Group Leader, Teacher Quality Programs

James Butler

Group Leader, Teacher Quality Programs

Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Programs

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, DC20202

Dear Mr. Butler:

We are writing to you regarding the recent USDE interpretation of the federal "highly qualified" requirements applicable to new elementary teachers in Texas.

The Texas Classroom Teachers Association represents approximately 50,000 classroom teachers and instructional personnel statewide, and a number of our members are potentially directly affected by USDE's new interpretation of the federal No Child Left Behind Act's highly qualified teacher provisions. Apparently, the interpretation centers on theprovisions in the NCLB Act, which state thatthe term ‘highly qualified,’ when used with respect to an elementary school teacher who is new to the profession, means that the teacherholds at least a bachelor’s degree; and has demonstrated, by passing a rigorous State test, subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of the basic elementary school curriculum.

Specifically, the issue appears to be whether the phrase "in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of the basic elementary school curriculum" modifies the words "subject knowledge" or "teaching skills". According to the Texas Education Agency, previously, the State’s guidance had interpreted the phrase to modify "teaching skills" such thatan elementary teacher who was new to the profession and who had passed a subject-specific certification exam and the applicablePedagogy and Professional Responsibilities (PPR) certification exam would have been considered highly qualified to teach the applicable subject area at the elementary school level. (In Texas, all teachers seeking initial certification must pass the applicable subject certification exam and the applicable Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities (PPR) certification exam which covers teaching skills in the general areas of curriculum for the grade levels covered by the certificate.)

Now, however, apparently the USDE is interpreting the phrase "in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of the basic elementary school curriculum" to modify the words "subject knowledge".

This is hugely problematic for several reasons. First, if one were to interpret the phase to modify "subject knowledge", the application of that interpretation leads to the highly illogical conclusion that the NCLB draftersintended that the highly qualified provisions for new elementary teachers apply only to elementary teachers in self-contained classes. This is hardly likely given the prevalence of departmentalized instruction in elementary grades. Departmentalized instruction allows elementary students to be instructed by a teacher with deep and specialized content knowledge of the particular subject taught. To require these teachers to also have subject knowledge in all the areas of the basic elementary school curriculum makes no sense if they are not teaching those areas of the curriculum.Thus, in order for the statutory language to make sense in applying to all elementary school structures, the only logical reading of the statute is for the phrase to modify "teaching skills."

The practical effect of concluding otherwisewould be to discourage departmentalized elementary instruction, which goes against the clear national direction of increasing academic subject knowledge earlier in the education pipeline in order to meet college readiness goals by the time of graduation from high school.

Even if departmentalized elementary instruction were continued,the potential for furtherharm would come from states ending the practice of certifying elementary teachers in specific subjects and instead, certifying them all as generalists, while still allowing them to be assigned to teach departmentalized subjects. Under this scenario, it would be nearly impossible for these teachers to have the deep content knowledge necessary in order for students to benefit from departmentalized instruction.

It seems clear that none of these outcomes would have been intended by the NCLB drafters or would be beneficial to students.

Texas moved to put into place a certification structure emphasizing deep content knowledge for instruction in elementary gradesin recognition of the need to enable students to acquire increased academic subject knowledge as early as developmentally appropriate. Thus, we have a number of teachers who hold subject-specific certification in grades 4-8. Of these teachers, those who are new to the profession and teaching in grades 4, 5, or 6 would be adversely impacted by the USDE's new interpretation: they would have to take and pass an additional certification exam in order to bring them into compliance - a certification exam that would not be relevant to their teaching situation and would do little to enhance their abilities in their subject area. That being the case, it's not hard to see that such a requirement is likely to cause deep resentmentamong these teachers, and worse, could drive them out of elementary gradesor even the profession. This holds true for another group of new elementary teachers who would be adversely impacted: those holding all-level certificates in Art, Music, Theater, and Special Education.

Even those whodecide to stay and try to meet the additional requirements would most likely attempt theEC-6 Generalist exam, a new exam for which widely available preparation courses and materials are not yet available.

The potential for serious problems resulting from this interpretation cannot be overstated.

Finally, this new interpretation so many years after the law was enacted is disruptive, to say the least. Since NCLB will be considered for reauthorization in the near future, that would be the more appropriate forum for the Department to recommend changes of this magnitude, particularly when revisions to the legislation, along with their implications, can be fully and carefully considered by Congress.

For all of these reasons, we strongly urge the Department to refrain from imposing this new interpretation of the federal "highly qualified" provisions as they relate to new elementary school teachers. If the Department declines to do so, we request that the Department at least take steps to ensure that the application of its interpretation is implemented in such a way so as to give educator preparation programs appropriate lead time to change the preparation needed to accommodate the change, so as not to change the rules of the game midstream for any existing teacher candidate, and to grandfather existing teachers who have met the rules that were in place when they were initially certified.

Thank you for your consideration of our views and recommendations.

Holly Eaton

Director of Professional Development and Advocacy