U.S. Secretary of Education John B. King Jr. takes questions from reporters Wednesday at USC.

U.S. Secretary of Education John B. King Jr. was joined by LA Unified Superintendent Michelle King and a number of education leaders at the USC Rossier School of Education Wednesday to announce the release of his department’s new teacher preparation regulations.

The regulations call for more detailed information to be gathered on how new teachers are performing, aim to provide better tracking of retention rates, offers more flexibility to states in how they measure the performance of preparation programs and require states to report annual ratings on their programs.

“The regulations really try to establish a better feedback between our K-12 schools and our teacher preparation programs, so that teacher preparation programs are getting good information about how their graduates are doing,” Sec. King said to a group of reporters. “What kinds of schools are they going into? Are they staying in those schools? Are they being retained in the teaching profession? What kind of impact are they having on their students that they teach?”

In his opening remarks at USC, Sec. King referred to the information gathered in the old regulations as “surface data,” and Superintendent King offered praise for the new, more detailed data the regulations call for.

“The use of data and really focusing on outcomes I really think is critical. And so whenever we can put that in place I think it helps drive the whole system forward, which is important,” Superintendent King told LA School Report when asked how the new regulations would impact her district. “And we certainly want teachers that are prepared, that are making an impact and a difference for kids. And so we can look at that and go back and have our partnerships with the different universities and say, ‘Look, this is what’s working.'”

The new regulations also:

• Will punish low-performing programs by cutting off federal TEACH grants.
• Require feedback from graduates and their employers on the effectiveness of their program.
• Give guidelines for measuring the student learning outcomes of those under novice teachers, including academic performance.

The new regulations were criticized by American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten.

“It is, quite simply, ludicrous to propose evaluating teacher preparation programs based on the performance of the students taught by a program’s graduates,” Weingarten said in a statement.

The new regulations have been in the works for at least five years and were begun under Sec. King’s predecessor, Arne Duncan, who stepped down in 2015. Earlier this month, in an open letter to college presidents and education school deans, Duncan said, “The system we have for training teachers lacks rigor, is out of step with the times, and is given to extreme grade inflation that leaves teachers unprepared and their future students at risk.”

Sec. King also participated in a roundtable discussion at Rossier, where he was joined by Under Secretary Ted Mitchell, Superintendent King, Rossier School of Education Dean Karen Symms Gallagher and a number of education leaders. Also at the table were some educators and administrators at LA Unified schools, including Norma Spencer, principal of the Alexander Science Center, and Kristen McGregor, principal of Belmont High School.

One issue that was raised several times was the problem of teacher retention and the teacher shortage plaguing the nation. According to a new study from the Learning Policy Institute, enrollment in teacher-preparation programs dropped from 691,000 in 2009 to 451,000 in 2014. And according to a recent commentary on LA School Report by Jane Mayer and Jesse Soza, approximately 11,000 LA teachers are predicted to leave the profession in the next five years.

“What I have learned is that teachers are feeling isolated and when they don’t have other teachers or a support team there, they are more likely not to stay within the profession,” Superintendent King said during the discussion.

Kearstie Hernandez, a chemistry teacher at Huntington Park High School and a 2014 Rossier graduate, listed during the roundtable discussion all the different roles she has taken on at her school, including head of the girls’ basketball program, assistant athletic director, head of the science fair and several others.

“I sleep five hours a day. I commute an hour in the morning and an hour and a half in the evening back home,” she said.

Superintendent King was impressed with the list — and concerned.

“I was listening to all that stuff. That’s a lot for a new person. I’m thinking, ‘Oh my gosh, she is going to hit the wall and burn out,'” King told LA School Report. “So we really have to be very intentional about that and put the supports around them and really hook them up with other people. Because if you don’t, three years out, they just say, ‘It’s too much.'”

During his closing remarks at the end of the panel discussion, Sec. King had praise for Superintendent King and LA Unified.

“Certainly, Michelle, I really admire the things you are doing in LA and your commitment that LAUSD has to continue to get better and close gaps and create better opportunity. And your willingness to have the hard conversations to make that happen, I appreciate,” he said.

Forever stamp honoring East Los Angeles teacher Jaime Escalante.

Garfield High School will forever remember its revered math teacher Jaime Escalante and now so will the U.S. post office.

The U.S. Postal Service on Thursday unveiled its new forever stamp honoring the late East Los Angeles math teacher.

A Bolivian immigrant, Escalante taught calculus at Garfield High from 1974 to 1991. He was recognized for building a high-level math program at the school.

He earned national attention in 1982, when a testing service accused his 14 students who passed the AP calculus exam of cheating. Escalante accused the testing service of singling out his students because they were Mexican-American immigrants from a low-income area of Los Angeles.

Twelve the 14 students took another test and all passed.

The event became the subject of the 1988 movie “Stand and Deliver,” starring Edward James Olmos as Escalante.

Olmos attended the stamp dedication ceremony that was held during the League of United Latin American Citizens’ 87th annual convention in Washington, D.C. U.S. Education Secretary John King Jr., LULAC National President Roger Rocha Jr. and Escalante’s son, Jaime Escalante II, also attended the event, according to the USPS.

