Teacher and School Leader Quality Partnership Grants Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. McClellan, Jennifer L. [D-VA-4]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 13, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to improve the quality and retention of teachers and school leaders in high-need schools by reforming federal grant programs, emphasizing evidence-based practices, and enhancing accountability for educator preparation programs.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) to significantly enhance and expand teacher and school leader quality partnership grants. It introduces extensive new definitions for key educational terms, broadens the scope of federal grants to include school leaders and other educators, and establishes detailed requirements for teaching and principal residency programs, including stipends and service obligations. Additionally, it creates a new teacher leader development program, strengthens accountability measures for educator preparation programs, and mandates a comprehensive study on elevating the education profession.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill addresses critical teacher and school leader shortages, particularly in high-need areas, by fostering stronger partnerships between higher education and K-12 schools. They contend it promotes rigorous, clinically-rich training, supports career pathways for educators, and ensures all students, especially diverse learners, have access to high-quality, 'profession-ready' educators.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about potential federal overreach into state and local education policy due to the bill's prescriptive definitions and requirements. They may also argue that the increased administrative burden on institutions and agencies could divert resources from direct educational activities, or that the accountability measures could unfairly penalize certain programs.
The bill is substantial, requiring dedicated time to understand its numerous amendments to existing law, new definitions, and detailed programmatic structures.
Section 2, amending Section 200 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
Expanded and Updated Definitions for Educator Quality Programs
This section significantly updates and expands the definitions used in the Higher Education Act related to educator preparation and quality. It introduces specific criteria for terms such as 'high-need local educational agency,' 'high-need school,' 'profession-ready' educators (teachers and school leaders), 'diverse teacher candidates,' and 'evidence of student learning.' It also provides detailed components for 'induction program' and 'mentoring,' and defines 'teacher leader,' 'teacher performance assessment,' and 'trauma-informed care,' among others.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that clear, evidence-based definitions are crucial for effective program implementation, accountability, and ensuring federal funds support high-quality educator preparation and development. They believe standardized terminology helps align efforts across different educational entities.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that overly prescriptive definitions could limit flexibility for states and local entities to adapt programs to their unique needs and diverse educational contexts. They may also contend that some definitions might be difficult to measure or implement consistently across varied settings.
Tradeoffs
The bill navigates the tradeoff between establishing clear national standards for educator quality and allowing sufficient flexibility for local innovation and adaptation to diverse educational environments. Detailed definitions aim for consistency but risk rigidity.
Section 3, amending Section 201 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
Expanded Purposes of Quality Partnership Grants
This section broadens the stated purposes of the federal grant program under Title II of the HEA. It explicitly includes enhancing the quality of 'school leaders, including teacher leaders, and other educators' (not just teachers) by improving their preparation and professional development. Additionally, it adds purposes related to holding preparation programs accountable, recruiting 'profession-ready' individuals (including underrepresented groups), and meeting the staffing needs of high-need local educational agencies and schools through close partnerships.
Section 4, amending Section 202 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
Restructured Partnership Grants for Residencies and Teacher Leaders
This section significantly overhauls the core partnership grant program. It mandates that grant funds be used for either pre-baccalaureate/5th-year initial licensing programs, teaching residency programs, principal/school leader residency programs, or a combination. It establishes highly detailed requirements for these residency programs, including rigorous coursework, year-long mentorship with trained mentors, clear selection criteria for residents and mentors, and continued support post-residency. Residents receive a 1-year living stipend/salary and commit to 3 years of service in high-need schools. Crucially, it creates a new 'Teacher Leader Development Program' to empower experienced classroom teachers to take on leadership roles while maintaining their classroom instruction, providing professional development and potential stipends.
Section 6, amending Section 204(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
Enhanced Accountability and Evaluation for Partnerships
This section significantly strengthens the accountability framework for eligible partnerships receiving grants. It mandates that partnerships establish rigorous, comprehensive, and measurable performance objectives. These objectives must include tracking educator retention rates (for the first 5 years of service), pass rates on state certification/licensure assessments or teacher performance assessments, and the percentage of 'profession-ready' educators hired by high-need local educational agencies. It also requires reporting on the percentage of diverse educators, those teaching high-need subjects/areas, and those placed in high-need schools, as well as metrics for early childhood educators and technology integration.
Section 7, amending Section 205 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
Expanded Accountability for All Educator Preparation Programs
This section significantly expands and refines the accountability framework for all teacher and school leader preparation programs, not just those receiving grants. It mandates more detailed annual public report cards from individual preparation entities, including pass rates on certification/licensure or teacher performance assessments (with an option for performance assessment data), student demographics, and clinical experience hours. States are also required to report aggregated data, disaggregated by subject, race, ethnicity, and gender, on program admission rates, student demographics, clinical hours, low-performing designations, and the number of educators prepared and their placement in high-need schools. A new rule clarifies that states are not required to report data on program completers who do not reside in the state.
