Republican Bill Supports Teacher Training in Science and Math

“The Teacher Empowerment Act maintains an important focus on math and science, as under current law, but the legislation expands teacher training beyond just the subjects of math and science.” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA)

House Republicans have offered, as part of the process of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), a bill supporting teacher professional development that would maintain a priority emphasis on science and math education. H.R. 1995, the “Teacher Empowerment Act,” introduced on May 27, would authorize $2 billion per year over five years to improve the quality of teaching in the nation’s schools. Of that amount, about $250 million each year would be specifically set aside for professional development in science and math, although there is some flexibility for school districts to waive the math-science restriction.

ESEA, which authorizes the Department of Education’s K-12 programs, will expire later this year unless new legislation is passed. The general desire of the Republican majority in Congress has been to reduce or eliminate requirements on federal funds, and give the money to states and school districts in the form of block grants, to use as they see fit. An example is last year’s “Dollars to the Classroom” bill (see FYI #132, 1998 ), which passed the House but not the Senate. The block-granting concept raised concerns among scientists and science educators, who worried about the loss of federal programs like the Eisenhower Professional Development program, which makes some funds available specifically for the purpose of training teachers in science and math education.

Recently, the Department of Education put forth its own proposal for ESEA reauthorization (see FYI #89 ), which would combine the Eisenhower program with several other programs in an initiative entitled “Teaching to High Standards.” This program would increase funding earmarked for science and math professional development to $300 million higher than comparable funding in the current Eisenhower program.

Now Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) has introduced “The Teacher Empowerment Act” which, in authorizing funding for various teacher quality initiatives, would set aside a certain amount to improve teaching of math and science. The bill states that the amount used for science and math professional development must be “not less than” that provided by ESEA for the same purpose, as in effect at the time this bill is enacted. (The FY 1999 appropriation for ESEA sets aside $250 million of Eisenhower funding specifically for science and math).

McKeon’s bill provides waiver authority so that local education institutions can use the funds for teacher training in other subjects, but they must first show that they are successfully meeting their teachers’ science and math professional development needs. Specifically, it requires that applicants for a waiver must demonstrate the following:

- “the professional development needs of mathematics and science teachers, including elementary teachers responsible for teaching mathematics and science, have been adequately met;" - “state assessments in mathematics or science demonstrate that each school within the local education agency has made progress toward meeting the challenging State or local content standards and student performance standards in these areas;" and - “state assessments in other academic subjects demonstrate a need to focus on subjects other than mathematics and science.” This bill language is more specific than language in the Ed-Flex bill, passed earlier this year, which does not mention math or science specifically. The Ed-Flex bill dictates that to waive restrictions on Eisenhower or other ESEA programs, local education agencies must show that “the underlying purposes of the statutory requirements of each program” are being met. McKeon’s bill also describes what type of professional development activities are acceptable. Activities authorized by this bill shall be: directly related to a teacher’s content area; measured by specific State performance indicators; tied to State or local content and student performance standards; tied to “scientifically based research demonstrating the effectiveness” of the program; developed with participation of teachers, principals and administrators; and “of sufficient intensity and duration...to have a positive and lasting impact on the teacher’s performance in the classroom.” In addition to professional development, the bill authorizes other activities to attract and retain quality teachers, including signing bonuses, alternative routes to certification, mentoring, tenure reform, and merit pay.

McKeon currently has 19 other Republicans as cosponsors to H.R. 1995, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and William Goodling (R-PA), chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, ESEA’s authorizing committee. No Democrats have signed on at this time. In introducing his bill, however, McKeon said, “We have...tried to include the best elements of teacher training proposals from the Governors, the Administration, and different Members of Congress, on a bipartisan basis. I hope that by the time this legislation is considered by the full House, we will have a bipartisan proposal that will vastly expand training opportunities for our Nation’s teachers and increase the achievement of all of our Nation’s students.”

H.R. 1995 has been referred to the appropriate committees. It is one of what will likely be many proposals related to the ESEA reauthorization and, if it gains enough support, may end up wholly or partially incorporated into a larger ESEA bill later on.