NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR TEACHER

PREPARATION INSTITUTIONS


House Bills 5598 (H-1) and 5599 (H-2)

as reported from committee

Sponsor:  Rep. Daniela Garcia

House Bill 5600 (H-3) as reported from committee

Sponsor:  Rep. Julie Alexander

House Bill 5601 (H-2) as reported from committee

Sponsor:  Rep. Kathy Crawford

House Bills 5602 (H-2) and 5603 (H-2) as reported from committee

Sponsor:  Rep. Tim Kelly

House Bill 5604 (H-3) as reported from committee

Sponsor:  Rep. Pamela Hornberger

House Bill 5605 (H-1) as reported from committee

Sponsor:  Rep. Jim Lilly


Committee:  Education Reform

Complete to 5-8-18

BRIEF SUMMARY:  Taken together, the bill package would add six sections related to teacher preparation to the Revised School Code. The package would also amend two sections, adding an appointed paid corps of innovative educators and increasing the number of credits required of elementary-level teachers in the teaching of reading from 6 to 12 credits focused on early elementary and 9 on later elementary.

HBs 5598 to 5601 and 5604 and 5605 would provide that, if an approved teacher preparation institution did not meet the new requirements, beginning July 1, 2019 the superintendent of public instruction (SPI) would have to revoke that approval. The institution could then reapply for approval.

HBs 5598 to 5602, 5604, and 5605 would each take effect 90 days after enactment. HB 5603 would take effect July 1, 2018.

FISCAL IMPACT:  The bills would increase costs for the state and local units of government. A full breakdown of the cost to the state, K-12 education, and higher education can be found below in Fiscal Information.  

THE APPARENT PROBLEM:

One of the bill sponsors testified that the bill package is the culmination of three years of work by members and staff of the House and Senate, the Department of Education, and the governor’s office. In an effort to ensure that new teachers feel that they have been adequately prepared and to keep administrators from feeling that they need to retrain new teachers, the eight-bill package endeavors to ensure consistency in training and implement new programs to foster the best teacher training possible.

THE CONTENT OF THE BILLS:

House Bill 5598: 30 hours of continuing education per year

The bill would prohibit the SPI from approving a teacher preparation institution unless it requires all full-time faculty members teaching in a teacher preparation program to complete at least 30 hours of continuing education per school year. The continuing education must be specific to the subject area or areas in which the faculty member teaches and meet the requirement for approved professional development activities for teachers in grades K-12, as determined by the Michigan Department of Education (MDE). Additionally, it must include at least all of the following:

·         Observation of academic instruction in a school operated by a school district, intermediate school district (ISD), public school academy (PSA, or charter school), or nonpublic school that operates any of grades K-12.

·         A requirement that faculty members participate in teaching experiences in both urban and rural settings during their first two years of continuing education.

·         Experiences with social and emotional learning practices.

·         Teaching experiences with students who are English language learners.

·         Teaching experiences in a school operated by a district, ISD, PSA, or nonpublic school with a high population of students living in poverty.

·         Teaching experiences with students with a disability.

·         Experiences with the teacher evaluation tools used by school districts, ISDs, and PSAs.

·         The use of data and statistics to inform instruction and to aggregate local and state assessment data.

·         Experiences with the development of classroom management skills.

Under the bill, these faculty members must demonstrate completion of these requirements to the satisfaction of MDE and submit to a criminal background check, with the results provided to MDE.

Proposed MCL 380.1538f

House Bill 5599: Cost-free warranty program for graduates lacking teaching skills

The bill would require teacher preparation programs to offer warranty education programs in order to receive approval from the SPI. The program would be offered to an individual:

·         Who completed a teacher preparation program at a Michigan teacher preparation institution;

·         Who is employed to teach grades K-12 in a school operated by a school district, ISD, PSA, or nonpublic school; and

·         Whose skills to teach students effectively were found to be lacking by the district’s, ISD’s, PSA’s, or nonpublic school’s governing body within two years after receiving a teaching certificate issued by the SPI, based on at least both of the following:

o   A local evaluation tool.

o   An individual development plan that identifies specific areas of instructional development that are most effectively addressed by further teacher preparation instruction, as determined by the governing body of the district, ISD, PSA, or nonpublic school.