Section 9, amending Section 207 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
State Mandate for Identifying and Intervening with Low-Performing Programs
This section mandates that states conduct an annual assessment to identify 'at-risk' and 'low-performing' teacher and school leader preparation programs. States must provide technical assistance to at-risk programs for up to three years. If sufficient improvement is not made, programs are designated as low-performing, leading to ineligibility for certain federal professional development funding, restrictions on providing new Title IV awards, and a requirement to provide transitional support for enrolled students. The criteria for these designations must be developed in consultation with diverse stakeholders, and these requirements apply to both traditional and alternative route programs.
Section 11, inserting new Section 209 into Part A of Title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965
Establishment of an Advisory Committee and Study on Elevating the Education Profession
This section establishes a new Advisory Committee under the Secretary of Education, tasked with conducting a comprehensive feasibility study on elevating the education profession. The study will assess current policies and practices related to teacher and school leader education and certification, compile best practices for preparing 'profession-ready' educators, review certification practices nationwide, and recommend a comprehensive set of rigorous expectations for state standards. The committee must include a diverse range of stakeholders from across the education sector. The section also requires interim and final reports to Congress and the creation of an electronically accessible clearinghouse of state certification procedures and best practices.
Section 12, amending Section 210 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
Reauthorization of Appropriations for Quality Partnership Grants
This section reauthorizes appropriations for Part A of Title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which includes the teacher and school leader quality partnership grants. The authorization is extended for fiscal year 2026 and for five succeeding fiscal years, meaning through fiscal year 2031. This ensures that federal funding can continue for the programs outlined in this bill and other activities under this part of the HEA.
The definition of 'induction program' is highly detailed, specifying nine required components including high-quality mentoring, structured collaboration time, application of evidence-based practices, development of instructional and behavioral intervention skills, and regular observation and evaluation based on student learning and multiple measures of educator performance. It also includes specific skills for improving school culture and climate for school leaders.
Section 2, amending Section 200(18) of the HEA (Definition of 'Induction program')
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms that will be used extensively throughout the bill, ensuring consistent interpretation and application.
Case for: Proponents argue that a precise and comprehensive definition of 'induction program' ensures that federal funds support high-quality, evidence-based support systems for new educators, which are critical for retention and effectiveness.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a prescriptive definition could limit flexibility for local educational agencies and partner institutions to design induction programs that best fit their unique contexts and needs, potentially imposing an administrative burden.
Estimated impact: Significantly shapes the design and implementation of induction programs funded under the HEA, impacting thousands of new teachers and school leaders annually.
The definition of 'mentoring' includes specific criteria for mentor selection (based on effectiveness measures), high-quality training for mentors (including literacy instruction and classroom management), regular observation opportunities, paid release time for mentors, same-field mentoring for teachers, promotion of empirically based practice, and common planning time/collaboration.
Section 2, amending Section 200(20) of the HEA (Definition of 'Mentoring')
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure a consistent and high standard for mentoring activities supported by the bill.
Case for: Proponents assert that a robust definition of mentoring, including paid release time and specific training, is essential for effective support of new educators, leading to improved teaching practices and higher retention rates.
Case against: Critics might point to the financial implications of 'paid release time' for mentors, which could be a significant cost burden for local educational agencies, especially if not fully covered by grant funds. They might also argue against the prescriptive nature, preferring local flexibility.
Estimated impact: Establishes a high standard for mentoring programs, potentially increasing their effectiveness but also their cost and administrative complexity.
This provision requires eligible partnerships to mandate that recipients of stipends/salaries in teaching or principal/school leader residency programs repay the funds, with interest, if they do not complete their 3-year service obligation in a high-need school. It allows for reasonable provisions for prorated repayment or deferral due to health, incapacitation, inability to secure employment, active military duty, or other extraordinary circumstances. Repayments must be used for additional program activities.
Section 4, amending Section 202(e)(4)(C) of the HEA (Repayments for Residency Programs)
Why it matters:This is standard practice for outlining the terms and conditions of financial assistance programs that include service obligations, ensuring accountability for federal funds.
Case for: Proponents argue that repayment clauses are essential to ensure accountability for federal investments in educator training. They incentivize participants to fulfill their service obligations in high-need schools, maximizing the impact of the grants.
Case against: Critics might argue that strict repayment clauses could deter some individuals from participating, particularly those from low-income backgrounds who might be hesitant to incur potential debt. They might also point to the administrative complexity of tracking and enforcing repayments.
Estimated impact: Creates a financial obligation for residency participants, potentially influencing participation rates and ensuring compliance with service commitments.
This provision allows an eligible partnership to receive an additional grant within a five-year period if that additional grant is specifically used to establish a teacher residency program or principal or other school leader residency program, provided such a residency program was not established with the prior grant.
Section 5, amending Section 203(a)(2) of the HEA (Administrative Provisions)
Why it matters:This is a technical amendment to existing administrative rules, designed to provide flexibility without altering the core structure of the grant program.
Case for: Proponents argue this flexibility is crucial for encouraging the growth of residency programs, which are a key focus of the bill. It allows successful partnerships to expand into new, high-impact areas without waiting for a full grant cycle to expire.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such administrative flexibilities, as they are generally seen as improving program efficiency. Some might argue it could lead to less competitive grant processes if existing grantees have an advantage.
Estimated impact: Facilitates the establishment and expansion of teacher and school leader residency programs by providing a pathway for additional funding for this specific purpose.