Will We Finally Learn HQT Sanctions?
Four years and four months after No Child Left Behind became the most extensive and prescriptive education legislation in the country's history, we may finally learn this month what the sanctions are for states and districts that fail to get all their teachers "Highly Qualified." The deadline is the end of this school year.
NCLB lays out specific sanctions for schools and districts that do not meet its testing requirements. They face incrementally more severe consequences when too few students score at the proficient level on mandated tests. Not so with the highly qualified teacher rules.
The law itself has no specific sanctions related to HQT. It carries only the vague threat of the entire law that federal funds could be withheld from states or districts that fail to comply. Which federal funds is a matter of speculation, for the most part. And whether funds would be withheld from all districts or just Title I districts is also an open question.
That situation began to change just a little in October. That's when U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings issued a letter to states announcing that fi they that had made "good faith efforts" and met other criteria they needn't worry that their federal funds would be cut off this year. States coould apply for a one-year extension of the deadline.
Some rural districts and special education (and some social studies/science-?) teachers were already eligible for the extension.
Most states applied in January for the extension. It is widely expected that most, but not all states, will be granted the extra year.
The Department will play political roulette--with itself--if it withholds money because of this issue. The vagueness of the HQT requirements, the late issue of guidance, and ongoing teacher shortages in some communities and some fields will leave the Department vulnerable to a firestorm of political backlash, and maybe lawsuits, from states of all political stripes.
There are a number of interesting dilemmas in the open question of HQT sanctions. Many of those revolve around the law's fundamental faith in the market to correct problems.
But, teachers, like money it seems, tend to migrate to the wealthiest. High-wealth districts and schools with affluent students have little trouble attracting teachers. And many don't seem to mind openly recruiting teachers from less well-off neighbors.
Will the Department punish the poorest schools for their role in the teacher market? If so, to what extent will NCLB be blamed by the public and policy makers for making schools that are poor or diverse or rural harder to staff because of the law's sanctions--which include removing staff and closing the school.
Taking the market analysis further, will there be questions about who controls the means of production? School district don't have that power, especially not rural or remote districts.
What is your rural district doing to recruit, train, and retain Highly Qualified teachers? Are you on track to 100%? What is your state doing to help districts like yours meet the law? What effect are the HQT rules having on your school , your district, your classrooms, your curriculum, or your community?
Comments
I think people should be aware that the "rural flexibility" provisions only applies to a select group of rural districts and, unfortunately, does not include many rural districts.
Posted by: Lorna Jimerson | June 27, 2006 11:06 AM