Eecveness

The conversaon began to change from the importance of inputs to outputs, and in 2009,

TNTP (then known as The New Teacher Project) released a report that added urgency to the

discussion around teacher qualicaons and eecveness: The Widget Eect.

For policymakers and educaon leaders who felt an urgent need to ensure that all students

were taught by an eecve teacher, the report rang an alarm bell: Under the exisng

evaluaon systems, more than 99 percent of teachers received a “sasfactory” rang under

the binary rang system that had been commonly used.

The conversaon changed again. No longer focused on inputs or binaries, stakeholders

began to explore how to dene and measure eecve teaching—in parcular the impact

that teachers have on their students’ achievement and growth.

These policies were pushed ahead by incenves from the U.S. Department of Educaon,

beginning with the Race to the Top compeon in 2009 and followed by ESEA exibility

waivers in 2011 (see box on next page).

2001-2017:

An Evoluon of Educator Policies

ESSA

Check

2001-2008 | Priority: Qualicaon

Educator Policies & ESSA

As a result, most states have moved towards evaluaon systems that:

» Include mulple levels of performance classicaon;

» Require more frequent evaluaon of all teachers; and

» Incorporate mulple measures, including student achievement.

Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, states are not required or incenvized to

implement educator evaluaon systems.

States that received waivers from ESEA are no longer required to adhere to the

systems they proposed.

2015 & Beyond | Priority: State Control

With federal incenves for teacher evaluaon removed through the passage of ESSA, state

leaders now have greater control and exibility to decide how best to connue (or if to

connue) implemenng and improving their evaluaon systems. ESSA does, however, sll

contain a range of provisions that relate to teachers and school leaders. As states move

from plan development and into implementaon and renement, there are several key

opportunies to address teacher and school leader eecveness within the law.

Federal Incenves for Teacher Evaluaon Systems

Beginning in 2009, many states modied or created legislaon regarding the

evaluaon of teachers in response to federal iniaves like Race to the Top (RT) and

ESEA exibility waivers. Both the RT rubric and the guidelines for ESEA exibility

emphasized the signicance of linking annual teacher evaluaons with measures of

student growth.

As a result of these

incenves, states

have moved towards

systems that include

mulple levels

of performance

classicaon, require

more frequent

evaluaon of all

teachers, and

incorporate mulple

measures, including

student achievement.

The number of states

requiring annual

evaluaons of all teachers increased from 15 states in 2009 to 26 states in 2015; 44

states require annual evaluaons of all new, probaonary teachers.

In the absence of these incenves for certain aspects of teacher evaluaon systems

under ESSA, some state legislatures are proposing bills that reduce the frequency

by which teachers are evaluated or eliminate student growth requirements for

determining eecveness.

ESSA

Check

Educator Policies & ESSA

States that Require Annual Evaluaons of New Teachers

Source: Naonal Council on Teacher Quality

While ESSA moves away from the “highly-qualied teachers” provisions in NCLB, the

new law draws aenon to an equity issue that has connued to stump states and

districts: the distribuon of teachers. Oen, one nds that the strongest teachers are

not necessarily in the schools that need them the most. ESSA requires states and districts

to report disparies that result in low-income students and minority students being taught by

ineecve, inexperienced, or out-of-eld teachers at higher rates than other students. This

requirement presents an opportunity for states to address any inequies in access to

eecve teaching and begin to address imbalances that have likely existed for years.

How does my state dene and measure teacher eecveness?

While there are no longer requirements for evaluaon systems linking teacher

eecveness with student growth or performance, states will need to carefully design

measures and denions of eecveness (and ineecveness), as well as dene

“inexperienced” if they are truly to idenfy and address imbalances in teacher distribuon

across their states. NCTQ provides best pracces and state exemplars for states to

consider around these issues in their ESSA Educator Equity Best Pracces Guide.

How will my state use this data to balance the distribuon of teachers?

States should explore any exisng programs they may have, as well as programs instuted

by districts to recruit and retain eecve teachers in tradionally under-resourced schools

and areas of the state. In parcular, states should consider how the opportunies around

teacher preparaon and school leadership (below) can be targeted to increase equity.

School leadership has been found by researchers to be second only to teaching in

its impact on children’s learning outcomes. The successful transformaon of low-

performing schools will require a sucient supply of school leaders with the requisite

skills, knowledge, and disposions to eect meaningful change. Research has shown that

frequent turnover of principals in underperforming schools serves to create instability

and undermine improvement eorts. For that reason, it is not enough to simply prepare

and hire talented leaders; policy soluons must be developed to ensure that eecve

principals remain in high-need schools for the long term.

