Category Archives: Federal Education Policy

New State Policies Enable Teacher Residences: A Q&A with Tamara Azar of the National Center for Teacher Residencies

As my colleagues and I have shown over and over again, teacher residencies, which closely tie teacher preparation coursework with a year-long (frequently longer) classroom experience, are a promising way to prepare a strong and diverse cohort of new teachers. And recent progress in state and federal policy — including additional flexibility from ESSA on how states use Title I, II, and III and IDEA money for teacher professional development — is making it easier for states to implement the teacher residency model.

The National Center for Teacher Residencies (NCTR)*, an organization that provides strategic guidance to its national network of teacher residency programs, is at the center of advocacy for high-performing residency programs. Their programs have a strong track record of working in partnership with high-need schools and districts: 97% of graduates from NCTR network programs teach in Title I schools, which primarily serve kids from low-income backgrounds and kids of color.

I spoke with Tamara Azar, NCTR’s Chief External Relations Officer, about the progress of state policies and the future of teacher residency programs.

This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

What state policy approaches enable teacher residency programs to proliferate?

We’ve seen at least four different approaches. The first uses policy as the initial driver. I would put Louisiana, West Virginia, and South Dakota in this group. Louisiana launched the Believe and Prepare pilot with a small amount of funding and focused on changing policy first. West Virginia has written policy requiring teacher preparation programs to offer a teacher residency pathway, and given institutions of higher education (IHEs) the flexibility to identify what works within their systems to accomplish this goal. Continue reading

Media: “A summit of states turned around US education 30 years ago — it’s time for another” in The Hill

Thirty years ago today, former president George H.W. Bush convened the nation’s governors in Charlottesville, VA for the nation’s first, and to date only, education summit. At this summit, the governors agreed to six national education goals. These goals have been the foundation for state and national education reform efforts over the last three decades.

I have a piece in The Hill today that argues it’s time for a second summit:

America’s education outcomes are largely stagnant. Gaps across subgroups remain a challenge. International test scores put American students behind their peers in other developed nations like Australia and the UK. Given this, it’s time for the nation’s governors to reconvene and create a new set of national education goals that reflect what we’ve learned and define where we want to go.

Read the full piece here. You can also learn more about the origins of this summit — and how states have worked to improve their education systems — in our resource on the American South here.

Three Lessons From Our New Briefs on School Transportation and Safety, Choice, and the Environment

Safe, reliable, and equitable school transportation is essential for a strong education system. But too often transportation is sidelined in education policy discussions.

yellow sign reading "SCHOOL BUS STOP AHEAD"

This is a major oversight. Here’s why:

  1. Strong school transportation systems are absolutely essential for equitable access to schools. The average distance between students and schools has grown since the days of walking uphill both ways to school, and we know that low-income families are less likely to have access to a car or the scheduling flexibility to accompany students to and from school every day. Without safe, reliable school transportation solutions — whether that’s the bus, walking, biking, public transit, or something else — low-income students are more likely to be absent or late from school, spend more time on school commutes, or be put in unsafe situations.
  2. Building strong school transportation systems will require new kinds of collaboration that go outside of schools’ typical partners. For example, the success of electric school bus pilots so far has depended on extensive collaboration among willing schools and districts, bus vendors, transportation operators, and public utilities. And for safe walking and biking routes to school to thrive, infrastructure investments from local leaders and public works agencies are essential. Forging these new partnerships will extend school transportation opportunities, but might also add more to schools’ plates.
  3. New technologies and methods, like alternatively fueled buses and data-driven methods for mapping school commutes, show a great deal of potential. However, some of the most effective solutions are also costly, and the resources available for school transportation in many states and communities are simply insufficient to bring promising innovations to scale without compromising on educational essentials. Ultimately, substantial, focused investment will be necessary to bring about real innovations in the world of school transportation.

This week, Bellwether releases three new policy briefs to make sure school transportation gets the attention it deserves in wider education policy conversations: Continue reading

Seriously, Stop Asking If Head Start “Works”

Last month, yet another study came out examining the effects of Head Start on children’s long-term outcomes. The findings were lackluster: Depending on the cohort of children and outcomes you’re looking at, the effect of Head Start was either negative or non-existent. 

This study is noteworthy for a few reasons. It uses the same analytical approach as a high-profile 2009 study on Head Start, conducted by Harvard economist David Deming, which found Head Start had unquestionably positive results. And in a twist I’m definitely reading too much into, a former Deming student is one of the lead co-authors on this new study. People are also paying attention to this study because the findings go against a truly massive body of evidence on Head Start, which largely shows that Head Start has positive effects on children and families. 

But what snagged my attention is the fact that the research question at the heart of this study is irritatingly useless. It asks, essentially, “Does Head Start work?” That’s a question we answered a long time ago. And the answer is: It depends.

Again, the existing research on Head Start overall is positive. But we also know that there is wide variation in quality between individual Head Start providers. It’s a valuable federal program that can get better.  Continue reading

A Poor People’s Campaign for Education Reform? What We Can Learn from LBJ and MLK

On April 11, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson sat in front of a one-room schoolhouse in Stonewall, Texas — the rural setting where he received his formative education — and signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). By his side was his former teacher, an elderly white woman bedecked in pearls and cat-eye glasses, and a group of Mexican-American former students he had taught in the Texas border town of Cotulla. This framing was no accident: the undercurrents of Civil Rights policy were in the air as Johnson had signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the previous summer. And to further spotlight race equity in the ESEA, the date was selected to fall nearly 100 years to the day that the Civil War concluded.

President Lyndon Johnson signing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act on April 11, 1965. Photo by Frank Wolfe / LBJ Library

Johnson was staunch about his commitment to education. In a March 1965 conversation with newly inaugurated Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Johnson said: “Don’t ever argue with me. I’ll go a hundred million or a billion on health or education….Education and health. I’ll spend the goddamned money.” With ESEA’s role in providing significantly expanded resources (like library books, special education centers, and college scholarships) to vulnerable students, Johnson served as a human bridge between underserved populations: rural students, minorities, and immigrants. Looking at Johnson’s cleverly staged ESEA photo makes me think there are again opportunities for underserved student interests to unite in their demand for access to educational and economic equality. Identifying the intersection of class interests — as LBJ did — might have powerful political ramifications for the U.S. school system. 

A few years after the signing of the ESEA, Martin Luther King, Jr. carried the racial and economic unity torch forward. In 1968 he initiated the Poor People’s Campaign, which sought economic justice for the American poor. The first march of the Campaign included an interracial group of protestors — and would be King’s last. At his famous speech directed at striking Memphis sanitation workers, he urged:

We’ve got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves.

But what if the photo opp Johnson arranged in Stonewall or the Poor People’s movement King envisioned stepped off the pages of history? What would a united populist movement for education and economic equality look like? How would it affect the classrooms our children fill each morning and the neighborhoods they return to each afternoon? As schools begin de facto resegregating, how might a united front across all underrepresented classes and underfunded schools provide a more equal education for all? Continue reading