The stamp depicts Escalante in his signature flat cap in front of a chalk board on which calculus symbols are visible.

Read more: Garfield High opens doors to new Jaime Escalante Auditorium and Winding path to teaching leads Garfield teacher to Yale award

In 1999, Escalante was inducted into the National Teachers Hall of Fame.

A special dedication ceremony will also be held on Saturday at Garfield High, according to USPS.

Customers can purchase the stamp online at usps.com/stamps, by calling 800-STAMP24 (800-782-6724) or at post office locations nationwide.

Legendary teacher #JaimeEscalante honored on Forever® stamp https://t.co/MCRS237oVH pic.twitter.com/INLrssMLYC

— U.S. Postal Service (@USPS) July 13, 2016

Today we celebrate the legacy of #JaimeEscalante & his unrelenting belief in the limitless potential of all students pic.twitter.com/wbxm0IXtYA

— John King (@JohnKingatED) July 13, 2016

The @USPS #JaimeEscalante stamp is unveiled! A well-deserved honor for the late, great #GarfieldHigh calc teacher! https://t.co/29hf2Blebz

— Rep. Roybal-Allard (@RepRoybalAllard) July 14, 2016

“One of the most emotional moments … since he passed,” @edwardjolmos #JaimeEscalante stamp unveiled. @NBCLatino pic.twitter.com/4tkGJ54fXu

— Suzanne Gamboa (@SuzGamboa) July 13, 2016

“Life is not about how many times you fall down. It’s about how many times you get back up.” — #JaimeEscalante https://t.co/aBnaRSQVaO

— Hispanic Caucus (@HispanicCaucus) July 13, 2016

Education Secretary John King (Photo credit: Getty Images)

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

In implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act, the nation’s new education law, the odds were high that the U.S. Department of Education would issue a regulation meant to protect the rights of poor children (for instance), that congressional Republicans would interpret as the department’s effort to chew through the short leash that restrains it under ESSA.

“Already we’re seeing disturbing evidence that the Department of Education is ignoring the law,” Sen. Lamar Alexander said at an education committee hearing last week.
The educational era of good feelings that started with ESSA’s passage may be over, shattered by a department proposal for how districts would show they are funding low-income and non-low-income schools equally — a proposal that reignited debate over whether teacher salaries should be included in those calculations.

“I’m not interested today in debating whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea…The plain fact is the law says the department on its own cannot do it,” Alexander said at the start of an animated hearing.

The department released updated language late last week that responds to some of the criticism of the rule proposal. But what’s the dispute actually about? Let’s take a deeper look at the sausage-making that goes into education policy. It turns out to be pretty important.

Here are seven things to know as a rulemaking committee considers the contentious issue again this week:

1. What is Title I?

It’s among the largest streams of federal spending on K-12 education. The program was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s poverty-fighting Great Society program.

The federal government this year sent about $15 billion to states to assist in the education of low-income children. Schools where 40 percent or more of the student body is disadvantaged can use the money for “school-wide” programs that benefit the entire student body as opposed to individual children.

2. What is “negotiated rulemaking”?

In most cases, when the education department – or other branches of the federal government – wants to write a regulation on how to implement laws passed by Congress, they’ll issue a notice of proposed rulemaking. The rule is written by the agency and published for public comment.

After a set period for comment, the department will issue a final regulation, sometimes incorporating public comment. Congress can override major agency regulations within 60 days, though doing so requires the president to sign the bill overturning the regulation. Groups or individuals that would be adversely affected by the regulation also can sue to stop implementation.

“Negotiated rulemaking” is different. An agency will issue a call for nominees from constituencies affected by the regulation to meet and hash out the specifics. If that group can reach “consensus” on a regulation, the agency will put their proposal in legal language and use that for the notice of proposed rulemaking.

There’s a catch, though. An agency representative sits on any committee discussing a proposal from that agency, and “consensus,” according to an education department notice, “generally means there is no dissent by a member of the negotiating committee.”

So, in effect, the education department has veto power over whatever the committee writes. If the committee can’t achieve consensus, the department writes its own regulations, which have to go to relevant congressional committees for their comments before going for public comment through the traditional rulemaking process.

The negotiated rulemaking committee working on ESSA has met for two sessions, each lasting two days, to work on regulations regarding a variety of issues on assessments, plus what’s known as “supplement not supplant.” They’re set to meet again April 18-19. The current committee has 24 members, some non-voting, representing state education secretaries, superintendents, tribal leaders, parents, principals, teachers, other school leaders, paraprofessionals, civil rights groups, and the business community.

3. What is supplement not supplant?

At its most basic, the supplement not supplant regulation requires states and districts receiving Title I dollars to prove that they’re using the federal money in addition to, rather than instead of, state and local dollars meant for the same purpose.

The regulation stemmed from a landmark 1969 report by the NAACP that found widespread misuse of Title I funds. Investigators with the civil rights group found that Title I money wasn’t reaching eligible kids, that it was being used to fund programs previously paid for by state and local funds, and that it was going to inappropriate projects.

