February 2, Ms. Sophia McArdle U.S. Department of Education 1990 K Street NW Room 8017 Washington, DC Re: Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0057

Transcription

1 February 2, 2015 Ms. Sophia McArdle U.S. Department of Education 1990 K Street NW Room 8017 Washington, DC Re: Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0057 On behalf of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU), we would like to thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed new regulations to address teacher preparation issues, as published in the Federal Register on December 3, APSCU is a membership association representing private sector colleges and universities in the United States. All APSCU member institutions are licensed by the state in which they are located and accredited by a national and/or regional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Almost all APSCU member institutions participate in the federal student financial aid programs. Our member institutions include large, publicly held college systems; small multi-campus institutions; and family owned single-campus schools. APSCU members offer programs ranging from short-term career-specific certificate and diploma programs to associate and bachelor s degrees, master s degree, doctoral, and professional degree programs in more than 200 fields. These institutions operate on a traditional semester basis; year-round rolling starts; clock hours; and virtually every schedule in between. Additionally, our representation includes brickand-mortar institutions, online colleges, and hybrid programs. APSCU is concerned about the impact this proposed regulation could have on institutions that offer teacher education programs, particularly those being offered via distance education. It is unclear how the evaluative process would work in our increasingly mobile world. Students may live in one state while earning their degree from an institution located in another, and obtain employment upon completion in a third state. That student, for whatever personal reason, may then move to a fourth. If a program, whether distance education or brick-and-mortar, has graduates employed in multiple states, how would the Title II evaluative process be used to determine the program s quality? What would the impact be if one state determines a program to be of low quality but another does not?

2 Ms. Sophia McArdle February 2, 2015 Page 2 We are also concerned the proposed regulations set a dangerous precedent for the awarding of federal financial aid. Linking federal financial aid (TEACH Grants) to program effectiveness based on the test scores of K-12 students alters financial aid policy in a drastic way through regulation, not legislation, which would be the proper venue for such a change. TEACH Grants support students who commit to teaching in high-need schools, the very schools likely to have lower standardized test scores, which could, ironically, cause the teacher prep program to be considered lower quality and bar future postsecondary students from accessing TEACH Grants. Additionally, this proposed regulation contradicts the legislation it is intended to support and is a dangerous overreach of federal authority into what is, by law, a matter of state oversight. Section 207(a) of the Higher Education Act states, Levels of performance [for teacher preparation programs] shall be determined solely by the State. The regulations propose to use an untested evaluation system based on outcomes measures impacted by many variables not related to the education delivered by the institution to assess the quality of the teacher prep program. This is very similar to the Department s misguided efforts on gainful employment. Deans of colleges of education across the country have argued that they cannot (i) be held responsible for how many graduates find jobs, (ii) control the local job market, or (iii) control a former student s personal decisions. These are some of the exact same arguments that have been made with respect to the gainful employment regulation. Accrediting bodies are the proper judge of institutional and programmatic quality. As such, the Department should rely on those accreditors recognized by the Secretary of Education who have the accreditation of teacher education programs within their scope to make quality determinations. Attached please find more specific comments on particular regulatory provisions. Thank you again for the opportunity to address this important matter. Please feel free to contact me at or steve.gunderson@apscu.org if you have any questions or would like further input. Sincerely, Steve Gunderson President and CEO Attachment

3 Proposed 612.2(d) Definitions of exceptional teacher preparation program, effective teacher preparation program, low-performing teacher preparation program and at-risk teacher preparation program. Comment: The lack of consistency within states and between states will render comparisons invalid, unreliable, and inherently biased in favor of providers that enjoy state sponsorship and are most likely to receive favorable treatment under a statesponsored assessment schema. Proposed 612.2(d)--A high-need school. Comment: We agree with the AACTE that this proposed regulation has the potential to be discriminatory for programs that feed schools and programs that are classified as high-need. Programs preparing candidates to teach in high-need schools or high-need fields such as special education and English as a Second Language would, like all other programs, be assessed in large part on the results of K-12 student standardized tests. These test scores are routinely lower for these groups of students than for others, for many reasons that are not related to teacher preparation. Given that the student learning outcomes are weighted more heavily than any other indicator required to determine a preparation program s rating in these proposed regulations (NPRM, p ), programs could seek to place their graduates in less challenging environments where test scores are higher. The result of this proposal would likely be a less diverse workforce and exacerbated shortages for high-need fields. Proposed 612.2(d)--A recent graduate. Comment: Without making more specific the definition of recent graduate to include only those who graduated from an eligible program within a specific time period, were subsequently credentialed, and are presently teaching, the Department has disregarded the fact that graduates of many teacher preparation programs go into different fields, stop out to begin a family, or go on to graduate school. Programs must not be penalized for instances where program graduates have taken other paths besides classroom teaching. We suggest the Department redefine this field to limit it to those graduates of teacher preparation programs that are currently credentialed and practicing teachers. Proposed Comment: The lack of consistency at the state level in terms of assessment will make this proposed regulation almost impossible to operationalize. Until there is a common state assessment, the evaluation of student progress and growth as it relates to teachers will be variable at best. As currently written, the evaluation of teacher evaluation programs based on this data would be unreliable and lack validity. Proposed 612.2(d)-- Student learning outcomes. Comment: We agree with the concerns expressed by the AACTE regarding this proposed regulation. With a rating system, performance levels, and high-stakes consequences mirroring Department policy for K-12 education, these proposed regulations would extend the test and punish accountability model into higher education (NPRM, p ). In particular, student testing features in the first indicator discussed by the Department in the regulations. Even more troubling than the continued push on testing is the embedded use of value-added modeling (VAM) found in the determination of student growth and in teacher evaluations where student growth is among the measures used, as evidenced in the NPRM language from the Department. The Department discusses VAM in the NPRM on page The research on the use of VAM-type models to evaluate teachers is mixed at best, and the states are currently working to address challenges involved with VAM and high-stakes testing. Many states are pausing processes currently in place to re-evaluate Page 1

