Memorandum to Greg Humphrey regarding teacher centers

Hide Document

MEMORANDUM

June 16, 1981
To: Greg Humphrey
From: Marilyn Rauth
":.,'
This is the beginning of the Teacher Center/Teacher Corps testimony~
When I learned the hearing was canceled, I summarized our argumentsat'the
end.

Teacher Centers and Teacher Corps
We would like to call your attention to the Teacher Center and Teacher
Corps programs, slated for consolidation with 28 other programs under Title II
of this Act. In the absence of close examination, incorporation of these ,t'Wo

r',"
programs in the consolidation may seem fairly inconsequential. But this
simply is not the case. To maintain standards of excellence in education 'an4,
a competent teaching force, Teacher Centers and Teacher Corps must be conttnued
and administered at the federal level.

This is true because without opportunities to improve and upgrade
professional skills, there is no question that the teaching force can become
stagnant, mechanized and ultimately, resigned and demoralized. Teache;r-s,.

. \"~
support meaningful professional development programs because they are a 'personal
form of "quality control" to which intrinsic rewards ar~ attached. Becaui>~i
teaching is not a job 'with high extrinsic rewards, maintenance of the former is
quite important.

~;~ !;."
An argument could be made that consolidating Teacher,'CeiJters ;a;d. Te~ch~.rr>:
Corps under Title II will not eliminate them, but t~at"~:.Jen' if it wouHl~' this, ,
would simply indicate that SEAs and LEAs had and 'a'c~e'd,itpon otherPEipr-tt;.tes ,:' '/

; ~.'::" . -;..~ .
Our history shows us that other priQritie~witi take pre:cedenc~;,;::Asa';( case in point, consider;what happened in i11}pl~~~n.tation of P.L~ 94:"142Wll.en";"'§~ program monies were inadequate to carry out" fu.:llythe, law' s mandate.,~, ,J:l(1.'aprtliar', reports to Congress, the Bure~u of Education for 'the HandiGapped (now, 'OSEllS) , ",
'I. ,-1 '~y:;,
."
had to .report that one of the biggest proble.1lls:1an(it.nple~entation, ,W8l.s).lthe lcicl< o:E.,
..: ""~.1l
',; inservice training provideclthe schooJ,,~taff, which:::res,\11ted incpn':ff:4,s~ion,,;(:)ver; '; role respons:tbHitiie,s, thusheighteni,ng' fear and insecurity.;;' People'wer,e'l:tlstj\' 't,.'.: ?::!'£requentlybl?iil.g.,8sk'edto do things ,they did not know how to Ao' whi~h:m~ant:that ,;, i:; the quality ~f.seriices,:offeredchildrenofte~ ,did not improve:"",a'J!l9..'~'in/sofue . ,\ .' instances' ev.en· diminishe~. ,Why did this happeri·? Beca}}Se;~nen e<\h¥<;'§"tr~on:(>. .' .:.,.. . dollars aresh()rt ,monies flow:to direct;j,:nstruetional services q'efot;~bei,.p'g>:,;',;f,1::'. channeled 'into indir~ctly beneficial programs .:~uch as inserviee:Qrw:'(ofesS:\i;Il'P,a.jij:•development • This i,l3t:rue' no matter hQw important or",¢~:itica:l; (I:.he.,:j;nq,ir;~~t\~,rd,;' .. progrartls may be to the success of '~heinstructionalprog1?am. .,lth~";f~,n;a!l.~>~~~:;,:':·~:~crfil/~/)~;); ,: ' crises'our scho~ls now fa:e~ at the, $tate and local lev<fls' coupledw~tlj;,;~Fr,\?,~~Cl~.$~~:'·"&' budget cuts'ge~ng",made at the federa'llevel can leav~,;~o doubt i~ ybur;'m~rrd,:~.~~S~.,,\t;l',:',\,if though there w~l1 be, a greatd~alof .talk of teCi.cher eompetencY'i;therR;,w,t~1;f;i;q;~,:n'A; \'<' ~"'~f no ac.companyingappr()p;ri,Cltion of> f'uridsa,t either' levet:~t? fund J?ro~-es$~o.nal/ ;\~. ~::};"L",: ',~, development programs. ,. Such programs, in fact, havebeer(,aJ,1. bi.l~ -:,e':!,imin,ated:. " ',"';i.i(
,h" .11. '.", , , .' . A~:
Memo to Greg Humphrey June 16, 1981 -Page 2
Federally funded Teacher Centers and Teacher Corps programs are the only major exception. All that is left to fill the void are some one-to two-day anachronistic systemwide inservice days. It is impossible to meet individual personal growth needs through this type of program.
Greg, I learned the hearing was canceled here. Our general argument, based on what has already been stated, is:
1.
The Teacher.Center and Teacher Corps programs should remain at the federal level; the Teacher Center program should be moved into the Office of Professional Development at the Education Department, which is where Teacher Corps already is. This Office has as its responsibility to consolidate all federally-funded education programs and to help avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.

2.
Without maintenance of these two programs there will be no capacity to develop model training programs at the federal level. SEAs and LEAs are unlikely to share successful practices because there's nothing in it for them.

3.
Teacher Corps is one of the very rare federal programs which has an urban focus. It is well-known that many of the state legisla•tures are controlled by rural areas and the cities, with large numbers of disadvantaged, handicapped and minority students, go begging.

4.
Teacher Centers can hardly be union hiring halls. Most have only one director. Even the largest have relatively few staff. As the LEA is the fiscal agent, it has final say over who the policy board, which again is made up of a diverse group of people includ•ing administrators, teachers, parents, and higher education representatives, hires.

Teachers support them not for personal gain but because the concept has produced recognizable results.

5.
The California Department of Education says Teacher Centers have raised student achievement scores in schools the centers serve. Our experience in New York City and elsewhere is that this has been the case but we don't have the data to actually prove it yet.

6.
Overall, the argument on Teacher Centers is that few federal1y•initiated programs have been so successful or so cost-effective. Now that they have stabilized, they were just ready to institution•alize. Documentation of process had taken place (75% of all center activities are related directly to classroom instruction) but evaluation data had not yet been coll~cted to provide the hard statistics on effects. Now they are vulnerable to the budget•cutter's ax not because they failed but because the rug is being pulled out just as they had emerged as an entity (over three .y~ars)· which could be evaluated.


Memo to Greg Humphrey June 16, 1981 -Page 3
If there's anything at all which could be done to keep these programs at the federal level, Teacher Centers in particular, it would be of great value
to do so. There's start from scratch deve10pments--good a lot riding on professional development. or bad. on this and much to be lost. Please keep We'll have me advised to on
Thanks.

MR/pvt opeiu2af1cio

Hide Document