           

Under the bill, MDE would seek input from teacher preparation institutions in the state and develop and administer the warranty education program for teachers who met the requirements above.

A teacher who met those requirements could enroll in a warranty education program at any approved teacher preparation program, with the teacher’s initial teacher preparation program bearing the cost of the program. (A teacher who did not meet the requirements would be ineligible for the program.) Credits from the warranty program could not be used toward the completion of a master’s degree; however, hours completed could be counted toward the teacher’s professional development requirement under Section 1527 of the Code.

The bill states that the intent of the legislature is that the program could not increase tuition or fees to offset the cost of offering the program.

The bill would require MDE to promulgate rules to implement these requirements.

            Proposed MCL 380.1538c

House Bill 5600: Stipend for supervisory teachers

The bill would require teacher preparation institutions to provide a $1,000 stipend to teachers who supervise new teachers at the end of the student teacher’s supervised directed teaching required under R 390.1123 of the Teacher Certification Code,[1] in order for the SPI to approve the institution. The bill states that the legislature does not intend that teacher preparation institutions raise tuition or fees to offset any costs associated with offering the stipend.

Proposed MCL 380.1538h

House Bill 5601: 400 hours of classroom experience or practicum experience

Under the bill, the SPI could not approve a teacher preparation institution unless the institution required at least 400 hours of cumulative K-12 classroom experience or practicum experience, or both, of students in its program, in addition to any student teaching requirements. The institution must count a student’s clinical and substitute teaching experience toward this 400-hour requirement.

            Proposed MCL 380.1538g

House Bill 5602: Innovative educator corps program

The bill would require MDE to develop and implement an innovative educator corps program that does all of the following:

·         Allows an innovative educator to provide professional development to other educators.

·         Requires MDE to collaborate with innovative educators regarding new pilot programs.

·         Creates an innovative educator roundtable to discuss education issues that includes innovative educators, policy makers, legislators, and business leaders.

·         Provides business cards or other identification, identifying the innovative educator as a member of an elite corps of educators in Michigan.

·         Provides innovative educators a yearly stipend of between $5,000 and $10,000.

·         Examines the use of innovative educators to support low-performing schools, including schools subject to a partnership agreement.

MDE would conduct an annual process for selecting innovative educators for the corps, in which the governing bodies of districts and PSAs could nominate one teacher for every 2,000 students and refer that nominee to their respective ISD. These nominees would have to meet specific requirements, including a rating of “effective,” demonstration of efficacy, and successful implementation of an innovative instructional model.

The ISD would then nominate one teacher for every 5,000 public school students enrolled in the ISD. (An ISD with fewer than 10,000 students would nominate two teachers.) The nominations would have to be based on a series of factors, including positive impact on the community and other teachers. The ISD could also nominate a teacher or teachers employed by the ISD.

Then, MDE—in consultation with a workgroup including the governor or his or her nominee, current innovative educators, and other interested parties—would review the nominations and select up to 100 teachers for an initial appointment of three years. (The teachers could be reappointed if renominated.) Appointments would be based on factors such as the level of student achievement and diversity of geography, grade level, and subject area.

MDE would ensure, as practicable, that at least one teacher with experience and success in each of the following would be selected for the innovative educator corps:

·         Competency-based education.

·         Project-based learning.

·         Balanced calendar systems.

·         Turnaround of low-performing schools.

Additionally, to the extent practicable, MDE would ensure that each student teacher be assigned to work with a member of the innovative educators corps.

Finally, MDE would promulgate rules to allow professional development provided under an innovative educator to count toward the innovative educator’s professional development requirement, establish a timeline for the implementation of the program, and establish a process to grant money directly to innovative educators.