Before ESSA, states proved that they were in compliance by demonstrating that what they purchased with Title I funds were things above and beyond what students would normally receive. That resulted in burdensome record-keeping requirements and, sometimes, districts making purchases that didn’t help students.

Under ESSA, the rules changed. Districts are no longer required to specify that individual costs or services are supplemental. Districts still need to supplement rather than supplant, but the law gives more flexibility to states and districts to prove they’re meeting the requirements. Congressional authors left it to the education department — through the negotiated rulemaking process — to hash out the details.

The department’s authority remains limited, however. The law says, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or permit the Secretary to prescribe the specific methodology a local educational agency uses to allocate State and local funds to each school receiving assistance.”

4. Comparability is key.

Comparability language also stemmed from the NAACP report. Comparability means that districts have to use state and local funds to provide services to Title I schools that are comparable to those offered to non-Title I schools in order to get federal funding.

“Comparable” might not mean what it appears to, though. Under the law, which didn’t change with ESSA, districts don’t have to count their teachers’ salaries measuring comparability. Because new teachers, who are paid less – and by some measures are less effective than their more senior counterparts – tend to be placed at lower-income schools, critics say that shortchanges Title I schools. That’s sometimes called the “comparability loophole.”

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, found in a study last year that more than 4.5 million students attend inequitably funded schools, which receive about $1,200 less per pupil than other schools in their districts. The education department performed a similar analysis in 2011.

Lawmakers considered – but did not include in the final bill – a provision that would require the use of actual teacher salaries in comparability calculations, in effect closing the “comparability loophole.”

Separately, a provision in the law requires districts to report, on a school-by-school basis, how federal, state, and local dollars are being spent on a per-pupil basis. Those numbers have to include actual teacher salaries, but the data are used for public information only.

5. So what’s the fight about?

Stay with us: the education department, in a proposal to the negotiated rulemaking committee, offered “supplement not supplant” language that would allow districts to choose their methodology for distributing funds so long as the per-pupil funding at Title I schools was equal to or greater than the average per-pupil funding at non-Title I schools.

The proposal would require districts to use the school-by-school per-pupil numbers used for public information — the ones that include teachers salaries — rather the numbers used for comparability, which don’t include specific salaries.

Those opposed to the department’s proposal say it’s a backdoor attempt to rewrite the comparability guidelines via the supplement-not-supplant rule. Including actual teacher salaries could potentially upend the school finance system or force the reassignment of teachers, critics say. And they argue that that the proposal flouts congressional intent for these regulations.

Education Secretary John King said at the hearing last week that the proposal adheres to ESSA provisions and drew a distinction between defining a methodology – which he said the proposal doesn’t do – and the criteria used to evaluate that methodology.

“Those are criteria by which to evaluate a methodology that would be determined by a district that would ensure that the Title I dollars are in fact supplemental,” King said.
Alexander didn’t buy it: “Dr. King, do you know how ridiculous that statement is you just made? If I read you plain English, if I say it’s A, B, C and you say it’s D, E, F, how can that be?”

In the face of criticism from members of rulemaking panel and members of Congress, department officials released new language late last week that provided rescue lines to districts that couldn’t meet the new requirement.

Districts wouldn’t be found out of compliance unless they also couldn’t meet requirements in one of the three previous years. Additionally, they would be safe if they could show that a non-Title I school had a large population of students (specifically, English language learners or students with disabilities) whose education is more expensive, throwing off the average per-pupil cost calculations. The new language also allows for weighted student-funding formulas that provide additional dollars for underserved students.

6. What do the states think?

A coalition of groups representing governors, state legislators, state school chiefs, school boards, superintendents, principals, and teachers’ unions, warned the department about overstepping in an April 4 letter.

“Regulations and accompanying guidance should clarify how supplement, not supplant is separate and distinct from maintenance of effort and comparability, and steer clear of anything that would change or modify any of those provisions beyond the statutory changes already signed into law,” the groups wrote.
Unions are afraid the regulation would require the redistribution of teachers, an idea that could conflict with tenure- and seniority-based placements.

Civil rights groups have been more supportive of stricter funding regulations, and Democrats at the hearing last week backed King.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, for example, said that she – and many others, she said, including President Obama – supported the law because it included language ensuring that federal dollars intended to improve kids’ education actually do so.

“Democrats have spent years fighting to make sure that this reauthorization is about additional dollars to make sure that they support all of our teacher and all of our kids so they get a decent education,” she said.

7. Can Congress stop the Department of Education?

In the short term, Alexander can’t do a lot besides use his bully pulpit and call King to task at hearings.

As Congress negotiates annual spending bills, the Tennessee Republican, who also sits on the Appropriations Committee, could push for language in next year’s law that would block implementation of the rule. Education riders haven’t usually been included in final spending bills in recent years; Republicans have saved their political capital for broad GOP priorities like blocking banking or environmental regulations.

Members also could pass a law to block the regulations, but that would require the approval of President Obama. Alexander also said at the hearing that he might encourage a district affected by the law to file a lawsuit.

This article was published in partnership with The74Million.org