2012 state teacher policy yearbook national summary nctq report

7/27/2019 2012 State Teacher Policy Yearbook National Summary NCTQ Report

1/144


2/144

Acknowl gm nts

STATeSState education agencies remain our most important partners in this e ort, and their continued cooperation has helpedto ensure the actual accuracy o the fnal product. Although this years edition did not require the extensive review thatthe comprehensive editions require, we still wanted to make sure that we captured all relevant policy changes and thatstates perspectives were represented. Every state ormally received a dra t o the policy updates we identifed in July 2012

or comment and correction; states also received a fnal dra t o their reports a month prior to release. All but one stateresponded to our inquiries. We thank the states or their ongoing willingness to engage in dialogue with us.

FuNderS

The primary unders or the 2012 Yearbook were:

n

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundationn

The Joyce Foundationn Carnegie Corporation o New York n The Walton Family Foundation

The National Council on Teacher Quality does not accept any direct funding from the federal government.

STAFF

Sandi Jacobs, Project Director Sarah Brody, Project Assistant Kathryn M. Doherty, Special Contributor Kelli Lakis,Lead Researcher Stephanie T. Maltz, Researcher

Thank you to the team at CPS Gumpert or their design o the 2012 Yearbook . Thanks also to Colleen Hale and Je Haleat EFA Solutions or the original Yearbook design and ongoing technical support.


3/144

NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2012 national summary

:

There is a tremendous ocus across the states these days on buildinga better teacher work orce. The National Council on Teacher Qual-itys 2011 State Teacher Policy Yearbook chronicled the great prog-ress states are making on adopting new teacher evaluation systemsthat actor student per ormance and classroom e ectiveness into

decisions about compensation, pro essional development, tenure and dismissal all in the name o teacher e ectiveness.1

One o the strange ironies o education re ormers attention to teacher e ec-tiveness, however, has been the relative lack o attention to how teacher can-didates are prepared to be e ective in the job in the rst place.

I p ving Te che P ep ti n: N ti n S2012 State Teacher Policy Yearbook

In this 2012 State Teacher Policy Yearbook ,NCTQ exp es the q esti n:Wh t e st tesd ing t ens e th t the e s ste tic

p ep ing c ss - e d new te che s?

1. For the most recent comprehensive analysis o state teacher e ectiveness policies see NCTQ, State of the States 2012: Teacher Effectiveness Policies at: http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/Updated_NCTQ_State%20o %20the%20States%202012_Teacher%20E ectiveness%20Policies.pd . See also NCTQsMaking Effectiveness Matter or the latest data on state policies that require use o teacher e ectiveness data or pro essional development, dismissal andlayo decisions at: http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/YearbookBrie _Area5.pd .


4/144

2 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2012 NaTIoNal Summary

The big t ke w this, NCTQs 2012 nn Yearbook : Whi e n st tes e invest-ing t e end s ti e nd es ces int d ing bette j b identi ing e ective te che s

nd p viding ssist nce t ine ective te che s e d in the c ss , st st tes eneg ecting pp t nities t get it ight the st t b setting ig s st nd ds ndhigh expect ti ns wh t te che s sh d kn w nd sh d be b e t d be e the e

icensed t bec e te che s.

The nations higher education teacher preparation institutions produce the lions share o thenovice teachers who are hired by school districts across the United States each year. States havea great deal o leverage or determining the quality o the standards and training experiencesthat apply to uture teachers. And while there is no question that teacher preparation programsproduce some superstar graduates talented individuals who will excel in the classroom by anystate or districts de nition o teacher e ectiveness there is much policymakers can do to helpensure that teacher preparation programs in their states are systematically preparing classroom-ready new teachers.

This e NCTQ h s p t sp t ight n the st te es nd eg ti ns g iding te che p ep-ti n nd icensing.In addition to exploring the policy landscape in each state, we map

out the speci c locus o authority in each state or approving teacher education programs,adopting standards and admission criteria or teacher preparation and setting teacher cer-

ti cation rules.Improving Teacher Preparation , NCTQs2012 State Teacher Policy Yearbook ,provides tailored, state-speci c reports and recommendations or the 50 states and theDistrict o Columbia on:

Establishing high standards or admission into teacher preparation programs; Ensuring that teacher candidates have rigorous content knowledge

o the subjects they will teach;

Providing candidates with high-quality clinical experiences;Holding teacher preparation institutions accountable or the quality o teachers they produce; and,

Setting a exible yet rigorous and supportive policy environment withinwhich qualifed candidates can enter teaching through alternate routes.


5/144


6/144


T he p p i itize the te che p ep ti n p icies in need c itic ttenti n, in e chp ic e st tes eceive g een ight te che p ep ti n p icies th t e nt ck, e w ight p icies in need i p ve ent nd ed ight te chep ep ti n p icies th t e the k when it c es t ste ing te che e ec-tiveness t the g te.

Key Findings

Overall, states are not doing enough to ensure that teachers are prepared to be e ective in the class-

room. The 50 states and the District o Columbia averaged a meager D+ on teacher preparation policiesin 2012, just slightly up rom a barely passing grade o D in 2011.

F gu b States with improved teacher preparation policy grades since 2011

WA

OR

CA

NV

ID

MT

WY

UT

AZ NMOK

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MO

AR

MS

KY

AL

VAWV

INIL

PA

DE

NJ

CTMI

ME

MA

NH

VT

MD

AK

SC

States withimproved teacher preparation policygrades since 2011

GA

OH

TN

NY

NC

CO

TX LA

FL

HI

RI

DC1


7/144


:

While the national average grade is low and the uptick in the overall policy landscapeis small, there is no question that teacher preparation is increasingly on the radar orsome state policymakers.

Fourteen states improved their grades in this area in just one year, with improvements in ahand ul o key policies. For example, in 2007 NCTQ identi ed just our states that requiredan adequate assessment o the science o reading as part o teacher licensing; in 2012, tenstates require such a test. Eleven states now speci cally measure elementary teacher candi-dates knowledge o mathematics; in prior years onlyMassachusetts had an adequate con-tent test in math. In 2007, when NCTQ started tracking state policy, no state held teacher

preparation programs accountable or the graduates they produce; in 2012, eight statesconnect student achievement data to preparation programs.

In an otherwise relatively dismal policy landscape, a ew states Alabama , Florida , Indiana and Tennessee are noteworthy in that they have earned the highest grades in the nation

or their e orts to shape the quality o teacher preparation and licensing. Each o thesestates earned a B- in 2012 or having the most consistent across the board state policye orts on teacher preparation, rom setting admission standards and holding teacher prepa-ration institutions accountable or results to providing teaching candidates with supportand ensuring that new teachers can demonstrate that they have the content knowledgethey need to lead a classroom.