            MCL 380.1526 and proposed MCL 380.1526d

House Bill 5603: Additional reading instruction for elementary-level teachers

The bill would amend the reading coursework requirements for teacher certification. Currently, elementary-level teacher candidates must complete 6 credit hours in the teaching of reading.[2] The bill would provide that the SPI could only grant a provisional teaching certificate to an individual who has earned at least 12 early elementary credits and at least 9 later elementary credits in the teaching of reading, including instruction on specified topics. The bill would retain the 3-credit requirement for the secondary-level certificate, but would require that course of study to be completed within the first 5 years of the individual’s employment in classroom teaching if it was not completed as part of his or her teacher preparation program. (Currently, the 3-credit course of study must be completed in the individual’s first 6 years of classroom teaching employment.)

Additionally, the bill would require that the elementary certification examination approved by the SPI include an assessment of pedagogical skills, including an assessment of the applicant’s ability to effectively deliver instruction. It would also require that the reading subject area examination (already included in the SPI-approved examination) assess whether the applicant has sufficient knowledge of the topics covered in the proposed credits of reading instruction under the bill.

MCL 380.1531

House Bill 5604: Student teaching requirements and partnership agreements

Under the bill, the SPI could not approve a teacher preparation institution unless it fulfilled both of the following requirements:

·         The teacher preparation program must offer a student teaching program that includes at least all of the following:

o   Student teaching experiences or clinical experiences, or both, in a rural setting.

o   Student teaching experiences or clinical experiences, or both, in an urban setting.

o   Student teaching experiences or clinical experiences, or both, that include instruction on social, emotional, and restorative learning practices.

o   Student teaching experiences or clinical experiences, or both, with students who are English language learners.

o   Student teaching experiences or clinical experiences, or both, in schools with a high population of students living in poverty.

o   Student teaching experiences or clinical experiences, or both, with students with a disability.

o   A prohibition on a student teacher’s engaging in student teaching in the school he or she attended. (This prohibition may be waived by the institution if it would impose an unreasonable burden on the student teacher, as determined by MDE.)

o   An introduction to the evaluation tool used by the student teacher’s school district, ISD, or PSA.

o   The use of data and statistics to inform instruction and to aggregate local and state assessment data.

o   Development of classroom management skills.

·         The teacher preparation program must enter into a partnership agreement with each district, ISD, or PSA in which the institution places student teachers. The agreement must include the following:

o   Methods of communication between the institution and the district, ISD, or PSA.

o   Expectations for student teachers, cooperating teachers, districts, ISDs, PSAs, and student teaching supervisors at the institutions, including standards for site visits and feedback.

The bill states that the legislature does not intend that teacher preparation institutions charge a student teacher a tuition rate that exceeds the applicable undergraduate tuition rate.

Proposed MCL 380.1538d

House Bill 5605: Coursework for teacher preparation program

 

The bill would provide that the SPI could not approve a teacher preparation institution unless its teacher preparation program embedded at least all of the following in coursework:

·         The use of data and statistics to inform instruction and to aggregate local and state assessment data.

·         Development of classroom management skills.

·         Teaching students from rural and urban areas; English language learners; students with a disability; and students from a high poverty area.

·         Instruction on social and emotional learning practices.

Proposed MCL 380.1538e

FISCAL INFORMATION:

The bills would increase costs for the state and local units of government.

State Costs

The bills could increase MDE administrative costs related to the following: revising the approval process for teacher preparation institutions; creating a new process for institutions that have had their approval revoked to reapply; developing, administering, and promulgating rules for a warranty education program; and reviewing whether a prohibition of a student teacher doing their student teaching at a school they attended imposes an unreasonable burden on the student teacher, whereby MDE could lift the prohibition.

House Bill 5602 would create an indeterminate cost for MDE to develop and implement an innovative educator corps program. MDE would have to select up to 100 teachers for the program, which would include a stipend ranging from $5,000 to $10,000 for each teacher selected. The maximum total cost would be $1.0 million, but could be lower depending on the number of teachers selected and stipends awarded. The Governor has proposed funding for this proposal as part of his “Marshall Plan for Talent.”

K-12 Education

House Bill 5602 could create an indeterminate administrative cost for local school districts, PSAs, and ISDs to select and nominate teachers to be innovative educators.

Higher Education

The bills would lead to an indeterminate increase in costs for colleges and universities that want to participate in the teacher certification process.