4 their use of K-12 standardized test scores. Building a teacher preparation accountability system on the structure of a crumbling K-12 accountability metric would perpetuate the problems, rather than informing a new system with lessons learned. As an alternative, we suggest piloting the proposed measure followed by the development of a valid instrument before national implementation. Needed sample size should be based on a clear understanding of the unit of analysis. Proposed 612.2(d)--"Teacher evaluation measure." Comments: 1. This proposed rule in itself is invalid and unreliable. Until there is a common teacher evaluation tool which all teachers are evaluated against, the validity of any evaluation of a teacher preparation program would be highly questionable. 2. We agree with the concerns expressed by the AACTE about this regulation. The development of a federally backed evaluation tool constitutes overreach on the government s part. a. This proposal represents a significant expansion of federal authority into what is currently state-level and institution-level decision making. This would be a dramatic move, made without deep consultation with the many stakeholders affected. By mandating that states use a federally dictated rating system and the indicators by which teacher preparation programs must be rated, the proposed regulations would insert the federal government into jurisdiction now held by states and institutions of higher education. As we have previously noted, Section 207(a) of the Higher Education Act states, Levels of performance [for teacher preparation programs] shall be determined solely by the State, not subject to a prescribed measurement agenda by the Department. b. Furthermore, we agree with the AACTE analysis of the NPRM, in that the proposed regulations would extend the federal requirements of the Department of Education s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) waivers to states that do not have federal waivers. Should these proposed regulations be implemented, all non-esea waiver states would be required to assess all students in non-tested grades and subjects (NPRM, pp ). Currently, such extensive testing is required only in states with ESEA waivers granted by the Department or in states that have chosen to participate in the Race to the Top program. This use of higher education policy to further expand K-12 policy sets a dangerous precedent (AACTE, 2015). Proposed 612.2(d)-- Teacher placement rate. Comment: The proposed regulation does not address the ambiguity remaining when defining what students would count in initial placement rates. For example, would students who are already employed at enrollment be counted in employment or placement rate calculations post-graduation? If students who are already working when enrolled are excluded from the placement rate calculations, a substantial number of students served by colleges and universities with programs tailored for working adults may be unduly penalized. Page 2

5 Proposed 612.2(d)-- Teacher retention rate. Comments: 1. Teacher retention rate is defined as any of the three rates described as determined by the state (p 71834). This creates the potential for incorrect calculations and/or confusion for consumers when teachers have initial certification in multiple states. 2. The proposed legislation allows for new teachers who are not retained due to market conditions or circumstances particular to the LEA and beyond the control of teachers or schools to be excluded, allowing each school to determine the criteria for those conditions, which are subject to interpretation. 3. There are no stipulations for those students who choose to leave the teaching field, or those who depart for medical or personal reasons. 4. The proposed legislation introduces an equivalent measure of retention to that of tenure, but does not describe what acceptable methods are. This could introduce ambiguity in the reporting calculations, as each state or district could hypothetically identify a retention measure that would need to be tracked and reported on by the educational institution, creating excessive reporting burden. 5. The proposed regulation does not take into account differences in socioeconomic status of school districts in that low SES districts are challenged to retain teachers when positions in high SES districts become available. Proposed Restates general statutory requirement for annual reporting. Comments: We agree with the American Council on Education that, The regulations would require that each teacher preparation program either have specialized accreditation or meet certain pedagogical, entry and exit standards. ED estimates it will take the states two hours per program to assure the requirement is met. However, there are over 11,000 existing programs that do not have specialized accreditation and, as a result, would require specialized evaluation either by the state or an accrediting agency. To assume states would be able to perform this function for thousands of programs at no more than two hours per program is unreasonably optimistic. Similarly, there is no associated cost burden for institutions which would be required to have any program not previously accredited undergo the accreditation process, or comply with (as yet undefined) state standards. Such a process would necessarily add substantial cost to an institution Teach Grant Program. Comments: 1. The proposed regulations introduce significant additional burden in the financial aid packaging process. University financial aid offices would have more to review and determine eligibility for each student, each program and each state: a. where each student lives (what exact address to use, what if a student resides near a border and one state report card is more favorable than another); b. what program (campus or online) and which programs are eligible in what states; and c. communication with student when the student begins, if there are any eligibility changes to the program, etc. Page 3

6 2. With states all having their own scorecards and tremendous uncertainty around whether or not all state report cards will be issued at the same time each year, the proposed regulations would greatly increase the need for ensuring that financial aid offices in institutions have the most updated program eligibility information to reduce incorrect packaging risk, thus adding a significant institutional burden as well as introducing the risk of incorrect packaging to university students residing in differing geographical areas and states. Page 4