Among the 14 states with improved teacher preparation grades, a ewstates have made considerable progress in just the last year. In addition toAlabama, which raised its grade rom a C in 2011 to a B- in 2012, Connecticut ,Kentucky , New Hampshire , Rhode Island and Vermont improved their grades a ter adopting several new promising teacher preparation require-ments. Among other things, each o these states now requires that allelementary teachers, as a condition o licensure, pass the Praxis II Elementary Education:Multiple Subjects test, which reports separate subscores in each subject area, helping toensure that teachers have adequate knowledge in each speci c subject area they will teach.

14 statesimproved teacherpreparation grades.


8/144


Across the 50 states and the District o Columbia, however,state standards or preparing new teachers are still simply too low:

h t st t s (24) qu t t s c s s t sts us d s sc n ng m c n sm t c t n g ms. S c ng , t st t st t s qu t s

m dd sc v ss ssm nts u n c m t n t c t n g m qu n ss ssm nt t .

T t sts us d dm ss n t t c t n g ms m st st t s n nt w d. F x m , t t sts us d v st t xc tTexas

n m d n t t s ct v t c u t n t t n t t g nc g - und u t n. T s s ts w x ct t n stud nts nt ng t c

t n g ms t n t stud nts t c g s nd un v s t s.

T c ng c d n t d s n n m nt t c s m st m t nts ns t s, t n 10 st t s t m su n w t c s n w dg ct v d ng nst uct n. N m nt t c s w d n

m t m t cs: on 11 st t s d qu t t st n w m nt t c s n w dg t su j ct.

T c ns ng m nt t c s s s t w. ev st t xc tMassachusetts ( w c NCTQ s d t ) s ts t ss ng sc m ntt c c ns ng t sts w t v g sc t st t s (50t c nt ),

nd m st st t s s t ss ng t s t n xc d ng w v g n t 16t

c nt w ss nt ng ss t t c , t st w t g dc nt nt n w dg . M ss c us tts s t n st t n t n t n t c v g n

g t s cts ts m nt v t c t n ts.

F u t n st t s st g n st k-8 c ns nd fv m t und s mc cumst nc s. T s m ns t t nd v du s w t t s c ns u c t f d t tg d s 7 nd 8, t ug t t n s d nt c t t t t c c t f d tt c g d s 1 nd 2.

Just t st t s Indiana , Minnesota ndTennessee qu , w t ut ns gn fc nt s, t t s c nd t c s ss c nt nt t st n v su j ct

t w nt t c ns d t t c . Un tun t , m n t s s nt c t c s s c nd sc nc .


9/144


:

M st st t s s t n xc d ng w s c duc t n t c s. a u 35 st t sw s c duc t n t c s t n g n c c ns t t c s c duc t

stud nts n n g d , k-12.

W 28 st t s qu t c ng c nd d t s t v 10-w summ t v ct c -t c ng x nc , just t Florida , Indiana ndTennessee s qut t t c t ng t c ss gn d t m nt nd su t t c nd d t s

ms s v n ct v t c .

V w st t s ut n x ct t ns n t c t n g ms g d ng t

qu t nd ct v n ss t t c s t s g ms d v . on g t st t sColorado , Florida , Georgia , Louisiana , North Carolina , Ohio , Tennessee ndTexas v c t t nc ud s t us stud nt c v m nt d t t d t c

t n g ms cc unt t ct v n ss t t c st g du t .


10/144


1. Raise admission standards.

r qu t c c nd d t s t ss t st c d m c ct t ss ss s d ng, w t ng nd m t m t cs s s s c

dm ss n nt t c t n g ms.

r qu t n g ms t us c mm n t st n m d tt g n c g - und u t n.

2. Align teacher preparation withCommon Core State Standards.

ensu t t c u s w nd su j ct-m tt t st ng m nt c c nd d t s w gn d w t st nd ds.

ensu t t t c t n g ms m ntt c ng c nd d t s n t sc nc d ng nst uct n nd

qu g us ss ssm nt d ng nst uct n. r qu t c t n g ms t v d m t m

c nt nt s c c g d t t n ds m nt t c

3. Improve clinical preparation. ensu t t c t ng t c s v d m nst t d v d nc

ct v n ss s m su d stud nt n ng. r qu summ t v c n c x nc s ct v

t t nc ud s t st 10 w s u -t m stud nt t c ng.

4.Raise licensing standards.

e m n t k-8 g n st c ns s. requi e subject-m tte testing fo middle school te che c ndid tes. r qu su j ct-m tt t st ng s c nd t c c nd d

requi e middle school nd second y science nd soci l studieste che s to ss test of content knowledge th t ensu es sufficientknowledge of the subjects t ught.

5. Dont lower the bar orspecial education teachers.

D w w t k-12 s c duc t n t c c ns s. r qu s c duc t n t c s t ss su j ct-m tt t

c nsu t t s n ss g us t n w t s qu dg n duc t n c nd d t s.

6. Hold teacher preparationprograms accountable.

C ct d t t t c nn ct stud nt c v m nt g ns tt c t n g ms.

G t t m n ng u d t t t ct g m est s t m n mum st nd d m nc c

c t g d t .

p duc nd u s n nnu t c d c t ct n g m.

Teacher Preparation Policy Checklist or States


11/144


:

Critical Issues or State Teacher Preparation Policy

Critical Attention: admission into Te che p e tion p og ms States must ensure that teacher preparation programs admitcandidates with strong academic records.

The demands o K-12 classrooms today require teachers with strong academic back-grounds who can positively a ect student learning. To ensure that such strong can-didates enter classrooms, it is important to set rigorous standards or entry into theteacher pipeline. This begins with becoming more selective about teacher preparationprogram admissions.

Looking to international examples, such top-per orming countries as Finland andSouth Korea admit prospective teacher candidates rom the top 10 percent o thecollege-going population. While a bar that high is a long way rom average standardsin the United States, it seems reasonable and appropriate that states should:

r qu t t t c t n g ms sc n c nd d t s c d m c fc nc t dm ss n by demanding that candidates pass

a test o academic pro ciency that assesses reading, mathematics and writingprior to program admission. Importantly, candidates should be permitted tosubmit comparable scores on such rigorous tests as the SAT/ACT/GRE.

r qu t t g ms us c mm n dm ss ns t st n m d t t g n c g - undu t n to ensure that candidates are academically competitive with all peers, regardless o their

intended pro ession, and select applicants in the top hal o their class.