The bills could increase costs for teacher preparation institutions to comply with new program approval requirements, including curriculum changes, negotiating new partnership agreements with participating local school districts, ISDs, and/or PSAs, and additional training for faculty members, as well as a new reapplication process for those that have their status revoked.

House Bill 5599 would place an indeterminate increased cost on the public universities involved for the proposed warranty education program. The costs would vary based on the number of students that needed to take additional courses and the institutions from which they originally graduated.

House Bill 5600 would require that teacher preparation institutions pay a teacher who supervises a student teacher $1,000 per student teacher practicum. Based on the most recent statewide data from the Higher Education Institutional Data Inventory (HEIDI) for FY 2016-17, 1,870 bachelor’s degrees were awarded in education from public colleges and universities. Assuming that all students with an education degree were involved in a student teaching practicum once, this would have led to $1.9 million in costs for the 15 public institutions collectively. This cost may be higher for institutions that require students to participate in two or more practicums.

ARGUMENTS:

For:

Proponents argued that the bill package presents a much-needed push to improve and standardize teacher preparation in the state. Often, they argue, teachers are sent into the classroom without feeling that they have been adequately prepared to do their jobs. Likewise, administrators spoke about the need to retrain new teachers in certain skills such as classroom management.

Supporters argued that the cost-free warranty program in HB 5599 is necessary to hold teacher preparation institutions accountable for ensuring that their graduates are prepared to teach. After all, proponents argue, the program is only triggered when a teacher’s skills to teach students effectively are found to be lacking in the first two years of teaching. If an institution has trained its graduates adequately, it would bear no additional cost or burden. Rather, the program would ensure that new teachers are not blamed and driven from the profession due to a lack of support and initial training; they would be able to attend a warranty program developed by MDE and paid for by their former institution in order to gain the skills they should have achieved when first attending their institution.

Response:

Teacher preparation institutions testified that they consistently prepare quality teachers. According to MDE and the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI), only 0.3% of Michigan teachers were found to be ineffective in the 2016-2017 school year,[3] while only 1.7% were found to be minimally effective. The remaining 97.8% were found to be highly effective (38.7%) or effective (59.1%). Such small numbers of ineffective teachers may indicate a lack of aptitude for or dedication to teaching on the part of the teachers, rather than a systemic failure of the teacher preparation system, the institutions argued. Additionally, Education Preparation Institution scores,[4] issued annually by MDE, already grade teacher preparation institutions on a variety of factors, including the effectiveness of their graduates as measured by their employers during their first three years of teaching. Institutions may lose the ability to certify teachers if they fall below an acceptable threshold and fail to show improvement in three years.  

For:

Supporters contend that the Innovative Educator Corps program proposed in HB 5602 would reward high-quality teachers and ensure that they are able to provide professional development to other teachers as well as low-performing schools. The FY 2018-2019 education omnibus budget proposes $4.8 million in funding for this program.[5] Proponents argue that this funding of stipends of $5,000 to $10,000 for master teachers would enable Michigan’s best teachers to participate in the program, and all other teachers across the state to benefit from exposure to those teachers.

Against:

Some argued that the bills impose additional burdens on teacher preparation institutions without allowing them the latitude to accommodate those changes. For instance, HB 5600 requires those institutions to pay supervising teachers $1,000, but states that the institutions are not expected to raise tuition to account for that cost. It is not realistic to believe that a state-mandated increased cost would not result in increased tuition, say those institutions.

Moreover, opponents argue that these measures—purportedly intended to improve teacher preparation—are being advanced at the same time that the legislature has expanded alternative certification routes (whereby non-certificated individuals may teach an ever-increasing number of subjects). They wonder: how can the legislature demand more burdensome requirements of certificated teachers and teacher preparation institutions while at the same time lowering standards for others to teach without certification? Moreover, how does increasing requirements for some and decreasing them for others draw the best and brightest to the profession, when blame for poor performance is laid equally at the feet of all instructors?

