How Educator Preparation Programs are Navigating A Shifting Funding Landscape

May 9, 2025

By  Amaya Garcia and Dana Grayson

This blog was originally published by New America and has been reprinted here with permission.

This week teachers across the country are being recognized for their efforts and contributions to student learning. The path to becoming a teacher has expanded in recent years with states and districts embracing teacher residency and teacher apprenticeship models that provide at least 1-year of on-the-job training and mentorship as part of the preparation process. 

These innovative models of teacher preparation have historically benefitted from federal grants to help launch programs and expand their reach. But the federal government has begun to pull back on funding teacher preparation. In February, the U.S .Department of Education canceled $600 million in teacher preparation grants (and has so far succeeded in fighting off legal challenges), and President Trump’s May budget proposal eliminates the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) program that helps fund teacher residencies. With the shrinking federal investment, there is more urgency to identify and implement sustainable funding models to help preparation programs continue their work of increasing the quality of the teacher workforce. 

A recent webinar hosted by WestEd provided ideas and approaches to supporting funding sustainability in educator preparation programs (EPPs) over the short and long-term. The conversation began with an overview of three principles for EPP fiscal sustainability based on WestEd’s work with EPPs in California and across the country.

Principle 1. Understand your current funding model, including expense categories and funding sources.

Programs should first engage in cost accounting to understand their current expenses and whether each expense is funded by a one-time or recurring funding source. There are existing resources that provide examples of residency and apprenticeship programs that break down expense categories and current funding sources. Knowing what share of candidate funding is covered by each partner can help conversations about cost sharing and where to begin reallocation discussions. It can be useful to think about this process as a simple cost accounting of the ‘ingredients’ that make up both sides of the partnership’s operations.

Principle 2. Stabilize program funding with short-term tactics and alternative funding sources.

After identifying areas of opportunity in the funding model, you will find it easier to more precisely understand your areas of need and begin to map out where new sustainable funding could potentially come from. The California Teaching Commission has funding matrices available on their website that provide detailed information about federal and state funding sources that can be used to fund various expenses for EPPs, including a matrix in funding sources for programs and for candidates. When a program experiences an unexpected disruption in funding, as with the recent TQP grant terminations, program staff might also explore strategies that are targeted at short-term stabilization of funds while seeking longer term solutions. For example, an EPP may consider tapping into reserves to bridge a short funding gap, leveraging existing relationships with advocacy and community groups to collaborate on shared goals, or expanding efforts to engage state leaders to sustain grant investments.

Principle 3. Plan for long-term sustainability through embedded costs and strategic budgeting practices.

While short-term stabilization strategies may help bridge a short funding gap, a longer term sustainability plan is important for program longevity. Some programs have worked to align budget cycles and staffing plans across K–12 and higher education (e.g., leveraging the existing FTEs in a district budget for paraprofessionals or instructional assistants to serve in resident or apprentice roles). Programs can also streamline overall program operation costs through strategies such as sharing costs for program staff roles and streamlining credit requirements. EPPs can also revisit how they allocate their general funds and their federal allocations (e.g., Title I, Title II, Part A) to embed program costs within these existing funding streams. 

Insights From Program Leaders

The webinar also featured insights from five panelists who lead teacher residency and teacher apprenticeship programs in California. They shared how they are navigating the shifting funding landscape, including short-term efforts to stabilize funding and longer term sustainability planning. 

Navigating Disruptions to Federal Funding

Some of the residency programs featured in the webinar were directly impacted by the abrupt federal grant cancellations and had to quickly pivot. Reach University had three grants canceled and so had to make staffing cuts and budget reallocations. Joe Edelheit Ross, President and CEO of Reach University, stated that the cancellations had a “reverberating effect across the field of teacher preparation.”   

Speaking to some of the broader impact of funding changes, leaders of the teacher residency program at Tulare County Office of Education emphasized the role that strong partnerships played in navigating how to respond to these challenges. Some of their first calls were to the deans at their partner education preparation programs to determine how to keep the work moving forward in the face of funding uncertainty. And they also leaned on California’s Statewide Residency Technical Assistance Center (SRTAC) to find resources related to sustainability. 

Leveraging General Funds to Support Sustainable Funding

The use of general funds to support teacher residency programs in the long term was a broader theme in the conversation. In California, every school district must complete a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) that outlines their goals, planned actions, and funding allocations. A report by the SRTAC highlights how three school districts leveraged their LCAPs to secure local funding for their residency programs. For example, Victor Elementary School District set a goal of all students demonstrating growth on statewide English language arts and math assessments and took the action of implementing a residency program in collaboration with Alder Graduate School of Education to ensure future teachers were trained in evidence-based practices. 

Understanding and Communicating About “Return on Investment” to Support Cost Sharing

Alder Graduate School of Education has been leading teacher residency programs since before California invested substantial funding into state teacher preparation grants. Alder’s president and CEO, Heather Kirkpatrick, described the importance of supporting both K–12 and higher education partners in understanding the mutual benefits of participating in a high-quality preparation partnership and creating a financial model in which each partner contributes resources to the program. All school systems have to hire new teachers each year, and they have a number of choices. While the cost of hiring a residency candidate may be more expensive in the short term, residencies bring a greater return on investment in the long term, particularly in the area of teacher retention. Alder transparently shares data with their school district partners on the impact and return on investment of their residency partnerships through an annual impact report. These data help school districts see the value in embedding funding for residency programs into their annual district budgets.

Streamlining Program Operation Costs

There are also opportunities to streamline program costs to make residency programs an even more attractive option for school districts. Reach University has developed a model that brings internal costs to between $3,000 and $7,000 a year per candidate. They are able to keep costs down using five methods. First, they award credit for on-the-job learning since candidates in the program are simultaneously working while studying for their BA degree. Second, a master guided curriculum makes it easy for students to stay on track and ensures the same learning objectives are met. Third, program faculty are “job embedded” and made up of superintendents, principals, and teachers in partner school districts, which lowers salary costs. Fourth, all transfer credits are accepted and treated as electives by Reach to make the process smoother. Finally, employer-driven recruitment allows the university to minimize marketing and recruitment costs. More research is needed to understand how to ensure a balance between lowering costs and maintaining program quality. 

Taken together, the webinar provided valuable insights on how to leverage partnerships, state and local funds, data, and ways to reduce program costs in order to facilitate sustainable models for funding innovative teacher preparation programs. States are beginning to see an uptick in enrollment in teacher preparation programs after years of declines, possibly due to the expansion of affordable and accessible pathways into the profession. These positive trends are all the more reason to ensure efforts to strengthen teacher preparation are sustained.