prohibit the State Superintendent from certifying teacher preparation institutions unless the programs meet specific new regulations. I ignore HB 5603 as it pertains only to elementary classroom teacher candidates. Relevant bills include: • HB 5598: all full-time faculty members working to prepare teachers must complete 30 hours of continu- ing professional development in their specific area of instruction (e.g., elementary science teacher prepara- tion). Tis 30 hours must include time in K-12 settings, in rural and urban settings, and work with students in high-poverty settings, students with disabilities, and students who are English Language Learners.

• HB 5599: teacher preparation programs must offer a warranty for graduates of their program who are employed by a local education agency (LEA) and who are deemed ineffective by the LEA. Aſter being labeled ineffective several years in a row, these graduates would be able to take coursework at any other teacher prepara- tion institution in Michigan, and the original program would bear the costs of the “warranty education.”

• HB 5600: all teacher preparation institutions must provide a stipend of $1,000 directly to a teacher who supervises/mentors a student teacher.

• HB 5601: all teacher preparation institutions must require at least 400 hours of cumulative K-12 class- room experience in practicum courses prior to student teaching.

• HB 5602: requires the Michigan Department of Ed- ucation to establish an “innovative educators corps program.” Tese teachers would be nominated based on a number of requirements and appointed for an ini- tial term of three years, receiving a stipend of between $5,000 and $10,000. Corps members would serve on a roundtable, partner with the MDE to pilot programs, and provide professional development to others.

• HB 5604/5605: all teacher preparation institutions must offer a student teaching program (or other clini- cal experiences) that includes a rural setting, an urban setting, a high poverty setting, instruction on social emotional learning, ELL instruction, and students with disabilities. Student teachers must also be introduced to the district’s teacher evaluation tools, understand assessment data use, and develop classroom manage- ment skills (HB 5605 further requires this content be interspersed throughout coursework). Finally, the bills call for formal partnership agreements between teacher preparation programs and school districts that clearly describe expectations.


Tis package of bills was introduced in February 2018 and referred to the committee on education reform shortly


thereaſter. Some language substitutions were recommended and the bills were then reported out of committee. Tere is no specific timeline known for when the full house could vote on the bill, although the bills were to receive a sec- ond reading on October 2, 2018 (usually three readings must occur before a vote is taken and the bill is sent to the Governor). In terms of implementation, bills would take effect quickly—some aſter 90 days, and the others by July 2019. Te state superintendent would be required to revoke approval for preparation programs if new requirements were not met (Kefgen, 2018). Te bills are considered likely to pass at this point due to republican control of the legisla- ture.

Tese bills are hotly contested, and a number of teacher preparation institutions have weighed in. While a number of these institutions voiced support for some ideas in the bills, many other aspects were opposed (House Fiscal Agen- cy, 2018). One of these aspects is cost. Teacher preparation programs would surely feel the financial impact of being re- quired to pay all cooperating teachers $1,000 stipends, and are worried about potential costs inherent in the proposed warranty programs. Additionally, the bills make it clear that preparation programs are not to raise tuition to cover increased costs, making it unclear where necessary funds would be found (House Fiscal Agency, 2018).

Other objections concern logistics. HB 5601’s requirement of 400 hours of pre-student teaching clinical experience, paired with substantive requirements to coursework in HB 5605, would likely add semesters—or years—to coursework in teacher preparation programs. Tis could have deleteri- ous effects on students’ plans and financial aid. In addition, questions have surfaced around the provision in HB 5598 for higher education personnel to demonstrate 30 hours of professional development. Who would certify these hours? Who would provide the continuing education, especially when higher education professors are oſten the very people providing professional development to K-12 educators? Logistics and cost aside, representatives of teacher prepara- tion programs have also found these proposed bills insult- ing (Robinson, 2018). Te provisions make it clear that the state considers teacher preparation programs to be failing in producing effective educators, but data suggest that less than 3% of Michigan educators were labeled as ineffective or minimally effective in 2017-2018 (House Fiscal Agency, 2018). In addition, at the same time that such bills aim to hold traditional teacher preparation programs accountable at higher levels, the legislature has advocated alternative certification routes. Tese routes greatly truncate the time necessary to earn certification and also allow non-certificat- ed personnel to teach courses. As an example, the “Profes- sional Innovators in Teaching,” an alternative certification program run by a charter school network in Lansing, allows

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36