Opponents also expressed concern that several bills would take effect 90 days after enactment. The requirements instituted under the bills could add semesters or even years of coursework for college juniors and seniors partway through their teacher preparation programs. Some wonder: is it fair to expect students who have done everything MDE and their institution required to overhaul their course schedule and take on initial college debt for unanticipated courses so late in their college career? Additionally, they ask if that is really the best way to attract and retain the best teachers.

Others argue that the H-2 substitute for HB 5601, which raises the number of required pre-clinical hours from the initially proposed 90 to 400, would make it very difficult for individuals changing careers and returning to college to earn a teaching certificate.

POSITIONS:

A representative of Great Lakes Education Project testified in support of the bill package. (3-1-18)

A representative of Ottawa Area Intermediate School District testified in support of the bill package. (3-8-18)

Representatives of Grand Haven Area Public Schools testified in support of House Bill 5603. (3-8-18)

A representative of Wayne State University testified in support of House Bills 5601, 5602, and 5605. (3-8-18)  WSU also supports HB 5604. (5-1-18)

A representative of Oakland University testified in support of House Bills 5601 and 5603. (3-8-18)

A representative of Western Michigan University testified in support of House Bills 5601 and 5603. (3-8-18)

A representative of Grand Valley State University testified in support of House Bills 5601 and 5603. (3-8-18)

The following organizations indicated support for the bill package:

·         Michigan Association of Public School Academies (3-1-18)

·         Talent 2025 (3-1-18)

·         Detroit Regional Chamber (3-1-18)

·         Grand Rapids Chamber (3-1-18)

·         Education Trust Midwest (3-1-18)

·         Middle Cities Education Association (3-8-18)

The University of Michigan-Dearborn supports House Bills 5602, 5603, 5604, and 5605. (5-3-18)

Business Leaders for Michigan indicated support for House Bill 5601, 5602, 5603, and 5605. (3-22-18)

Michigan Education Association indicated support for House Bill 5602. (3-22-18)

           

Saginaw Valley State University is neutral on House Bills 5602, 5603, 5604, and 5605.

(5-1-18)

A representative of Wayne State University testified in opposition to House Bills 5598, 5599, 5600, and 5603. (3-8-18) 

A representative of Oakland University testified in opposition to House Bills 5598, 5599, 5600, 5602, 5604, and 5605. (3-8-18)

A representative of Western Michigan University testified in opposition to House Bills 5598, 5599, 5600, 5602, 5604, and 5605. (3-8-18)

A representative of Grand Valley State University testified in opposition to House Bills 5598, 5599, 5600, 5602, 5604, and 5605. (3-8-18)

The following institutions indicated opposition to the bill package:

·         Michigan Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (4-30-18)

·         Hope College (4-30-18)

·         Deans and Representatives of Teacher Education Programs (5-1-18)

·         Siena Heights University (3-22-18)

·         Baker College (3-22-18)

·         Albion College (3-22-18)

·         Michigan Independent Educator Prep Institutions (3-22-18)

·         Andrews University (3-22-18)

·         Alma College (3-22-18)

Saginaw Valley State University opposes House Bills 5598, 5599, and 5600. (5-1-18)

The University of Michigan opposes House Bills 5599 and 5600. (5-1-18)

                                                                                        Legislative Analyst:   Jenny McInerney

                                                                                               Fiscal Analysts:   Bethany Wicksall

                                                                                                                           Samuel Christensen

                                                                                                                           Perry Zielak

This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.



[1] https://dmbinternet.state.mi.us/DMB/ORRDocs/AdminCode/1643_2016-035ED_AdminCode.pdf

[2] https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Reading_Course_Requirements_526655_7.pdf

[3] Of 94,011 teachers, 342 found to be ineffective in 2016-2017 school year; 1,651 found to be minimally effective.  https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles2/StaffingInformation/NewEducatorEffectiveness/EducatorEffectiveness.aspx

[4] 2016 EPI scores of Michigan teacher preparation institutions.  https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/2016_EPI_Overall_Score_536193_7.PDF

[5] House Fiscal Agency summary of HB 5579 (H-1) as passed by the House.  https://www.house.mi.gov/hfa/PDF/Summaries/18h5579h1_Education_Omnibus_Summary_House_Passed.pdf