C ns d qu ng c nd d t s t ss su j ct-m tt t sts s c nd t n dm ss n nt c g ms.In addition to ensuring that programs require a measure o academic per ormance

or admission, states should consider requiring content testing prior to program admission as opposedto at the point o program completion. To ul ll this requirement, it would be sensible to havecandidates take content tests while the knowledge is still resh rather than wait two years. An addedbene t would be that candidates lacking su cient expertise would be able to remedy de cits prior to

entering ormal preparation.

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, ArkansaCali ornia, Colorado, Connecticut,Delaware, District o Columbia,Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts, Michigan, MinnesoMississippi, Missouri, Montana,

Nebraska, Nevada, New HampshireNew Jersey, New Mexico, New YorNorth Carolina, North Dakota, OhiOklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,Vermont, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Illinois

Texas

49

1

1


12/144


1. Cali ornia does not o er certi cation at the undergraduate level.

2. Wyoming only has one institution with programs approved or initial certi cation o teachers.

Are states undergraduateteacher preparation programs in the Review sufficiently selective?

Percentage of programs in theReview

not sufficientlyselective

Alabama 64%Alaska 100%Arizona 82%

Arkansas 76%California 1 N/AColorado 76%Connecticut 100%Delaware 57%District of Columbia 75%Florida 77%Georgia 86%Hawaii 71%Idaho 78%Illinois 67%Indiana 71%Iowa

75%Kansas 84%Kentucky 83%Louisiana 92%Maine 94%Maryland 42%Massachusetts 53%Michigan 64%Minnesota 55%Mississippi 94%Missouri 66%Montana 75%Nebraska 76%Nevada 100%New Hampshire 75%New Jersey 80%New Mexico 100%New York 53%North Carolina 76%North Dakota 100%Ohio 72%Oklahoma 77%Oregon 75%Pennsylvania 22%Rhode Island 80%

South Carolina 74%South Dakota 89%Tennessee 88%Texas 59%Utah 50%Vermont 50%Virginia 96%Washington 25%West Virginia 100%Wisconsin 67%Wyoming 2 N/A

F gu C

Across the country, educators are callingto raise the bar or entry into the teachingpro ession. The frst step is to make admissionsrequirements into teacher preparationprograms more rigorous.

For the upcoming Teacher Prep Review , NCTQanalyzed the selectivity o teacher preparationprograms. Our initial fndings indicate that or a sizeable share o undergraduate programs,requirements or admission to the programitsel or to the institution in which it is housedhelp ensure its candidates are in the top hal o the college-going population. Out o the1,730 undergraduate programs reviewed,556 ully met this standard. And 191 o theseprograms earned this rating by going aboveand beyond the overall selectivity o their

institutions. However, the U.S. still has a longway to go: only 24 percent o the programswe reviewed (undergraduate and graduate)

ully met this standard.

SNEAK PEEK: Teacher Prep Review

T Review w s d n S ng 2013.F nd ut m t www.nctq. g/ / dsc s.


13/144


:

T E S T N O R M E D T O

C O L L E G E -

B O U N D P O P U L A T I O

N P R I O R T O

A D M I S S I O N T O

P R E P P R

O G R A M

T e s t n o r m e d o n l y t o t e a c h e r

c a n d i d a

t e s b e f o r e a d m i s s i o n

t o p r e p p r o g r a m

T e s t n o r m e d o n l y t o t e a c h e r

c a n d i d a t e s d u r i n g

o r a f t e r

c o m p l e t i o n o f p

r e p p r o g r a m

N o t e s t r e q u i r e d

Do states appropriately test teacher candidates'academic proficiency?

1 23 18 9

1

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndiana

IowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska

NevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth Carolina

South DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

F gu D

1. New Hampshire is in the process o adopting a requirement thatwill make the test a condition o admission.


14/144


Critical Attention: e m nt T c p t n

States must do more to ensure that new elementaryteachers are ready to teach to the Common CoreState Standards.

The Common Core State Standards, adopted by nearly all states, represent ane ort to signi cantly raise expectations or the knowledge and skills Americanstudents will need or college readiness and global competitiveness. States mustensure that its teachers are prepared to teach to these high standards.

Although a standards-based approach grants greater fexibility to teacher prepa-ration programs regarding program design, it is di cult to monitor or en orceabsent a rigorous test. Further, alignment o preparation program instruction withstudent learning standards should be augmented with a broader and deeper con-tent perspective than what will actually be taught in the elementary classroom.To this end, all states should:

r qu m nt t c c nd d t s t ss su j ct-m tt t std s gn d t nsu su fc nt c nt nt n w dg su j cts.Statesshould require separate, meaning ul passing scores or each area on the testbecause use o a composite passing score o ers no assurance o adequateknowledge in each subject area.

r qu t c t n g ms t v d m t m t cs c nt nt s c fc g d tn ds m nt t c s nd qu c nd d t s t ss g us m t ss ssm nt.This includes speci c coursework in oundations, algebra and geometry, with some statistics. Inaddition, states should require a rigorous assessment that reports a separate score or and evaluatesmathematics knowledge beyond an elementary school level and challenges candidates understandingo underlying mathematics concepts.

r qu t c c nd d t s t ss g us ss ssm nt n t sc nc d ng nst uctThe assessment should clearly test knowledge and skills related to the science o reading, and i it iscombined with an assessment that also tests general pedagogy or elementary content, it should reporta score or the science o reading speci cally.

ensu t t t c t n g ms d v c m ns v g m stud n ts c u s w .An adequate curriculum is likely to require approximately 36 credit hours in the core

subject areas o English, science, social studies and ne arts.

44

1

6

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,Delaware, District o Columbia,Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,New Jersey, New Mexico,New York, North Carolina,North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,Wisconsin, Wyoming

Alabama, Cali ornia, Connecticut,Indiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire

Massachusetts


15/144


16/144


N 3

2yeS1 in d qu t

T st2

1. Strong Practice:Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts,Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont

2. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Cali ornia, Colorado, Delaware, Districto Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada,New Mexico, New York 4, North Carolina5, North Dakota, Ohio,Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,Wyoming

3. Montana, Nebraska

4. New York is in the process o developing a stand-alone math test.

5. North Carolina has adopted a task orce recommendation to requirethe Massachusetts Test o General Curriculum, including the mathsubtest. Rules have yet to be promulgated, including whether the testwill be required or initial licensure. Current rules require such tests or pro essional licensure only.

11

38

Do states measure new elementary teachers knowledge of math?

F gu F

1. Testing is not required or initial licensure.

2. The required test is a questionable assessment o content knowledge, instead emphasizing methods andinstructional strategies.

3. Massachusetts requires a general curriculum test thatdoes not report scores or each elementary subject.A separate score is reported or math (see Figure 4).

