1. 2012 POLICY AND ADVOCACY February 17, 2012 Report

2. Discussion Overview 2 1. Overarching Goals 2. Building the Policy Agenda & Messages 3. Advocacy Update

3. Overarching Goals What do we seek to accomplish…  Raise TECSCU visibility in key national policy debates in Washington, D.C.  Advocate for TECSCU public policy priorities.  Become a preferred source of teacher preparation insights with decision-makers. 3

4. Building the Policy Agenda & Messages 4 Initial steps included…  Assess TECSCU institutions  Executive Committee meetings  Membership survey  Evaluate the landscape  Federal policy analysis (e.g., ESEA reauthorization)

5. Building the Policy Agenda & Messages Our identity shapes the voice and priorities…  Clinical and Field Experience (i.e., rigor of student teaching requirements)  PK-12 Partnerships (i.e., responsive to local school needs and training teachers accordingly)  Preparation for Diverse Student Populations (e.g., special needs, rural environments) 5

6. Building the Policy Agenda & Messages The advocacy themes emerged… To improve education outcomes:  TECSCU Institutions are in the schools and make a difference for students;  TECSCU Institutions bring innovation to practice; and  TECSCU Institutions are committed to preparing highly-effective teachers. 6

7. Building the Policy Agenda & Messages With “market-testing,” our message is… TECSCU Institutions are focused on the future:  Standards for entering and completing our education programs are rigorous;  Our faculty and students are actively engaged in PK-12 schools; and  What we teach and how we teach it is dynamic and responsive to the needs of our PK-12 partners. 7

8. Building the Policy Agenda & Messages Policy Priority #1: Evaluation of Our Institutions and Our Graduates  TECSCU supports monitoring the performance of graduates, the development of valid and reliable performance metrics to effectively evaluate teachers and principals, and the use of the resulting transparent data to inform the improvement of teacher preparation. 8

9. Policy Priority #1: Evaluation of Our Institutions and Our Graduates 9 Comparison of House & Senate Legislation  U.S. House of Representatives  Consistent with the TECSCU Policy Priority, the House’s proposed legislation directs states and LEAs to develop and implement teacher evaluation systems [Page 6/17 Sec. 101 (EIET Act)]. Our goal is to ensure the adoption and use of fair, valid, and reliable metrics.  U.S. Senate  While not inconsistent with the TECSCU Policy Priority, the Senate’s proposed legislation only requires evaluation systems in districts that receive Teacher Incentive Fund grants. [Page 270/280, Sec. 2101]

10. Building the Policy Agenda & Messages Policy Priority #2: Level Playing Field for Our Graduates  TECSCU supports a level playing field in the recruitment and advancement of teachers, whereby access is afforded to well- qualified teachers regardless of their preparation programs. 10

11. Policy Priority #2: Level Playing Field for Our Graduates 11 Comparison of House & Senate Legislation  U.S. Senate  The Senate bill would allow funds to be used to create a national teacher corps [Page 546, Sec. 4108]. The concern is that the proposed teacher corps and/or other actions by the U.S. Department of Education would favor alternative teacher pathways. This is inconsistent with the TECSCU Policy Priority of a level playing field for all well-qualified teachers.  U.S. House of Representatives  The current language of the House’s teacher preparation bill does not appear to favor one teacher pathway over another.

12. Advocacy Update (Q1 plan) 12  Initial Contacts  U.S. House/Senate Committees Amy Jones, Education Policy Counsel and Senior Advisor, House Education and the Workforce Committee (Republican) Michele McLaughlin, Senior Policy Advisor, Senate HELP Committee (Democrat) Beth Buehlmann, Education Policy Advisor, Senate HELP Committee (Republican) Julie Peller, Deputy Staff Director, House Education and the Workforce Committee (Democrat)  U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences

13. Advocacy Update (Q1 plan) Senate meeting, February 6 “I am taken aback. I never expected to hear you guys welcome evaluation of any sort.” 13

14. Advocacy Update (Q1 plan)  Complete key committee staff initial contacts  Launch member advocacy toolkit and policy alerts  Develop Q2 Congressional and DoED tactics  Identify advocacy awareness tactics (e.g., op-ed, association and other stakeholder outreach, etc.) 14