Here are a few things you could buy for $24,250:

• 60 iPad Airs
• 44 Apple Watches
• A 2016 Honda Civic and nearly 3,000 gallons of gas for it
• 28 BeyHive-level tickets to Beyoncé’s Formation show in Baltimore
• The requirements for a teaching license

By the time the average first-year teacher enters the classroom, they will have invested $24,250 and 1,512 hours getting certified by the state to be there. If you multiply these estimates by the nearly 200,000 teachers who graduate every year, you get pretty daunting numbers. All told, colleges, states, the federal government, and teachers themselves are shouldering about $4.85 billion and 302 million hours in teacher preparation annually.

That’s one of the findings that Chad Aldeman and I discovered in two recent reports, published by Bellwether Education Partners earlier this month. We also found an even more sobering conclusion: There’s no evidence that any of these requirements make teachers better.

Everyone wants qualified educators in the classroom, but no research shows exactly how to make that happen during their preparation. The number of content courses or student teaching hours, for example, has no bearing on a teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom (with some exceptions). Meeting state certification requirements and going through traditional certification pathways also aren’t guarantees.

There’s some research that GPA and SAT scores predict a degree of teacher effectiveness, but the correlation is weak, and it’s not clear what the minimum threshold for these screens should be. As a result, states set arbitrary cut scores that don’t predict future effectiveness. Prospective teachers who don’t get in might ultimately have been effective, while others who are admitted on the basis of their scores may never positively affect student achievement. In other words, states have constructed elaborate and expensive hoops for prospective teachers to jump through – and there’s no real justification for them.

In the Bellwether paper, we recommend changes that will drastically reduce the risks associated with becoming a teacher. System-wide changes, however, aren’t going to happen immediately. There are currently close to half a million teacher candidates enrolled in preparation programs nationally, and thousands more enroll every year.

If you’re a prospective teacher, the situation is a difficult one: the research says preparation programs may not be worth the time and money, but the state requires you to complete one anyway. So what should you do?

1. Go where the need is
There’s a lot of talk about teacher shortages right now. In the past month alone, Nevada and California have taken steps to make it easier for districts to hire new teachers. But shortages aren’t everywhere, and they’re not in every subject. Only one in three new teachers, for example, can get a job in New York City, and many states are producing a surplus of elementary teachers.

Before enrolling in a preparation program, consider where and in what subject you’re most needed and whether a particular program is well-suited to helping you get into those classrooms. You may dream of becoming an elementary school teacher, but you should know what your odds are of landing a job with that certification. The U.S. Department of Education publishes teacher shortage area listings by state, and some states release supply and demand reports. If that’s not enough, go directly to the source; districts will know best where and in what subjects they need teachers. 

2. Dive into the data
Some states evaluate preparation programs based on the performance outcomes of their graduates – and the federal government may require all states to do so in the next few years. Even if programs are not held accountable for this measure, the data will likely become more widely available, and prospective teachers should take advantage of it.

Before enrolling in a preparation program, look into what outcomes data it tracks and how the data are used for continuous improvement. The best programs will be able to point to concrete examples of refining their practices based on what the data tells them about how their graduates are doing in the field.
Some outcomes to look for:

• Placement rate. What percentage of those who complete the program are employed as full-time, in-field teachers within a year of completing the program? What percentage went to the type of school you want to teach in?
• Retention rate. What percentage of teachers certified through the program stay in their position for one or more years?
• Evaluation ratings. How do those teachers perform during their first years in the classroom?
• Teacher and employer satisfaction. What do the teachers and their employers say about their satisfaction with the teachers’ level of preparation?

 
3. Pay attention to the student teaching structure
The best preparation programs aren’t necessarily the ones that offer the longest student teaching experiences. Despite the intuitive appeal, there’s no evidence that more student teaching is better. Rather, research suggests that the quality of the experience is more important. Candidates performed better and felt more prepared if they went through a student teaching program that was operated by the preparation program, not the K-12 school. Candidates were also more successful if they spent their student teaching experiences with highly effective mentor teachers in high-functioning schools with more desirable conditions for practice, even if they ultimately went on to teach in harder-to-staff schools.
 
Right now, it’s incredibly expensive to become a teacher. Nothing other than systemic change will alter that fact. In the meantime, prospective teachers should do their research to choose the preparation program most likely to help them be successful in the classroom. 

Ashley LiBetti Mitchel is a Senior Analyst with Bellwether Education Partners in the Policy and Thought Leadership practice area. Reach her via email or Twitter. 

Sing in me, Muse, and through me tell the story
of that man skilled in all ways of contending,
the wanderer, harried for years on end,
after he plundered the stronghold
on the proud height of Troy.