4. North Carolina has adopted a task orcerecommendation to require the Massachusetts Test o General Curriculum. Rules have yet to be promulgated,including whether the test will be required or initiallicensure. Current rules require such tests or pro essionallicensure only.

5. Oregon allows alternative assessment or candidateswho ail twice.

Do states ensure that elementary teachersknow core content?

E L E M E N T A R Y C O N T E N T

T E S T W I T H

S E P A R A T E P A S S I N G

S C O R E F O R E A C H S U B J E C T

E l e m e n t a r y c o n t e n t t

e s t w i t h

s e p a r a t e

p a s s i n

g s c o r e f o r

s o m e s u b j e

c t s

E l e m e n t a r y c o n t e n t t

e s t w i t h

c o m p o s i t e s c o r e

N o t e s t r e q u i r e d

9 9 29 4

1

2

2

2

3

5

4



NevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

F gu G


17/144

FINEARTS

A r t H i s t

o r y

M u s i c

SCIENCE

C h e m i s t r

y

P h y s i c s

G e n e r a l P h y s i c a l S

c i e n c e

E a r t h S c i e n

c e

B i o l o g

y / L i f e S c i e n

c e

SOCIAL STUDIES

A m e r i c a n H i s t

o r y I

A m e r i c a n H i s t

o r y I I

A m e r i c a n G

o v e r n m e n t

W o r l d H i s t

o r y ( A n c i e n t )

W o r l d H i s t

o r y ( M

o d e r n )

W o r l d H i s t

o r y

( N o n - W e s t e r n )

G e o g r a p h y

ENGLISH

A m e r i c a n L i t e r a t u r e

W o r l d / B r i t i s h L i t

e r a t u r

e

W r i t i n g / G r a m m a r /

C o m p o s i t i o

n

C h i l d r e n ' s L i t e r a t u r e

Do states expect elementary teachersto have in-depthknowledge of core content?

Subject mentioned Subject covered in depth

F gu h

AlabamaAlaska

ArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode Island

South CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming


18/144


Massachusetts

AlabamaAlaska

ArkansasIdahoIowa

MarylandNew Jersey

OhioSouth Dakota

TennesseeVirginia

West Virginia

ColoradoConnecticut

DelawareDistrict of Columbia

HawaiiIndianaKansas

KentuckyLouisiana

MaineMississippi

MissouriNew HampshireNorth DakotaRhode Island

South CarolinaTexasUtah

VermontWisconsinWyoming

Oklahoma Pennsylvania

1 Based on the most recent technical data that could be obtained; data not available or Arizona, Cali ornia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington. Montana and Nebraska do not require a content test. Colorado score is or Praxis II, not PLACE.Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont now require the Multiple Subjects test and Maryland,Nevada and South Carolina now require the Instructional Practice and Applications test. Both are new Praxis tests or which technical data are not yet available;analysis is based on previously required test.

F gu i

Where do states set the passing score on elementary content licensure tests1

?

St te setsp ssing sc e

t the e n( v g sc

t st t s)

St te sets sc e webe w e n

( n st nd d d v t n~16t c nt )

St te sets sc e be w e n

(tw st nd d d v t ns~2nd c nt )

50th Pe centi e


19/144


:

Critical Attention: M dd Sc T c p t n

States must ensure that new middle school teachers willbe prepared to teach appropriate grade-level content.

The middle school years are critical to students education, yet thepreparation and licensure requirements or middle school teach-ers o ten do not ensure that they are su ciently prepared to teachgrade-level content.

Too many states ail to distinguish the knowledge and skills neededby middle school teachers rom those needed by elementary teach-ers. Whether teaching a single subject in a departmentalized settingor teaching multiple subjects in a sel -contained classroom, middleschool teachers must be able to teach signi cantly more advancedcontent than what elementary teachers are expected to teach. Thismeans that states need to:

e m n t t g n st c ns .Teachers with a K-8 license areless likely to be adequately prepared to teach core academicareas at the middle school level because their preparationrequirements are not speci c to the middle or secondary levels, which is di erent and more advancedthan the elementary level.

r qu c nt nt t st ng n c s.As a condition o initial licensure, all candidates teachingmiddle grades should have to pass a subject-matter test in every core academic area they are certi edto teach.

enc u g m dd sc t c s c ns d t t c mu t su j cts t n tw su j ct-m ttm n s.This would allow candidates to gain su cient knowledge to pass state licensing tests and behighly quali ed in both subjects, and it would increase schools sta ng fexibility.

25

23

Alaska, Arizona, Cali ornia, Idaho,Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan,Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska,Nevada, New Hampshire,New Mexico, North Carolina,North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Maryland, Massachusetts, New York

Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey,Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia,West Virginia

3


20/144


1. Cali ornia o ers a K-12 generalist licenseor sel -contained classrooms.

2. Illinois has repealed its K-9 license and is inthe process o revising middle school cer ti -cation requirements.

3. With the exception o mathematics.

4. Oregon o ers 3-8 license.

5. Wisconsin o ers 1-8 license.

K - 8 L I C E N S E

N O T O F F E R E D

K - 8 l i c

e n s e

o f f

e r e d

f o r

s e l f -

c o n t a i n e d

c l a s s r o o m s

K - 8 l i c

e n s e

o f f

e r e d

Do states distinguish middle grade preparation fromelementary preparation?

32 5 14

3

4

5

1

2

F gu J



NevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming


21/144


:

Do middle school teachers have to pass an appropriatecontent test in every core subject they are licensed to teach? Y E S N

o , t e s t d o

e s n o t

r e p o r t s u b s

c o r e s f o r

a l l c o r e s u b j

e c t s

N o , K - 8 l i c

e n s e r e q u i r e

s

o n l y

e l e m e n t a r y t e s t

N o , t e s t i n

g o f a l l

s u b j

e c t s

n o t r

e q u i r e d

25 4 15 7

1

2

4

5

6

7

3





1. Candidates teaching multiple subjects only haveto pass the elementary test.

2. For K-8 license, Idaho also requires a single-subject test.

3. Illinois has repealed its K-9 license. The stateis in the process o revising its middle schoolcerti cation requirements.

4. It is unclear how new legislation will a ecttesting requirements or middle schoolcandidates.

5. Maryland allows elementary teachers to teachin departmentalized middle schools i not lessthan 50 percent o the teaching assignment iswithin the elementary education grades.

6. For nondepartmentalized classrooms, generalistin middle childhood education candidates mustpass new assessment with three subtests.

7. Candidates opting or middle-level endorsementmay either complete a major or pass a contenttest. Oregon allows alternative assessment or candidates who ail twice.

F gu k


22/144


Critical Attention: S c nd T c p t n

States must ensure that new secondary teachers will beprepared to teach appropriate grade-level content.

Secondary teachers must be experts in the subject matter they teach, and onlya rigorous test ensures that teacher candidates are su fciently and appropriatelyknowledgeable in their content area. Coursework is generally only indicative o abackground in a subject area; even a major o ers no certainty o what content hasbeen covered.

Yet not all states ensure that secondary teachers have su fcient content knowledgein the subject areas they are licensed to teach. And nearly all stateseven thosethat do generally require content testing or secondary teachersallow some sci -ence and/or social studies teachers to teach with broad licenses that have signif-cant loopholes.

Most high school science courses are specialized, and the teachers o these subjects are not interchangeable. Nonetheless, most states allow teachers to obtaingeneral science or combination licenses across multiple science disciplines, and, inmost cases, these teachers need only pass a general knowledge science exam thatdoes not ensure subject-specifc content knowledge. This means that a teacher witha background in biology could be ully certifed to teach advanced chemistry or physics having passed only a general science testand perhaps answering most o the chemistry or physicsquestions incorrectly.

Just as with broad feld science, most states o er a general social studies license at the secondary level. For this certifcation, teachers can have a background in a wide variety o felds, ranging rom history and politicalscience to anthropology and psychology. Under such a license a teacher who majored in psychology couldteach history to high school students having passed only a general knowledge test and answering mostandperhaps allhistory questions incorrectly.

Secondary teachers must be experts in the subject matter they teach; there ore, states should:

r qu su j ct-m tt t st ng s c nd t c c nd d t s.As a condition o licensure, statesshould require secondary teacher candidates to pass a content test in each subject area they planto teach to ensure that they possess adequate subject-matter knowledge and are prepared to teachgrade-level content.

r qu s c nd sc nc nd s c stud s t c s t ss c nt nt t st c d sc nt c ns d t t c .Although coursework plays a key role in teachers acquisition o contentknowledge, it is more important that states require an assessment, which is the only way to ensurethat teachers possess adequate knowledge o the subject area.

Alaska, Arizona, Cali ornia, Colorado,Iowa, Montana, Nebraska,New Hampshire, North Carolina,Oregon, Washington, Wyoming

Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut,Delaware, District o Columbia,Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,

Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,New York, North Dakota, Ohio,Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, South Carolina,South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin

Indiana, Minnesota, Tennessee

12

3

36


23/144


:

1. It is unclear at this point how new legislation will a ect contenttest requirements or secondary teachers.

Y E S

N o

Do all secondary teachers have to pass a content test in every subject area they are licensed to teach?

3

L o o p h o l e

i n s

c i e n c e

28

L o o p h o l e

i n s o c i a l

s t u d i

e s

34 12


Iowa1

KansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska



F gu l


24/144


Critical Attention: S c educ t n T c p t n

States must ensure that new special educationteachers will know the subject matter they will berequired to teach.

Across the country, states are raising per ormance expectations to ensure thatstudents who graduate rom high school are college and career ready. These morerigorous standards apply to special education students just as they do to other students.

The challenge o ensuring that teachers are prepared to teach to the new CommonCore State Standards is even more pronounced or special education teachers, whotypically have had to meet an even lower bar or content preparation than generaleducators. And certifcation rules or special education teachers that do not di er-entiate between teaching at the elementary and secondary levels only exacerbatethe problem.

Allowing a generic K-12 special education certifcation makes it virtually impos-sible and certainly impractical or states to ensure that these teachers know all thesubject matter the y are expected to teach; this issue is just as valid in terms o pedagogical knowledge. And while a K-12 special education license may be appro-priate or low-incidence special education students, such as those with severecognitive disabilities, it is deeply problematic or the overwhelming majority o high-incidence specialeducation students who are expected to learn grade-level content.

To protect some o their most vulnerable students, states need to:

e m n t c ns s s c duc t n t t d n t d nt t tw n t t nm nt t c s nd t t s c nd t c s.States should limit high-incidence special

education certi cations to elementary or secondary grades.

p v d d ts g m stud t m nt s c duc t n c nd d t s qu t t t ss g us c nt nt t st s c nd t n c nsu .States should ensure

that special education teacher candidates who will teach elementary grades possess knowledge o the subject matter at hand.

ensu t t s c nd s c duc t n t c s ss ss d qu t c nt ntn w dg .Secondary special education teachers are requently generalists who teach manycore subject areas. While it may be unreasonable to expect secondary special education teachersto meet the same requirements or each subject they teach as other teachers who teach onlyone subject, there needs to be a middle ground that allows or a combination o testing andcoursework to demonstrate requisite content knowledge in the classroom.

Alaska, Arizona, Cali ornia, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, New Hampshire,New Mexico, Nevada,North Carolina, North Dakota,Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,Virginia, Washington, Wyoming

Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana,Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,New Jersey,New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont,West Virginia, Wisconsin

35

0

16


25/144


:

D O E S

N O T O F F E R

A

K - 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N

O f f e

r s K - 1 2

a n d g r a d e - s p e c i f i

c

c e r t i f i c

a t i o n ( s )

O f f e

r s o n l y

a K - 1 2

c e r t i f i c

a t i o n

Do states distinguishbetween elementary and secondary specialeducation teachers?

16 10 25

1

1





F gu M

1. Although the state does issue a K-12 certi cate, candidates mustmeet discrete elementary and/or secondary requirements.


26/144


E e ent S bject-m tte Test

Required or an elementaryspecial education license

a m, a ns s, i w , k ns s, l u s n ,M ss c us tts, M ss ss , N w J s ,N w y , o g n1, p nns v n2, r d is nd,T x s, W st V g n3, W sc ns n

Required or a K-12special education license C d , id

Sec nd S bject-m tte Test(s)

Tests in all core subjectsrequired or secondaryspecial education license

N n

Test in at least one subjectrequired or secondary specialeducation license

a ns s, k ns s, l u s n , N w J s ,N w y 4, o g n1, p nns v n2,r d is nd, W st V g n3

Required or a K-12

special education licenseN n

1. Although Oregon requires testing, the state allows an alternative assessment optionor candidates who ail twice.

2. In Pennsylvania, a candidate who opts or dual certi cation in elementary or secondaryspecial education and as a reading specialist does not have to take a content test.

3. West Virginia also allows elementary special education candidates to earn dualcerti cation in early childhood, which would not require a content test.Secondaryspecial education candidates earning dual certifcation as a reading specialist are similarlyexempted rom the content test.

4. New York requires a multi-subject content test specifcally geared to secondary specialeducation candidates. It is divided into three subtests.

Which states require subject-matter testing for special education teachers?F gu N


27/144


:

Critical Attention: Stud nt T c ng

States must ensure that teacher preparation programs willprovide teacher candidates with a high-quality summativeclinical experience.

The importance o high-quality practice teaching in teacher preparation cannotbe underestimated. Student teaching is the nal clinical experience o teacher preparation, and teacher candidates have only one chance to experience the bestpossible placement. Student teaching will shape candidates own per ormance asteachers and help determine the type o school in which they will choose to teach.A mediocre student teaching experience, let alone a disastrous one, can never

be undone.States should require student teaching to be a ull-time commitment, as requir-ing coursework and student teaching simultaneously does a disservice to both. Inaddition, states need to attend to the quality o the classroom teacher who servesas the teacher candidates mentor, or cooperating teacher. Only strong teacherswith evidence o their e ectiveness, as assessed by objective measures o stu-dent learning and the teachers principals, should be able to serve as cooperatingteachers. Yet today, placement is much more likely to be the luck o the draw.NCTQs recent study Student Teaching in the United States ound that three out o

our teacher preparation programs ail to require cooperating teachers to be e ec-tive instructors.

ensu t t c t ng t c s v d m nst t d v d nc ct v n ss s m su d stud nt n ng.In addition to the ability to mentor an adult, cooperating teachers should also becare ully screened or their capacity to urther student achievement. Research indicates that theonly aspect o a student teaching arrangement that has been shown to have an impact on studentachievement is the positive e ect o selection o the cooperating teacher by the preparation program,rather than by the student teacher or school district sta .

r qu t c c nd d t s t s nd t st 10 w s stud nt t c ng.States should require asummative clinical experience or all prospective teachers. Alignment with a school calendar or atleast 10 weeks ensures both adequate classroom experience and exposure to a variety o ancillarypro essional activities.

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,Arkansas, Cali ornia, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, South Carolina,South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,Wisconsin, Wyoming

Florida, Indiana, Tennessee

48

3

0


28/144


1. Based on new REPA II regulations.

2. Candidates can student teach or less than 12 weeks i determinedto be pro cient.

C O O P E R A T I N G T E A C H E R

S E L E C T E D B A S E D O N

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

F U L L T I M

E S T U D E N T

T E A C H I N G

L A S T S A T

L E A S T 1

0 W E E K S

Do states requirethe elements of a high-quality student teaching experience?

283

2

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndiana 1




F gu o


29/144


:

Critical Attention: Te che p e tion p og m account bility

States must hold teacher preparation programsaccountable or the e ectiveness o the teachersthey produce.

Teacher preparation programs operate by virtue o state approval. As such, it is upto states to connect that approval to accountability measures ensuring that allapproved programs meet minimum per ormance standards. Such an accountabil-ity system in orms the publicincluding prospective teachers seeking a programas well as districts hiring graduatesby shining a light on high per ormers as wellas identi ying those programs per orming poorly.

As more states begin to raise expectations or teachers by way o evaluationsocused on e ectiveness, there is an even greater need to hold teacher preparation

programs accountable or the e ectiveness o the teachers they produce. Althoughthe quality o both the subject-matter preparation and pro essional sequence iscrucial, there are also additional measures that can provide the state and the publicwith meaning ul, readily understandable indicators o how well programs are doingwhen it comes to preparing teachers to be success ul in the classroom.

To achieve this goal, states must:

C ct d t t t c nn ct stud nt c v m nt g ns t t c t n g ms.States shouldconsider the academic achievement gains o students taught by programs graduates, averaged over

the rst three years o teaching, as a way to measure whether programs are producing e ectiveclassroom teachers. Data that are aggregated to the institution (e.g., combining elementary andsecondary programs) rather than disaggregated to the speci c preparation program are not use ul or accountability purposes as this can mask signi cant di erences in per ormance among programs.

C ct t m n ng u , g m- v d t t t ct g m m nc .Although measureso student growth are an important indicator o program e ectiveness, they cannot be the solemeasure o program quality or several reasons, including the act that many programs may havegraduates whose students do not take standardized tests. The accountability system must there oreinclude other objective measures that show how well programs are preparing teachers or theclassroom, or example: evaluation results rom the rst and/or second year o teaching; satis action

ratings by school principals and teacher supervisors o programs student teachers, using a standardizedorm to permit program comparison; average raw scores o teacher candidates on licensing tests,including academic pro ciency, subject matter and pro essional knowledge tests; number o times, onaverage, it takes teacher candidates to pass licensing tests; and ve-year retention rates o graduates inthe teaching pro ession.

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Cali ornia,Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah,Vermont, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Alabama, Colorado, Georgia,Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada,North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island,South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas

Florida, Louisiana

37

2

12


30/144


yeS1 in r c t tT n, utn t n c2

N 3

1. Strong Practice: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas

2. Delaware, District o Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts,New York, Rhode Island

3. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Cali ornia, Connecticut, Idaho,Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

8 7

36

Do states use student achievement data to hold

teacher preparation programs accountable?

F gu p est s m n mum st nd ds m nc .The next and perhaps more critical step is

or the state to establish precise minimumstandards or teacher preparation programper ormance or each category o data.Programs should then be held accountable or meeting these standards, and there should beconsequences or ailing to do so, including losso program approval.

pu s n nnu t c d n t st t sw s t .States should produce an annual reportcard that shows all the data the state collects onindividual teacher preparation programs, which

should be published on the states websiteat the program level or the sake o publictransparency. Data should be presented in amanner that clearly conveys whether programshave met per ormance standards.

M nt n u ut t v t c t n g m v .While it is not

unreasonable that states may want teacher preparation programs to obtain nationalaccreditation, states should not cede their

authority to consider the evidence o programper ormance and make the decision aboutwhether programs should continue to beauthorized to prepare teachers.


31/144


:

1. Traditional preparation only.

2. Reported institutional data do not distinguish between candidates in thetraditional and alternate route programs.

3. Required, but not yet available.

4. Alternate routes only.

5. Based on new REPA II regulations.

6. New Hampshire is in the process o adopting new reporting requirements.

Do states hold teacher preparation programsaccountable?

O B J E C T I V E P R O G R A M -

S P E C I F I C D A T A

C O L L E C T E D

M I N I M U M

S T A N D A R D S F O R

P E R F O R M A N C E S E T

D A T A P U B L I C L Y

A V A I L A B L E O N W E B S I T E

33 5 15

1 2

2

2

1

1

1

4

4

1

4

2

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColorado 3

ConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndiana 5

IowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaine 1

MarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska

Nevada1

New Hampshire 6

New Jersey 1

New MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhio 1

OklahomaOregonPennsylvania 1

Rhode Island 1

South Carolina 1

South DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginia 1

WashingtonWest Virginia 1

WisconsinWyoming

F gu Q


32/144


States have long established requirements or teacher preparation and licensure and have latelyturned their attention toward accountability sys-

tems or preparation programs. But one topicthat has received little attention rom states isthe issue o teacher production. From the num-ber o teachers who graduate rom preparationprograms each year, only a subset are certi edand only some o those certi ed are actuallyhired in the state; the relationship between thesenumbers has important implications or relatedpolicymaking.

States are rightly ocused on areas o chronicteacher shortages, such as secondary mathemat-ics and science, but little consideration is given

to areas o consistent oversupply, particularlythe overproduction in most states o elementaryteachers. While it is certainly desirable to pro-duce a big enough pool to give districts choice inhiring, the substantial oversupply in some teach-ing areas is not good or the pro ession. Limitedresources are squandered on individuals who willnot go on to teach, most critically the scarce sup-ply o student teaching placements with e ec-tive cooperating teachers. Admissions criteria,licensure requirements and program account-ability standards may be unnecessarily depressed

i the dots are not connected rom graduation tocerti cation to actual employment in a district.

Marylands Teacher Sta ng Report provides amodel or other states. Published biennially, thereport has been tracking sta ng trends in thestate or almost three decades. While its primarypurpose is to determine teacher shortage areas,it also identi es areas o surplus. By collectinghiring data rom districts, Maryland has a rich seto data that can in orm policy decisions.

The latest edition o the Teacher Sta ngReport can be ound at: http://www.maryland-publicschools.org/MSDE/divisions/certi cation/progapproval/mtsr.

Teacher ProductionDo states track teacher production?

N o r e l a t

e d d a t a

p u b l i

s h e d

S o m e d a t a p u b l i s h e d , b u t

n o t c

o n n e c t e d t o d i s t r i c t h i r i n g

5 42

S O M E T E A

C H E R P R

O D U

C T I O N

D A T A P U B L I S H E D

4

1

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska



F gu r


33/144


:

There are some areas o state teacher preparation policy where a small adjustment would resultin signi cantly stronger policy. Each statesImproving Teacher Preparation report is customizedto identi y speci c issues that represent low-hanging ruit policies that can be addressed inrelatively short order. Examples include:

As a rst step toward using an assessment or admission to a teacher preparation

program that compares candidates to the general college-going population, statesshould allow teacher candidates to submit ACT/SAT/GRE scores that demonstrateacademic profciency.Recommendation for Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada,New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont,Washington, Wisconsin

To ensure that teacher candidates have strong reading, mathematics and writing skills,states should close loopholes that allow candidates with a defcient score in onearea o the states basic skills test to pass based on a composite score.

Recommendation for California, District of Columbia, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire,New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia.

To ensure adequate subject-area knowledge, states shouldrequire secondary teacherswho obtain certifcation in general science and/or general social studies to passindividual content tests (or a composite test that reports individual subscores) or eachdiscipline they will be licensed to teach.Recommendation for Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia, Wisconsin

Special education students, like all students, are expected to meet the Common CoreState Standards; there ore, states shouldrequire all elementary special educationteacher candidates to pass the same content test as general elementaryeducation candidates .Recommendation for Alaska, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wyoming


34/144


The policies discussed in the Critical Attention and Low-Hanging Fruit sections o this report primarilyocus on traditional teacher preparation programs because such programs presently train the vast majority o

new teachers. O course, there are some teachers that attain licensure outside o these traditional programs.Alternate routes to certi cation were developed based on the idea that there should be pathways into theteaching pro ession or nontraditional candidates who are able to demonstrate strong subject-area knowl-edge and an above-average academic background.

Un ortunately, most states have considerable work to do to make their alternate routes viable pathways intothe teaching pro ession. Considerable variation remains in both the quality o states routes and how much o an alternative to traditional preparation such routes actually provide.

A high-quality, genuinely alternative licensure pathway should be rigorous yet fexible in admissions, ocused

and deliberate in preparation, and open to broad usage across subjects and grades.State policy or alternate routes to teacher licensure should ensure that:

Strong academic per ormance and subject-matter-knowledge testing are prerequisitesor program admission.

Subject-area majors are not required or candidates have the option to test out o any subject-area coursework requirements.

Coursework is streamlined and not overly burdensome, and it meets the immediateneeds o new teachers.

Program length is reasonable (no more than two years). Practice teaching and/or

intensive mentoring is required. Limits are not placed on the subjects and/or grades an alternate route teacher can teach, and alternateroute providers are not restricted to colleges and universities. Districts and nonpro tsshould be permitted to o er programs as well.

Using these criteria, there are just six states Arkansas , Connecticut , Florida , Maryland , New Jersey andRhode Island that o er what can be called genuine alternate routes into the teaching pro ession.

Alternate Routes to Certi cation


35/144


:

Do states provide realalternate pathways tocertification?

O f f e

r e d r o u t e i s d i s i n g e n u

o u s

A l t e r n a t e r o u t e t h

a t n e e d s

s i g n i f i c

a n t i m p r o v e m e n t s

26 19

G E N U I N E O

R N E A R L Y

G E N U I N E A L T E R N A T E R

O U T E

6





F gu S


36/144


What are the characteristicsof states alternate routes?

P R E R E Q U I S I T E O F S T R O N G

A C A D E M I C P E R F O R M A N C E

V E R I F I C A T I O N O F S U B J E

C T -

M A T T E R

K N O W L E D G E

A V A I L A B I L I T Y

O F T E S T

O U T O P T I O N S

S T R E A M L I N E D

C O U R S E W O R K

R E L E V A N T

C O U R S E W O R K

R E A S O N A B L E

P R O G R A M L E N G T H

P R A C T I C E T E A C H I N G A N D / O R

I N T E N S I V E M E N T

O R I N G

B R O A D U S A G E

D I V E R S I T Y

O F P R O V I D E R S

For most or most widely used alternate routesFor some alternate routes For all alternate routes

AlabamaAlaskaArizona

ArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska



F gu T


37/144


:

1. Set high standards and providefexibility or meeting them.

Sc n c nd d t s s d n c d m c t .

S t g st nd d nt t n s s t

t d t n t c t n. r qu c nd d t s t ss t st t s su j ct-m tt

c ns ng t st.

D nt qu m j n t nt nd d su j ct ;nst d, w c nd d t s t d m nst t su j ct-

m tt n w dg n g us t st.

2. Provide streamlined preparation.

l m t c u s w ( d t n m t n12 c d ts ).

r qu t t t t n t ut s n cc t dc u s stud .

ensu t t c u s w qu m nts t g t tmm d t n ds t n w t c

o c nd d t s n tun t tct c t c n summ t n ng g m.

p v d nt ns v m nt ng.

3. Remove regulatory obstacles.

a w d v s t t n t ut v d s.

D nt m t t us t n t ut s t s t gs t c t n g d s su j cts.

Alternate Route Policy Checklist or States


38/144


To date, teacher preparation has not been on the radar or state policymakers. This is the case even thoughstates regulate most aspects o how teachers are prepared. States make decisions about whether teacher preparation programs are approved to operate in the states. They also have the authority to set the rules

or entry into the pro ession with teacher licensing requirements. And in most cases, state o cials have theauthority to set admission standards and program requirements or teacher preparation.

But where in the state this authority lies is not standard across the country. In the vast majority o states,the same entity most o ten the state board o education, but a standards board or other commission in11 states and the state chie in the District o Columbia, Florida and Wisconsin has deciding authority over teacher preparation program approval, program standards, admission requirements and teacher licensing. Ineight states (Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Rhode Island)the authority or approving teacher preparation programs does not reside with the same governing body aslicensing authority.

But wherever the authority rests, state policymakers have more leverage than they are using to enhanceteacher e ectiveness.

ac ss the 50 st tes nd the Dist ict C bi :

In 12 st tes the chie st te sch fce h s di ect th it pp ving( withd wing pp v ) te che p ep ti n p g s.

In 25 st tes the st te b d ed c ti n h ds p g pp v th it .

In 14 st tes, te che p ep ti n p g pp v is in the h nds g ve n - pp intedc issi n st nd ds b d the th n the st te b d ed c ti n, st techie - pp inted b d j int he d b di e ent entities.

Governors are particularly important gures in taking on the mantle o improving teacher education. In 39states and the District o Columbia, the governor (or in the District o Columbias case, the mayor) appointsthe decision-making bodies that review and approve teacher preparation programs and set licensing require-ments. In the remaining states, the state board o education, state chie s or standards boards are electedor chosen by state legislatures. In only six states Alabama, Kansas, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah and

Wisconsin are the governors largely le t out o the loop.

The Authority to Improve Teacher Preparation


39/144


:

Why does all this matter? It is important to identi y the locus o authority or making teacher preparationmore e ective. State boards have tremendous infuence and they have some accountability to state gover-nors. There are, however, a dozen states where the chie state school o cer wields, or could wield, much directinfuence over teacher preparation program quality. Some states have a relatively complex web o authority,which could hamper improvement e orts. Other states have clear and simple lines o authority over teacher

preparation and licensing, but that by no means suggests that those states are using their authority to makebetter teacher policies.

With the lines o authority drawn and mapped, it remains to be seen whether state policymakers will usethe tools at their disposal to raise standards and expectations or e ective teaching in their states in 2013and beyond.

WA

OR

CA

NV

ID

MT

WY

UT

AZNM

OK

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MO

AR

MS

KY

AL

VAWV

INIL

PA

DE

NJ

CTMI

ME

MA

NH

VT

MD

AK

SC

State Chief has authority

State Boardhas authority

Other bodyor joint authority

GA

OH

TN

NY

NC

CO

TX LA

FL

HI

RI

DC1

F gu U

Approval Authority for Teacher Preparation Programs


40/144


S t a t e C h i e

f

S t a t e B

o a r d

o f E d

u c a t i

o n

S t a n d a

r d s B o

a r d / O t h

e r

S t a n d a

r d s B o

a r d / O t h

e r

S t a n d a

r d s B o

a r d / O t h

e r

S t a t e C h i e

f

S t a t e B

o a r d

o f E d

u c a t i

o n

S t a t e C h i e

f

S t a t e B

o a r d

o f E d

u c a t i

o n

Authority for Teacher Preparation Program Approval

Authority for Setting Teacher Preparation Program Standards and

Admission RequirementsAuthority for Teacher Licensing Authority

for teacher preparation

Alabama

AlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinois

IndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

F gu V


41/144

NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2012 NATIONAL SUMMARY

:

1. National accreditation can be substituted for state approval.

What is the relationshipbetween state programapproval and nationalaccreditation?

N a t i o n a l a

c c r e d i t a t i o n i s

r e q u i r e d f o r

p r o g r a m a p p r o v a l

O v e r l a p o f a c c r e d i t a t i o n

a n d s t a t

e a p p r o v a l

31 12

S T A T E H A S I T S

O W N

A P P R O V A L P R O C E S S

8

1

1

1

1

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska



Figure W


42/144


43/144


:

Improving Teacher Preparation

Good teacher preparation does not guarantee that teachers will ultimately beeffective, but there is much more that can be done to help ensure that new teach-ers are classroom ready. This edition of theYearbook offers states a roadmap of their teacher preparation policies, identifying priorities that need critical attentionand also identifying low-hanging fruit, policy changes that states can implement inrelatively short order.

A summary of each states teacher preparation policies follows, includingYearbook scores for 2012 and a summary of the policies in need of attention. Individual statereports can be downloaded at www.nctq.org/stpy.


44/144

Improving Teacher Preparation in

42 : NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2012NATIONAL SUMMARY

Current Status of Alabamas Teacher Preparation PolicyLast years State Teacher Policy Yearbook provided an in-depth analysis of each of thetopics identied below. The 2012 score includes any policy changes identied in the last year. The symbol indicates a score increase from 2011.

B-Yearbook

Goal Topic2012Score

1-A Admission into Preparation Programs

1-B Elementary Teacher Preparation

1-C Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction

1-D Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics

1-E Middle School Teacher Preparation

1-F Secondary Teacher Preparation

1-G Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science

1-H Secondary Teacher Preparation in Social Studies

1-I Special Education Teacher Preparation

1-J Assessing Professional Knowledge

1-K Student Teaching

1-L Teacher Preparation Program Accountability

DOES NOT MEET MEETS ONLY A SMALL PART PARTIALLY MEETS NEARLY MEETS FULLY MEETS

Alabama


45/144


:

Red

Yellow

Green

AUTHORITY

ADMISSION INTOPREPARATIONPROGRAMS

Require that preparation programs use a common admissionstest normed to the general college-bound population andlimit acceptance to those candidates demonstrating academicability in the top 50th percentile.

State Board of Education

STUDENTTEACHING

Ensure that cooperating teachers have demonstrated evidenceof effectiveness as

2012 state teacher policy yearbook national summary nctq report

Documents