The Educator Preparation Reform Act
S. 3582 Sponsored by Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) and
H.R. 6447 Sponsored by Representative Mike Honda (D-CA)
Frequently Asked Questions
November 2012
Question: What is "The Educator Preparation Reform Act”?
Answer: The Educator Preparation Reform Act (EPRA) is a bill in the U.S. Congress that reauthorizes Title II
of the Higher Education Act (HEA), a reauthorization that is overdue. Specifically, the bill reauthorizes the
Teacher Quality Partnership grants in Title II of HEA and expands them to allow for principal residencies in
addition to teacher residencies. EPRA also revamps the reporting by teacher preparation programs. The bill also
amends the TEACH grants in Title IV of HEA to strengthen and reform the student financial aid program.
Finally, the bill uses a set-aside under Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to
coordinate teacher quality initiatives with educator preparation programs to provide resources for states to
develop teacher performance assessments, provide technical assistance to low-performing programs, and
develop a system for assessing the quality and effectiveness of professional development.
AACTE has worked closely with Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), Senate sponsor of EPRA (S. 3582), and Rep. Mike
Honda (D-CA), House sponsor of EPRA (H.R. 6447), to develop the Act. Rep. Honda and Senator Reed
introduced the bill on September 20, 2012.
Question: Why does AACTE support the Educator Preparation Reform Act?
Answer: Key provisions of EPRA reflect many of the priorities outlined in AACTE's policy recommendations
for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and Title II of the Higher
Education Act (HEA). The bill will strengthen PK-12 partnerships with higher education and rationalize
accountability and data collection for educator preparation programs.
EPRA’s vision for the federal role in strengthening and holding accountable educator preparation is markedly
different from proposals put forward by others in the education policy sphere. For example, the recent U.S.
Department of Education regulatory proposal during negotiated rule making envisioned a nationwide rating
system of preparation programs that would rely on graduates’ value-added data as the primary factor in
determining quality. Under this scheme, a program’s rating would also determine student eligibility for federal
financial aid in the form of TEACH grants. Another proposal, the “GREAT Act,” introduced last year by
Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) and included in the Senate HELP committee’s recommendation for ESEA,
would allow the creation of principal and teacher preparation academies that are not based at institutions of
higher education and that would have virtually no requirements for how preparation would be provided. These
academies would award certificates that the law would deem to be equivalent to a master’s degree, even though
the academies would not be obligated to meet the same standards as higher education providers.
EPRA represents a fair, coherent, and sustainable approach to education preparation reform that is widely
embraced by the higher education and PK-12 community.
Question: What changes does the bill make to the current Title II HEA reporting requirements for institutions?
Answer: The bill maintains many of the current reporting requirements, shifts some institutional reporting
requirements to the state, and deletes some reporting requirements that are not producing meaningful data.
Additionally, in an effort to provide more actionable data, this bill would allow institutions that use valid and
reliable teacher performance assessments to report on those results rather than (as required in current statute) on
traditional certification exams, such as Praxis. It also asks programs to report on the availability of outcome data
for graduates of programs.
Where available, the bill asks programs to report on the following data1:
(i) The academic performance of the elementary school and secondary school students, including students
with disabilities and limited English proficient students, taught by graduates of the teacher preparation
entity by subject area and grade.
(ii) Job placement of graduates within 12 months of program completion.
(iii) Retention of graduates after 3 years.
(iv) Other outcome indicators, such as average results from teacher evaluations.
Question: Does this bill authorize the federal government to rate colleges of education?
Answer: No. This bill maintains the current statute’s prohibition against the federal government ranking
institutions and schools using the data collected in Title II of the Higher Education Act.
Question: Does this bill require teacher preparation programs to be rated using PK-12 students’ value-added or
growth scores?
Answer: No. This bill does not rate or rank preparation programs in any way.
Question: Does this bill require programs to report on outcome measures such as the job retention and
placements of graduates?
1
If programs do not have access to outcome data, then they do not have to report on it.
Answer: Yes, when the information is available. The bill asks institutions to report outcome data only if they
have such data available, and for reporting purposes only. The bill recognizes that many states and institutions
don’t yet have the capacity to collect such data. The goal of this bill is to provide preparation programs, policy
makers, school districts, potential teacher candidates, and others with meaningful data about the quality and
composition of preparation programs.
Question: Does the bill use federal criteria to identify “at-risk” and “low-performing” programs?
Answer: While the bill requires states to develop criteria for “low performing” and “at-risk” programs, it does
not set criteria at the federal level for doing so. It does require that states use multiple measures when crafting
their criteria. Notably, the bill requires states to consult with education stakeholders (including teacher
educators) in the state when developing such criteria.
Question: If a program is identified as at risk or low performing, will it be provided with an opportunity to
improve?
Answer: The bill provides funding to states through a new set-aside in Title II of ESEA to use funds to provide
technical assistance for any programs the state has labeled as low performing or at risk. Only after the state has
given low-performing programs the opportunity to improve should any further action, such as program closure,
occur—and the bill clearly indicates that this is a state, not a federal, responsibility.
Question: How are programs identified as at risk and low performing? Does the federal government make this
determination?
Answer: Identifying low-performing preparation programs has been a statutory requirement since 1998, and it
is up to the state to do so. The Reed-Honda bill seeks to improve this process by requiring states to develop the
criteria for designating low-performing and at-risk programs by bringing together education stakeholders in the
state, which must include representatives from higher education. The criteria that they agree on must then be
made publicly available so that programs know on what they are being judged. The bill also explicitly forbids
states from using these criteria to rank programs.
Question: What are the major changes to the Teacher Quality Partnership grant program?
Answer: Current statute focuses solely on partnerships among institutions of higher education, high-need
schools, and high-need local education agencies focused on preparing teachers for high-need schools. This bill
would expand the program to allow partnerships to prepare principals, school counselors, and other personnel
needed to meet workforce shortages in the partner schools. Notably, the bill also revises the current definition of
a high-need local education agency so that more districts will be eligible for this grant program. The current
definition is quite narrow and, as a result, shut out many potential high-need districts from eligibility during the
initial rounds of the grant.
Question: What changes does the bill make to the TEACH grant program?
Answer: The bill makes three important changes to the TEACH grant statute. These reforms will ensure that
this important program continues to incentivize the best prepared teachers to teach in a high-need school and in
a high-need subject area.
First, the bill amends the program so that only juniors, seniors, and graduate students are eligible to participate.
This change addresses concerns about the current statute in which freshman and sophomores can receive grant
funding before they have made up their minds about pursuing a teaching career. If recipients change their minds
and do not pursue a teaching career, they are required to pay back all of the monies they received through
TEACH grants, creating a financial burden for themselves.
Second, the bill adds a provision that allows for proportional payback of TEACH grant funds based on the
number of years of the service obligation recipients complete. Currently, if a TEACH grant recipient does not
fulfill the entire four-year service obligation, he or she is required to repay all of the TEACH grant monies
received regardless of the service obligation years completed.
Third, the bill makes institutions designated (through Title II of the Higher Education Act) as low performing or
at risk ineligible to participate in the TEACH grant program. This requirement will incentivize weak programs
to improve and ensure that federal funds are going to candidates in strong preparation programs.
Question: What should I do, as an AACTE member, to support EPRA?
Answer: Contact your Senators and your House member. Urge your senators to cosponsor S. 3582 and your
House member to cosponsor H.R. 6447. The more cosponsors the bills have, the better chance they will have to
become law.
For more information contact Jon Gentile at [email protected]