Whether we’re reciting lines of Homer or learning the alphabet through song, we utilize our brain’s ability to memorize and synchronize ideas to music from the moment that we can utter sounds. Why, then, are there so many examples of declining public funding for music and the arts? Fortunately, when Sen. Lamar Alexander introduced S 1177— the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015— he set the stage for an amendment that could greatly impact music education. The proposed Opportunity Dashboard of Core Resources amendment focuses on “the whole child” by promoting music and the arts. .

Researchers can point to music as an important part of any child’s learning because musical patterns actually trigger a portion of the memory-making function of the brain. In June 2014, five scientists at the University of Jyväskylä released a study about activity in the hippocampus—a brain structure involved in the creation of long-term memory—when their test subjects listened to the musical phrases of an Argentinian Tango. Their findings? The findings show "an increase of activity in the medial temporal lobe areas—best known for being essential for long term memory—when musical motifs in the piece were repeated.”

Their analysis also illuminates that the emotive powers of music may impact memory. They surmised that ”it wouldn't be surprising that the emotional content of the music may well have been a factor in triggering these limbic responses." Not only do musical phrases and patterns trigger activity in the memory-making parts of the brain, but they also evoke emotional responses that strengthen memory-making processes.

This particular study was conducted to investigate the impact of music on the memory of musical patterns, but what if there is a connection between music and memorizing—or rather, learning— just about anything?

To anyone familiar with “Conjunction Junction” and “Mr. Morton,” this formulation should be less than shocking. These earworm-inducing songs from the beloved educational series Schoolhouse Rock still help many of us remember the parts of speech. The repetition of tunes and similar sentence structures “activates information for active retention,” explains Chris Brewer, creator of LifeSounds Education Services. The music demands a student's attention, as well as impacts their mood, “creating an emotional connection to information.” Much like the neurological study suggests, children’s minds—almost unbeknownst to us—latch on to lyrics and harmonies from the moment they are heard.

Since the introduction of Schoolhouse Rock in the 1970s, many like Chris Brewer have taken note of the educational power of music. One modern example is the technology company Flocabulary. Founded on the belief that, as Flocabulary founder Alex Rappaport told me, there “has to be a better way” to learn, Flocabulary produces hip-hop- and rap-inspired music videos about subjects ranging from numerical division to U.S. presidents—”I’m ill with the quill skills” is just one of my favorite lines from a particularly catchy video starring Thomas Jefferson. Because Alex and his team believe that “a motivated student is a more successful student,” Flocabulary has created songs that keep students engaged and on top of their academics.

When educators can align a student’s emotional presence with the academic curriculum at hand, Alex suggests that the “brain is smiling”—reinforcing the excitement of learning a new piece of information all while learning a new tune to hum on the bus ride home. In line with the Opportunity Dashboard of Core Resources amendment to S 1177, hopefully more school systems will begin to take the research seriously and use music to help keep students’ ears and minds open to learning.

Amanda Wynter works with advocacy organizations at FiscalNote. Reach her via email or Twitter. 

In the last few months, Congress invited 18 education experts to share their thoughts on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act during a series of hearings. Only three of them were current teachers.

Congress should care more about what teachers think, particularly when crafting such teacher-centered legislation.

For example, I don’t know many any teachers that are fond of standardized tests. However, here we are, 14 years into No Child Left Behind, and we have one of the most difficult and stringent tests yet—the PARCC tests. And while PARCC was not created by nor is mandated by Congress, the results from these tests could potentially be used for a lot of things that won’t please educators — including job evaluations, school ratings, and to secure government funding for education.

However, if I could weigh in on the ESEA reauthorization, here’s what I would say:

Standardized tests don’t work.

Teachers, students, and parents have expressed their views that standardized testing does not work for measuring educational quality. There are so many variables that affect a student’s performance on any given day, particularly in low-income communities, where students face greater outside pressures. We need to find other ways of evaluation that don't involve such high-stress measures.

Students should be taught how to learn, how to think, and how to create (not how to take a test).

Some of the best school systems in the world, such as Finland, have curricula that include much more than your basic arithmetic, science, and reading. They have classes in music, art, sports, religion, and even textile handcrafts. It is widely known that many American schools, particularly those in impoverished areas, have cut a lot of their extracurricular activities because of funding issues. Oftentimes these subjects are the ones that get at the essence of learning and encourage curiosity and inquisitiveness. In order for students to be ready for the work world—and more importantly, life—they need to learn how to think critically and solve problems. Academic study alone cannot provide these lessons.

Make school funding truly equitable.