Under ESSA, states have the ability to priorize school leadership through Title II monies,

including a new opon that allows them to reserve addional money for state-level school

leadership support (see box on next page). A variety of acvies that serve to improve the

principal pipeline, including the development or expansion of preparaon academies and

residencies. States can also consider using Title I School Improvement Funds to support

acvies to include school leaders.

Key Opportunies for

Enhancing Educator Policies

Equity

School Leadership

Educator Policies & ESSA

Title II At a Glance

Title II provides grants to State Educaon

Agencies and subgrants to local educaonal

agencies to:

» Increase student achievement consistent

with challenging state academic standards;

» Improve the quality and eecveness

of teachers, principals, and other school

leaders;

» Increase the number of teachers,

principals, and other school leaders

who are eecve at improving student

academic achievement in schools; and

» Provide low-income and minority students

greater access to eecve teachers,

principals, and other school leaders.

Title II, Part A Funds are distributed to states

using a formula that weights both students in

poverty and total student populaon.

» Under ESSA, the formula will transion

to weight poverty more and overall

populaon less.

» Of a State’s Allocaon:

» 95% is directed for district acvies.

» Up to 5% may be used for state

acvies.

» ESSA will allow states to set aside an

oponal 3% for statewide leadership

acvies. (92% local, 8% state)

Key to improving student outcomes is

establishing a professionalized teaching

workforce that is supported at every stage of

their career. ESSA authorizes states to use Title

II funds in ways that can create sustainable

frameworks for excellent teaching, including:

» Establishing or expanding teacher and

principal preparaon academies, including

teacher residency programs and school

leader residency programs.

» Assisng local educaon agencies in developing human capital management strategies,

including career ladders, mentor and inducon programs, and/or redesigned roles.

» Providing professional development for all teachers (previously funds could only used

for core academic subjects).

What are preparaon academies and what would one look like in my state?

Teacher preparaon academies operate with more autonomy than tradional teacher

preparaon programs and would be freed from having to sasfy certain state requirements.

Nevertheless, academies would sll be held accountable for producing candidates with

demonstrated records of improving student achievement. A signicant part of an academy’s

curriculum is hands-on clinical preparaon, also known as a “residency.” States may use

up to 2 percent of their Title II dollars to establish or enhance preparaon academies. The

Naonal Center for Teacher Residencies has created a toolkit with policy recommendaons

for states looking to bolster teacher residences through ESSA.

Recruing, Preparing, and

Retaining Excellent Teachers

How can my state priorize school leadership?

If your state has not used Title II dollars for

school leadership improvement in the past,

you are not alone—historically less than four

percent of Title II funds have been spent on

development for school leaders. Allong state

Title II dollars to culvang your principal

pipeline is a wise investment, parcularly for

regions that have had a historically hard me

nding and retaining eecve principals in

high-needs schools. New Leaders idenes

potenal paths for improving school leadership,

along with exemplars and key quesons

for policy leaders in Priorizing Leadership:

Opportunies in ESSA for Chief State

School Ocers. Looking for more? RAND, in

partnership with the Wallace Foundaon, oers

guidance on how to ulize ESSA in School

Leadership Intervenons Under the Every

Student Succeeds Act.

Educator Policies & ESSA

Looking Ahead

The eecveness and distribuon of teachers will connue to be an issue

that states and districts grapple with, parcularly for states with higher

numbers of rural and/or low-income students. Compounding this issue is the

supply of school leaders with the requisite skills, knowledge, and disposions

to eect meaningful change. As states move from ESSA plan development

into implementaon, and eventually renement, they must connue to push

for equity in access to highly eecve educators and school leaders.

As state and local-level policymakers search for ways to improve the

lowest-performing schools, they should consider strategies like those

above to ensure that eorts to redistribute eecve teachers and leaders

are sustained in such a way as to facilitate instuonal stability and lasng

improvement.

How can my state redesign incenves and structures

to keep great teachers in every classroom?

In most states and districts, systems are designed such that high-performing teachers are

incenvized to:

1) teach in high-performing schools and/or

2) leave the classroom to take administrave roles.

This is because the current step-and-lane salary schedule rewards teachers for degree

and experience but fails to compensate for a teacher taking on addional challenges and

responsibilies. States can use their Title II funds to support the development of career

ladders like Opportunity Culture and create incenves to teacher in high-needs schools.

JAMES B. HUNT, JR.

Foundation Board Chairman

Governor of NC

(

1977-1985

1993-2001

)

JAVAID E. SIDDIQI, Ph.D.

Executive Director and CEO

The Hunt Institute

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

The Hunt Institute is an affiliate of the Duke University Sanford School of Public Policy.