A huge mistake that No Child Left Behind made was not providing any additional resources to struggling schools. This move is counterintuitive—schools that aren’t performing well need more funds than schools that are doing better in order to make improvements to their schools and provide additional supports for kids. This move would make funding equitable. And while NCLB does provide additional money for high-poverty schools through its Title I Funding, those funds are often not enough because typically states and districts give less money to the schools serving the students who need it the most. In other words, Title I money cannot create school finance equity unless all schools have at least the same amount of funding. Congress must do more to make sure that states and districts hold up their end of the bargain and provide disadvantaged students with at least the same, if not more resources than their peers.

Case in point: I teach in one of the bottom 40 performing schools in the District. My school is also severely outdated. Only two of our eight classrooms have smart boards; we have one computer lab; and each classroom has about two computers (many of which don’t work). Our bathrooms were out of paper towels for an entire week during the month of April. Our school was built in 1974 and has not been updated. However, another school in the district, Janney Elementary—one of the top 10 performing schools—got a new addition (complete with new rooms for the arts, sciences, and multipurpose use) in July 2014. (It is important to note that Janney is located in a much wealthier neighborhood and receives significant funding from its community.) Currently, District of Columbia Public Schools has 26 school projects in the works, but only five are part of the bottom 40 (and some schools in the bottom 40 have been updated in the past). Although NCLB aimed to make education more equal, this provision only served to continue to marginalize our struggling students.

Although well-meaning, a lot of the legislation surrounding education has yet to really improve things. To many, it’s only made things a lot worse. I think for any real change to happen, Congress needs to do what it’s supposed to: listen to the teachers.

Amara Pinnock is an elementary school teacher in DC. Reach her via email or Twitter.

As Congress falls all over itself in what might become yet another failed attempt to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has already announced his next priority for the committee this year: reauthorizing the Higher Education Act.

And it’s certainly a piece of legislation that needs some work.

Seven in 10 graduates left school with student loan debt in 2013, averaging more than $29,000 each, and total student loan debt surpassed $1 trillion. Despite all of that borrowing, the success rate for college attendees is still fairly low. Of all first-time, full-time students pursuing a bachelor’s degree, only 39 percent graduate in four years and 59 percent finish in six.

The guiding light for this HEA reauthorization will be a new report from the Task Force on Federal Regulations of Higher Education, a group of 16 college presidents and higher education researchers commissioned by Alexander, as well as Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.).

The report criticizes the current regulatory burden on colleges and claims that HEA has become a vehicle for policy objectives unrelated to education, including the mandatory celebration of Constitution Day and a requirement for strategies to combat illegal file sharing. The task force has a point, as those mandates run about 2,000 pages long and cost colleges more than 26 million hours each year. As such, the task force calls on Congress to limit these needless regulations, defray costs for student borrowers, and design ways to identify high-performing programs. But any reauthorization of HEA should also emphasize two other important priorities: lowering costs and improving programs.

Lowering costs. From 2000 to 2014, average tuition and fees at four-year public universities rose 89 percent to over $9,000 per year. One cause of this is states’ divestment in higher education. From 2008 to 2012, 29 state governments decreased their total funding to public colleges and universities. At the same time, enrollment in these institutions increased by nearly 14 percent—which forced many colleges to pass those costs on to students.

A potential solution, which was part of now-retired Sen. Tom Harkin’s (D-Iowa) HEA reauthorization plan, is the formation of state-federal college affordability partnerships, wherein the federal government would match a portion of funds that states put directly toward reducing the price of tuition. This creates a strong incentive for states to rein in the runaway cost of higher education, but it also ensures that the federal government shares the burden of doing so.

Improving programs. A reauthorized HEA could also improve the quality of teaching at colleges and universities. According to a recent Third Way report, the federal government awards more than $30 billion a year for university research, but it spends less than $80 million to incentivize quality teaching. That means, for every $100 spent on research, only 24 cents is spent on improving teaching at universities. A new HEA should reserve greater amounts of funding for investment in teacher training, blended learning, and improving the classroom experience, just like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act does for K-12 education.

It is abundantly clear that a college degree is a valuable commodity. Because of this, our higher education policies must ensure that colleges are both affordable for students and teach them the _requisite skills for future success.

Phillip Burgoyne-Allen is a legislative assistant at an education law firm. Reach him via email or Twitter.

If you have watched The West Wing, you know (and love) Sam Seaborn. Played by Rob Lowe, Sam is the deputy White House communications director under President Josiah Bartlet. In one episode, Sam, an unflinching idealist, expresses his views on education:

Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes; we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.

In an idealized world, this would be the case. Schools would offer wraparound services, giving children access to the personalized academic, social, and emotional help they need for success. Students would be prepared for and guided into postsecondary programs, including those in career and technical education, that best meet their talents and desires. Our teaching force would be elite and better respected, mentioned in the same breath as doctors and lawyers, and compensated accordingly. Inner-city schools would be among the best in the country and help break disadvantaged students, who are disproportionately black and Hispanic, out of the cycle of poverty. There wouldn’t be a “skills gap” in our economy while we have an unemployment rate that is over 5 percent, over 10 percent for blacks, and nearly 7 percent for Hispanics.

As Sam said, bringing about these sorts of changes would be expensive. Yet the United States is already near the top in terms of education spending. In 2008, we spent more than 7 percent of our gross domestic product on education. That rate was the fifth-highest among countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, behind only Iceland, South Korea, Israel, and Norway. However, the federal government only accounts for 10 to 15 percent of that education spending, with the rest roughly split evenly between the state and local levels. In fact, in 2013, only 1 percent of our federal budget was reserved for education. And in President Barack Obama’s recent budget request for fiscal year 2016, which will find very little support in the Republican-controlled Congress, the U.S. Department of Education receives less than 1.8 percent of proposed funding. Out of a whopping $3.99 trillion, ED would only get $70.7 billion, and that’s in the idealized budget of a Democratic president. By comparison, the proposal would provide the U.S. Department of Defense with $585 billion.

So if we already spend so much on education, how can we start to make things better? One of the biggest reasons for funding disparities in our schools is the way that local education dollars are raised. Generally speaking, local funding comes from property taxes, meaning that higher-income areas with higher property values generate much more money for their schools. To address this difference, state education dollars, which come primarily from sales taxes and state-level income taxes, should be dedicated to at least equalizing funding levels for low-income urban and rural areas, if not providing them with even more funding than their wealthier counterparts. For its part, the federal government should focus on spurring large-scale, systemic improvements. Improving the talent pipeline for teachers and school leaders, offering strong incentives for working in disadvantaged schools, and funding research and pilot programs that find innovative solutions to tough problems are just a few examples. The federal budget should also reflect education as a greater priority in this country. That 1 percent should be 3 or even 5 percent, so that we can ensure that we have one of the best education systems in the world.

Unfortunately, this is not the type of system we have today. Poor schools don't have the most resources, many states aren't ensuring equitable funding, and the federal government tries to make up the difference with bulky formula funding programs. Rather than continuously trying to put federal Band-Aids on our gashed education system, we need to stitch it up with a new, holistic approach that will better align funding with our priorities. According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, people ages 18 to 29 list our educational system as their top policy priority for President Obama and Congress, even above the nation’s economy, and for good reason. But it will be difficult to make significant changes without commitment and cooperation at all levels of government. So what are we to do? Like Sam Seaborn said, we haven’t figured it out yet. But we need to.

Phillip Burgoyne-Allen is a legislative assistant at an education law firm. Reach him via email or Twitter.

I have never felt more alone than when I was a teacher. Sure, there were tons of people around, but when I closed my classroom door, it was as if I was on an island with my students, attempting to lead them to academic success without help or support from anyone else. Meanwhile, on both sides of my classroom, and all throughout the school building, other teachers were on their side-by-side islands. Sinking or swimming. Alone. 

Teacher evaluation in its most authentic form connects these islands in school buildings so that teachers can share their successes and challenges, reflect on their practice, and support each other’s instruction. But for the most part, teacher evaluation has had no significance on teachers’ practice. That was until President Obama’s Race to the Top (RTT) grant competition and waivers to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provided an opportunity for states and districts to develop strategies to move past outdated systems of teacher evaluation.

Teachers are important—it would be tough to find someone who disagrees with that. In fact, of all in-school factors, teacher quality has the largest effect on student achievement. Unfortunately, however, our teacher preparation programs are not ensuring that our incoming teaching force is ready to join the profession. According to a survey by the American Federation of Teachers, less than half of new teachers described their training as “very good.” One-third felt unprepared on their first day. To fix this, we need to strengthen the disjointed systems of teacher preparation and licensure that currently exist as detailed in a recent report from the moderate think tank Third Way.

The beginning of the Common Core story—the creation and deployment of the standards—has come to a close. In Act Two, states will start using new Common Core-aligned exams for accountability purposes. But as two comprehensive polls from Gallup/PDK and Education Next show that the once strong political coalition supporting the standards is falling apart, there are few reasons to have optimism about the political future of the Common Core. For the standards to achieve success, proponents of the Common Core will need to overcome the following three political hurdles: