Stpy National

7/30/2019 Stpy National

1/92

National Council on Teacher Quality

2010

State TeacherPolicy Yearbook

Blueprint

for Change:National

Summary


2/92

Acknowledgments

STATES

State education agencies remain our most important partners in this effort, and their exten-sive experience has helped to ensure the factual accuracy of the final product. Although thisyears Blueprint for Change did not require the extensive review typically required of states,we still wanted to make sure that states perspectives were represented. As such, each statereceived a draft of the policy updates we identified this year. We would like to thank all ofthe states for graciously reviewing and responding to our drafts.

FUNDERS

The primary funders for the 2010 Yearbookwere:

!Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation !The George Gund Foundation

!Carnegie Corporation of New York !The Joyce Foundation

!Gleason Family Foundation

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

STAFF

Sandi Jacobs, Project Director

Sarah Brody, Project Assistant

Kelli M. Rosen, Lead Researcher

Trisha M. Madden, Pension Researcher

NCTQ BOARD OF DIRECTORSStacey Boyd !"Chester E. Finn, Jr. !"Ira Fishman !"Marti Watson Garlett !"Henry L. JohnsonDonald N. Langenberg !"Clara M. Lovett !"Barbara OBrien !"Carol G. Peck!"John WinnKate Walsh, President

Thank you to Bryan Gunning and the team at CPS Inc. for their design of the 2010Blueprint for Change. Thanks also to Colleen Hale and Jeff Hale of EFA Solutions for theoriginal Yearbookdesign and ongoing technical support.


3/92

About the Yearbook

The 2010 Blueprint for Change is the National Council on Teacher Qualitys fourth annual review of statelaws, rules and regulations that govern the teaching profession. This years Yearbook takes a differentapproach than our past editions, as it is designed as a companion to the 2009State Teacher PolicyYearbook,

NCTQs most recent comprehensive report on state teacher policies.

The comprehensive Yearbook, a 52-volume state-by-state analysis produced biennially, examines the align-

ment of states teacher policies with goals to improve teacher quality. The 2009 report, which addressed key

policy areas such as teacher preparation, evaluation, alternative certification and compensation, found that

states had much work to do to ensure that every child has an effective teacher. Next year we will once again

conduct a comprehensive goal-by-goal analysis of all aspects of states teacher policies.

In 2010, an interim year, we set out to help states prioritize among the many areas of teacher policy in need

of reform. With so much to be done, state policymakers may be nonplussed about where to begin. The 2010

Yearbook offers each state an individualized blueprint, identifying state policies most in need of attention.

Although based on our 2009 analyses, this edition also updates states progress in the last year, a year that

saw many states make significant policy changes, largely spurred by the Race to the Top competition. Rather

than grade states, the 2010 Blueprint for Change stands as a supplement to the 2009 comprehensive report,

updating states positive and negative progress on Yearbookgoals and specifying actions that could lead to

stronger policies for particular topics such as teacher evaluation, tenure rules and dismissal policies.

As is our practice, in addition to a national summary report, we have customized this years Blueprint for

Change so that each state has its own edition highlighting its progress toward specific Yearbookgoals.

Each report also contains charts and graphs showing how the state performed compared

to other states. In addition, we point to states that are leading

the way in areas requiring the most critical attention across

the country.

We hope that this years Blueprint for Change serves as an important

guide for governors, state school chiefs, school boards, legislatures and

the many advocates seeking reform. Individual state and national ver-

sions of the 2010 Blueprint for Change, as well as the 2009 State Teacher

Policy Yearbookincluding rationales and supporting research for our

policy goalsare available at www.nctq.org/stpy.


4/92


5/92

NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2010

BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE NATIONAL SUMMARY

: 3

This yearsState Teacher Policy Yearbookoffers states a new kind of tool for reviewing,evaluating and reforming their teacher policies. For 2010, the National Council onTeacher Quality isnt handing out grades to the states around teacher preparation, alter-nate routes, licensure, teacher evaluation, compensation, tenure and dismissal policies.Instead, this year NCTQ built off our annual Yearbook goals and recommendations toprovide a customized and targeted companion piece to each states 2009 Yearbook,which we hope provides a Blueprintfor Change.

The individualized state Blueprints are organized into three main sections.

Section 1 identifies the highest priority policy concerns that need"! critical attentionin a state. The critical attention areas differ by state, depending on the current status and qualityof existing teacher policy, and based on our own assessment of the policy issues that should beat the top of the list for that states policymakers. Across states, we identify a total of 11 critical attention areas;therefore, the more of these areas a particular state has in its Blueprint, the further away that state is from ensur-ing that its students have access to the highest quality instruction in the classroom.

Section 2 of each"! Blueprintoutlines the low-hanging fruit in any given statethe policy changes around teacherpolicy that a state could implement in relatively short order. These are the teacher policy areas where small adjust-ments in policy could mean big results. In all, NCTQ focuses on eight low-cost/high-opportunity recommendations.The low-hanging fruit, like the critical attention areas, also vary by state. But readers need to take care interpretingthe meaning of the assignment of a low-hanging fruit to a state. Unlike the critical attention areas, some low-hanging fruit can only be recommended to states with good policy foundations in placebut that have just a bitfurther to reach. A state may not get a particular low-hanging fruit recommendation because it already has a strong

policyor very much to the contrary, it may not get that recommendation because the state has too much criticalwork still to do in that policy area before low-hanging fruit is accessible. In the big picture, and in contrast to criti-cal attention areas, a large number of these recommendations does not necessarily mean that a state is worse off.

The point is, each state is unique. The critical attention areas and low-hanging fruit identified across statesneed to be considered within the context of each states Blueprintand the companion comprehensive policyanalysis in the 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook.

Finally, Section 3 focuses on several"! longer-term systemic issues that all states need to keep on their radar asthey continue to develop and implement policies that shape the future of the teaching profession. These issues areperformance management, pension reform and certification of special education teachers. While these may not befront burner issues for many states, they are crucial to any states overall reform agenda.

It is also important to note that while we arent doling out new grades to states, this years Blueprints are based onan updated-for-2010 comprehensive review and analysis of every states legislation, rules and regulations. Eachstate report includes a summary of the states 2009 grades as well as an update of any important teacher policychanges over the past year.

The national overview that follows is a summary companion to the 51 state Blueprints prepared by NCTQ thisyear. We provide a review of the critical attention issues across the states, as well as a summary of the policy rec-ommendations that many states can make here and now to move the teaching profession in the right direction.

Blueprint for Change

NationalCouncilon Teacher Quality

State TeacherPolicy Yearbook

California

2009

OVE

RALLGRAD

E

D+

NationalCouncilon Teacher Quality

2010State TeacherPolicy Yearbook

Blueprintfor Change inAlabama


6/92

4 : NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2010


This last year was not a typical year in teacher policycertainly not typical of the four years NCTQ has beentracking teacher policies against reform goals. In 2010, more than the usual number of states did in fact makesignificant changes to some teacher policy areas, spurred in many cases by the federal Race to the Top (RTT)competition. Almost every state entered the race, and their efforts to be competitive and secure some of the $4.3billion in federal funds led to a number of new laws and regulations on the books, if not yet in practice.

The RTT programs attention to effective teachers as a critical area of reform demanded that states addresspolicy areas such as performance-based teacher evaluations, accountability for teacher preparation programsand increasing the diversity of alternate route providers. So it is not surprising to see some improvements in thenumber of states tending to these critical policy areas.

Latest Trends in Teacher Policy

Our latest policy review found an increase in the number of states requiring annual evaluations of all teachers anda more than doubling of the number of states requiring that growth in student achievement be the preponderant

criterion in teacher evaluations. Our review also revealed a large spike in the number of states adopting policiesfor holding teacher preparation programs in their states accountable based on the academic performance of stu-dents taught by their graduates. It is important to note, however, that NCTQ only gave states credit for formalstatewide policy changesmeaning that for the RTT winners we did not count policy promises in their proposalsthat may expire at the end of the grant period or that only impact participating districts, unless they have state-wide legislative or regulatory backing.

Evidence of student learningis the preponderant criterion

in teacher evaluations

Annual evaluations forall teachers

Evidence of effectiveness isthe preponderant criterion

in tenure decisions

Evidence of effectiveness isthe preponderant criterionin licensure advancement

Teacher preparation programaccountability is tied to classroom

effectiveness of graduates

10

4

14

21

15

4

0

0

3

1

Figure 1

Notable advances inteacher policies

2010

2009


7/92



: 5

While this years Blueprints are tailor-made for each state, identifying each states own top teacher policypriorities, it is not surprising that states still turn out to have much more in common than not when itcomes to areas in need of critical attention. Overall, the critical reform areas identified in the Blueprints can besummed up as four key problem areas for state teacher policy:

Performance management policies that are disconnected from teacher effectiveness;"!

Vague and/or weak guidelines for teacher preparation;"!

Licensure requirements that do not ensure that teachers have appropriate content knowledge; and"!

Obstacles that prevent expansion of the teacher pipeline."!

In each of these critical reform areas, there are leader states that are pushing change in the right direction andsometimes serving as a good model for other states. Massachusetts, for example, was assigned the fewest criticalattention areas of any of the states, with just three. However, the critical attention areas Massachusetts needs toaddress are all of the particularly crucial and hot-button issues in teacher reformconnecting evaluation, tenureand dismissal policy to teacher effectiveness. At the same time, there are three statesColorado, Oklahomaand Rhode Islandthat, while still having a significant number of critical attention areas to address, do not haveevaluation, tenure and dismissal identified as serious issues in theirBlueprints. These are states to watch in thesepolicy arenas.

But more often than not, states have yet to do the heavy lifting necessary to take on the kinds of policy changes

that could make real differences in student learning in the classroom. Overall, 27 states need to address nine ormore of the 11 critical attention areas identified by NCTQ. Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska andOregon were assigned every single critical attention area.

Critical Attention Areas


8/92

1. ENSURE THAT TEACHER EVALUATIONSASSESS EFFECTIVENESS IN THECLASSROOM:

Despite some promisingdevelopments, NCTQ iden-tifies teacher evaluation as

a critical attention area inalmost all states. Why?Because the vast major-ity of states do not ensurethat evaluations, whetherstate or locally developed,preclude teachers fromreceiving satisfactory rat-

ings if those teachers are found to be ineffective in theclassroom. In addition, the majority of states still doesnot require annual evaluations of all veteran teachers,and most still fail to include any objective measures

of student learning in the teacher evaluations theydo require.

Still, the landscape may be changing on this front. Thequestion, however, is whether new changes in statepolicy will ultimately take hold in practice. Statescompeting for Race to the Top funds felt great pressureto commit to a formal inclusion of student achieve-ment and growth data as a significant component oftheir teacher evaluation systems. While there is still abit of variation in how significant is defined acrossthe states, and the devil is in the details as most states

have no growth measures in place yet, 16 states havecommitted to including student achievement data inrevamped teacher evaluations.

Critical Attention: Policies that need tobetter connect to teacher effectiveness

Evaluation is a critical

attention area in

42states.States on the right track

include Colorado, Louisianaand Rhode Island.

Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland1 3, Oklahoma, Rhode Island,South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas

Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio2

Legislation articulates that student growth must account for a significant3portion of evaluations, with no single criterion counting for more than 35%of the total performance evaluation. However, the State Board is on track tofinalize regulations that limit any single component of student growth, such asstandardized test scores, to 35%, but add other measures of student progressfor a total of 50%.

Figure 2

Is classroom effectivenessconsidered in teacher

evaluations?

States thatinclude somestudentachievementdata in teacherevaluations2

States thatrequire studentlearning to bethe preponderantcriterion in teacherevaluations1

States that donot requirestudentachievementdata to beconsidered inevaluations

10

35

6


9/92



: 7

Figure 3

Race to the Top winners and other states requiringthat student learning be the preponderantcriterion in teacher evaluations

WA

OR

CA

NV

ID

MT

WY

UT

AZ NM

TX

OK

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MI

AR

MI

KY

AL GA

NC

VAWV

OHINIL

PA

NY

DE

NJCT

MI

FL

ME

MANH

VT

MD

HI

AK

CO

LA

SC

Race to the Topstate winners

Evidence of student learningis the preponderant criterionin teacher evaluations

TNDC1

(Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee)

(Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland,Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas)

The District of Columbia has no state-level policy,1but District of Columbia Public Schools requires thatstudent academic achievement count for 50% ofevaluation score.


10/92

Figure 4Do states require districts to evaluateall veteran teachers each year?

Although we do not identify evaluation as a criticalattention area for nine states, not all of these statesare as far along as they should bebut a few standout. In Colorado, Louisiana and Rhode Island, newlaws or regulations ensure annual teacher evalua-tions require that 50 percent or more of a teachersperformance evaluation be based on evidence of stu-dent learning. In each of these states the new teacherevaluation systems also have multiple rating catego-ries, rather than an overly simplified and undiscerningpass/fail approach. Delaware is another notable state,ensuring that evidence of student learning is the pre-

ponderant criterion, not by articulating a certain per-centage requirement, but by structuring the evalua-tion instrument so that an overall rating of effectivecannot be achieved without meeting student-growthbenchmarks.

There has also been some movement on policiesrelated to the frequency of teacher evaluations. In2010, 21 states (compared to 15 in 2009) now requireannual evaluations of all teachers, including tenured,veteran teachers. Yet when it comes to evaluating newteachers, only 17 statesa number unchanged from

2009require districts to evaluate new teachers earlyin the school year so that the needs of struggling newteachers can be addressed.

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,1Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, NorthDakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington andWyoming.

Yes1 No

30

21


11/92



: 9

Figure 6Do states require districts to evaluate

new teachers early in the school year?

Figure 5How many times do statesrequire districts to evaluate a newteacher during a school year?

No2 times2

Yes13 or moretimes1

Evaluationfrequency

not addressed2

1 time Notaddressed3

7

9

27

20

7

1715

1 Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, SouthCarolina, Washington, West Virginia

2 District of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana,

New Hampshire, Vermont

Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey,1North Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia

Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska,2North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,Utah, Washington, Wyoming

District of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana,3New Hampshire , Vermont


12/92



2. CONNECT TENUREDECISIONS TOTEACHER EFFECTIVENESS:The point at which a teachers probationaryperiod ends, commonly referred to as theawarding of tenure1, should be a significantmilestone. Although these decisions areappropriately made at the local level, statesestablish the parameters under which tenureis granted. Strong tenure policy would ensurethat these decisions are made through a

meaningful process in which teacher effec-tiveness is considered.

Such a process is more than just a rubberstamp; it is a real evaluation of teacher qual-ity and a deliberate decision about whether aprobationary teacher should be granted thisstatusand the additional due process rightstenure bringsin a school system.

While few states have policy regarding thecriteria for awarding tenure, nearly all statesarticulate the length of the probationary

period before tenure is awarded. In moststates, the probationary periodideally fiveyearsis not long enough to allow for thesufficient accumulation of evidence of effec-tiveness on which to base a decision. Acrossthe states, however, three years remains atypical probationary periodthis is the casein 34 states (up from 32 in 2009). Only eightstates have probationary periods longer thanthree years.

While not all states use the term tenure, the end of1a teachers probationary period generally has the sameimplications, regardless of nomenclature.

Figure 7

How long before ateacher earns tenure?

NoPo

licy

1ye

ar

2ye

ars

3ye

ars

4ye

ars

5ye

ars

6ye

ars

7ye

ars

Alabama

Alaska

ArizonaArkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

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 CarolinaSouth Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

1 2 6 34 5 2 0 1


13/92



: 11

Tenure is a criticalattention area in


include Colorado, Delawareand Rhode Island.

On their own, however, these tenure timelines dontmean much. Without a meaningful tenure process,the timeline is irrelevant, and in the vast majority ofstates, tenure is still granted virtually automatically.In 46 states, teachers are granted tenure with little orno attention paid to how effective they are with stu-dents in their classrooms. While there are a few statesthat have vague requirements for some considerationof evidence and a fewothers that promise thatteacher evaluations willinform tenure deci-

sions, only Colorado,Delaware, Oklahoma andRhode Island demandthat evidence of studentlearning be the prepon-derant or decisive crite-rion in such decisions.

Figure 8

Is classroom effectivenessconsidered in teacher

evaluations and tenuredecisions?

Evid

ence

ofstud

entle

arningis

thepr

eponde

rant

crit

erio

nin

teache

revaluati

ons

Evid

ence

ofstud

entle

arning

isth

epr

epond

erant

crit

erio

nin

tenu

rede

cisions

Alabama

Alaska

ArizonaArkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia1

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland2

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


Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

10 4

Figure 8The District of Columbia has no state-level policy, but District1of Columbia Public Schools requires that student academicachievement count for 50% of evaluation score.

Legislation articulates that student growth must account for a2significant portion of evaluations, with no single criterion count-ing for more than 35% of the total performance evaluation.However, the State Board is on track to finalize regulations thatlimit any single component of student growth, such as standard-ized test scores, to 35%, but add other measures of studentprogress for a total of 50%.


14/92



3. PREVENT INEFFECTIVE TEACHERSFROM REMAINING IN THECLASSROOM INDEFINITELY:The now infamous story of New York Citys rubberrooms where teachers are removed from the classroomto pass their time at full pay with no official duties illus-trates how difficult it can be to dismissa teacher. While local district contractsare often blamed for these difficulties,much of the responsibility in fact liesin state law, which creates significant

obstacles to terminating a teacher, par-ticularly when the grounds are that anindividual has been deemed an ineffec-tive instructor. Almost all states havelaws on the books regarding dismissal,but most focus on procedures appli-cable to criminal or morality violations,making ambiguous references to incompetency orinadequacy. The result is that districts often feel thatthey lack the legal basis for terminating consistentlypoor performers.

A coherent set of policies around evaluation and

accountability for teacher effectiveness demands fairpolicies for dismissing teachers who consistently fail

to contribute to student learning in the classroom. Allteachers deserve a fair and objective evaluation and achance to improve with the help of an improvementplan and support. And any teacher dismissed for per-sistently poor performance is entitled to due processthat includes timely appeal. But policy in most statesgrants teachers multiple rounds of appeal. These poli-

cies allow cases to drag on for years,draining resources from school districtsand creating a disincentive for districtsto attempt to terminate poor perform-ers. States must ensure that the oppor-

tunity to appeal occurs only once andinvolves only adjudicators with educa-tional expertise.

There are at least two state leadersthat are taking this issue head on. InOklahoma, recent legislation requires

that tenured teachers be terminated if they are ratedineffective for two consecutive years, or rated asneeds improvement for three years running, or ifthey do not average at least an effective rating overa five-year teaching period. In Rhode Island, teachers

who receive two years of ineffective evaluations will bedismissed. Any teacher with five years of ineffective rat-ings will not be eligible to have his or her certificationrenewed by the state.

Dismissal is a criticalattention area in

46states.

States on the right trackinclude Oklahoma and

Rhode Island.


15/92



: 13

Critical Attention: Policies that fail toensure teachers are well prepared

4. ENSURE THAT ELEMENTARYTEACHERS KNOW THE SCIENCEOF READING:

Despite compelling evidence about the most effectiveways to teach young children to read, NCTQ identifiesonly six states that ensure elementary teacher candi-

dates enter the classroom with these essential skills.Scientific research hasshown that there are fiveessential components ofeffective reading instruc-tion: explicit and system-atic instruction in phone-mic awareness, phonics,fluency, vocabulary andcomprehension. This sci-ence of reading has led to

breakthroughs that candramatically reduce the number of children destinedto become functionally illiterate or barely literateadults. So, whether through standards or courseworkrequirements, states must ensure that their prepara-tion programs graduate only elementary teacher can-didates who know how to teach children to read.

But such requirements alone are not enough. NumerousNCTQ studies, including the national report WhatEducation Schools Arent Teaching about Readingand What Elementary Teachers Arent Learning, haveshown that few teacher preparation programs actually

address the science of reading, even in states wherethere are requirements to do so. The only way statescan ensure that elementary teachers enter the class-room with the knowledge and skills to teach youngchildren to read is through an assessment.

Ideally, this would be a stand-alone test, such as theexcellent assessments required by Massachusetts,Connecticut and Virginia. But if it is combined with

other subject matter, there must at least be a sepa-rate passing score so that the adequacy of a teachersscience of reading knowledge can be evaluated on itsown. In the end, a rigorous assessment is the only wayto ensure that no student has an elementary teacherunprepared to teach him or her to read.

5. ENSURE THAT ELEMENTARY TEACHERSKNOW ELEMENTARY CONTENT MATH:Aspiring elementary teachers must begin to acquire adeep conceptual knowledge of the mathematics theywill teach, moving well beyond mere procedural under-standing. Leading mathematicians and math educa-tors have found that elementary teachers are not wellserved by mathematics courses designed for a generalaudience and that methods courses do not provide suf-ficient content preparation. As a result, states need to

specifically articulate that preparation programs delivermathematics content geared to the explicit needs ofelementary teachers.

For 2010, NCTQ identifiesonly two statesMassa-chusetts and Minnesotathat have policies in placeto help ensure that ele-mentary school teachersstatewide have sufficientknowledge of math con-

tent. Massachusetts is theclear role model, requiringelementary teacher candidates to pass a rigorous test ofmathematics content covering topics specifically gearedto the needs of elementary teachers. Minnesotasnew certification test includes a separate subtest, andalthough it includes some other topics, it is impossibleto pass if candidates fail the math portion.

Preparation to teachreading is a criticalattention area in


include Connecticut,Massachusetts and Virginia.

Preparation to teachmathematics is a critical

attention area in

49states.A state on the right track

is Massachusetts.


16/92



Figure 9

Do states ensurethat teachers are

well prepared?

Ensureselem

enta

ryte

ache

rs

knowth

escie

nceofreadin

g

Ensureselem

enta

ryte

ache

rs

know

elem

enta

rycont

entm

ath

Diffe

rentia

tespr

eparatio

n

betw

een

elem

enta

ryand

mid

dlescho

olte

ache

rs

Alabama

Alaska

ArizonaArkansas

California 1

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida 2

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

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


Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

6 2 29

Figure 9Although California has a standalone test of reading1pedagogy, the ability of this test to screen out candidateswho do not know the science of reading has been questioned.

Floridas licensure test for elementary teachers includes a2strong focus on the science of reading but does not report aseparate subscore for this content.

6. ENSURE ADEQUATE SUBJECT-MATTERPREPARATION FOR MIDDLE SCHOOLTEACHERS:Among the critical issues covered in the Blueprints, thistopic had the fewest states identified as needing to giveit critical attention. That said, it is by our count, still avery critical issue in 22 states.

What is at stake? Themiddle school grades arecritical years of school-ing, yet too many states

still fail to distinguishthe knowledge and skillsneeded by middle schoolteachers from thoseneeded by elementaryteachers. Whether teach-ing a single subject in a

departmentalized setting or teaching multiple subjectsin a self-contained setting, middle school teachers mustbe able to teach significantly more advanced contentthan elementary teachers do. The key policy problemhere is the extent to which states continue to offer a

generalist K-8 license. Such policies completely fail toaddress the reality that teaching, for example, seventh-and eighth-grade math or science is a significantly dif-ferent enterprise than teaching those subjects to first orsecond graders. In 2010, there are still only 29 statesthat differentiate preparation between elementary andmiddle school teachersleaving 22 that allow middleschool teachers, in all or at least some circumstances, toteach on a K-8 generalist license.

Middle school licensure is acritical attention area in


include Georgia, Kentucky,and Louisiana.


17/92



: 15

7. ENSURE THAT TEACHERPREPARATION PROGRAMS AREACCOUNTABLE FOR THE QUALITYOF THE TEACHERS THEY PRODUCE:

Across the nation, there may just be real change underway in this areawith a large increase in states adopt-ing policies largely related to proposals made last yearas part of their RTT program applications. Before thisyear, NCTQ identified only three statesNew Jersey,Tennessee and Texasthat even collected meaningfuldata on the student learning gains of teachers who grad-

uated from teacher preparation pro-grams in the state. And no states wereusing those data to evaluate teacherpreparation program performance.2

But that has changed dramatically in2010. This year, NCTQs review ofstate policies found 14 states withpolicies in place or coming online touse student outcomes to hold teacherpreparation institutions accountablefor the performance of the teachersthey produce.

Beginning this year in Colorado, the state must annu-ally report on the effectiveness of teacher preparationprograms using aggregate data, including the correla-tion among different preparation programs and student

See 20092 Yearbook. In 2009, Louisiana was piloting the use of value-addeddata that connects student achievement to teacher preparation programs, butwas not yet using the results for accountability purposes.

Teacher preparationprogram accountability is a

critical attention area in


include Colorado andLouisiana.

academic growth, educator placement, and educatormobility and retention. Louisiana pioneered the use ofvalue-added analysis to assess the impact of teacherpreparation programs, and has now begun to use theseanalyses to hold programs accountable for their out-comes. Low-performing programs risk losing stateapproval if improvements are not made according tospecified timelines.

Despite a marked change in state policies in 2010, how-ever, the majority of states have much to do to ensurethat teacher preparation institutions are held account-able for the caliber of the teachers they produce. To do

it well, states must collect objectiveprogram-specific data such as scoreson licensing tests and beyond, includ-ing satisfaction ratings by schoolsthat employ graduates, teacherevaluation results and the academicgains of graduates students. Statesmust establish minimum standardsof performance in these areas and,as we discuss later in low-hangingfruit, at a minimum, should publish

all data they collect on individual teacher preparationprograms so that prospective teachers and the publichave the ability to evaluate programs for themselves.


18/92



Figure 10

Are states using student achievement data to holdteacher preparation programs accountable?

WA

OR

CA

NV

ID

MT

WY

UT

AZNM

OK

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MI

AR

MI

KY

AL

VAWV

INIL

PA

DE

NJ

CTMI

ME

MA

NH

VT

MD

AK

SC

Race to the Topstate winners

States that link teacher

preparation program evaluationto teacher effectiveness

GA

OH

TN

NY

NC

CO

TX LA

FL

HI

RI

DC1

(Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee)

(Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas)

Although the District of Columbia has no state level1policy, District of Columbia Public Schools plans toconnect student achievement to teacher preparationprograms.


19/92



: 17

Critical Attention: Policies that licenseteachers who may lack subject-matterknowledge

8. CLOSE LICENSURE LOOPHOLES TOENSURE THAT TEACHERS KNOW THECONTENT THEY TEACH:

All students are entitled

to teachers who knowthe subject matter theyare teaching. Permittingindividuals who have notyet passed state licens-ing tests to teach neglectsthe needs of students, andextends personal con-sideration to adults whomay not be able to meet

minimal state standards. Licensing tests are an impor-tant minimum benchmark in the profession, and statesthat allow teachers to postpone passing these tests areabandoning one of the basic responsibilities of licensure.Unfortunately, the reality is that the majority of statesplace students at risk by allowing teachers in classroomswho have not passed all required subject-matter tests.

It is understandable that states may, under limited cir-cumstances, need to fill a small number of classroompositions with individuals who do not hold full teachingcredentials. Many states, however, issue either renew-able or multi-year emergency licenses, meaning thatteachers who have not met all minimum requirements

are allowed to remain in classrooms for extendedand perhaps indefiniteperiods of time.

Mississippi, Nevada and New Jersey are identified asstate leaders in this area, and are among seven statesthat do not award emergency or provisional licensesor allow teachers to defer licensing teststhat is, theyrequire all teachers to pass all subject-matter tests asa condition of their initial licensure.

9. ENSURE THAT ELEMENTARYCONTENT TESTS ADEQUATELYASSESS CONTENT KNOWLEDGE INEACH SUBJECT AREA:

Figure 11 explains better than words why NCTQ callsout 50 states as needing to give critical attention towhether the content knowledge bar they have set forallowing elementary teachers in the classroom is suf-ficient. In all but Massachusetts, the expectations forhow well teacher candidates will perform on licensingexams (which, in many cases, are of very questionablerigor) are exceedingly low. Only Massachusetts has arigorous test that requires teachers receiving licenses inthe state to score at or above the average score for allteachers taking the test.

Matters are made worsebecause most statesrequire a broad and gen-eral elementary teacherlicensing exam, such as thePraxis II general subject-matter test. This assess-ment does not reportteacher performance ineach subject area, makingit possible to pass the licensing test while still failingsome subject areas within the test.

The combination of very general tests and below-aver-age expectations for performance on teacher assess-ments calls into question whether many or most cur-rent state teacher licensing assessments for elementaryschool teachers are capable of providing any assurancewhatsoever of content knowledge.

Licensure loopholes are acritical attention area in


include Mississippi, Nevadaand New Jersey.

Elementary licensuretests are a criticalattention area in

50states.A state on the right track

is Massachusetts.

Critical Attention: Policies that licenseteachers who may lack subject-matterknowledge


20/92



Because of our concerns about the rigor and standardsof content knowledge assessments across the states,NCTQ recommends that, at a minimum, states shouldrequire separate passing scores for each subject area.Without them, it is impossible to measure teacherknowledge of individual subjects, especially given

generally low passing score expectations across thestates. Our findings here also reiterate why we iden-tify licensing loopholes as a critical attention area.Given the questionable quality of elementary licens-ing assessments, states that allow individuals to teachwithout meeting even this minimal benchmark do agreat disservice to students.

Massachusetts

AlabamaAlaskaIdaho

MarylandMississippiNebraskaNevada

New JerseyNorth Dakota

OhioSouth Dakota

TennesseeVirginia

West Virginia

ColoradoConnecticut

DelawareDistrict of Columbia

HawaiiIndianaKansas

KentuckyLouisiana

MaineMissouri

New HampshireRhode Island

South CarolinaTexasUtah

VermontWisconsinWyoming

ArkansasIowa

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Figure 11

Where do states set the passing score onelementary content licensure tests?1

50th Percentile50th Percentile

State setspassing scoreat the mean

(average score ofall test takers)

State sets score wellbelow mean

(at or near one standard deviation~16th percentile)

State sets score farbelow mean

(at or near two standard deviations~2nd percentile)

Data not available for Arizona, California1 , Florida, Georgia, Illinois,Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,Oregon, and Washington. Montana does not require a content test.Colorado cut score is for Praxis II, not PLACE.


21/92



: 19

Critical Attention: Policies that limit theteacher pipeline

10. PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY TOALTERNATE ROUTE TEACHERSIN DEMONSTRATINGCONTENT KNOWLEDGE:

The concept behind the alternate route into teaching isthat the nontraditional candidate is able to concentrate

on acquiring professional knowledge and skills becausehe or she has strong subject-area knowledge.

States must have high standards for alternate routeteachers. NCTQ recommends that states require alter-nate routes to have academic expectations that exceedthose for traditional programs interms of grade point averages, forexample. States also need to requirethat alternate route candidates dem-onstrate strong subject-area knowl-edge by passing a subject-matter test

in advance of entering the classroom.This should be the kind of rigoroussubject-matter test that any teachercandidateregardless of academicmajor, coursework or experiencewould be required to pass before teaching. Rigorouscontent tests would also serve as a way to screen can-didates for alternate route admission.

But alternate routes also need to be flexible and stream-lined. Some states require that candidates major inthe area in which they will teach or require excessivesubject-area coursework for alternate route candidates.Without the option to allow alternate route candidatesto test out of coursework requirements by demonstrat-ing their knowledge on a rigorous test, such policies

defeat the very purpose of the alternate route.

State leaders in this area include Michigan and Oklahoma.Michigan was singled out because it has recentlychanged its policy to raise its admission requirementswhile also providing flexibility to candidates. Michigan

now requires that programs only acceptparticipants who hold a bachelors, mas-ters, doctorate or professional degreefrom an accredited college or universitywith at least a 3.0 grade point average.Participants must also pass both the

basic skills examination and appropri-ate subject-area exams for each subjectarea of certification. The state no longerrequires a major or subject-area course-work in the subject the candidate wishes

to teach. Oklahoma also requires that alternate routecandidates pass subject-matter tests without requiringa major in the subject to be taught.

Alternate route admissionsis a critical attention area in


include Michigan andOklahoma.


22/92



11. BROADEN ALTERNATE ROUTEUSAGE AND PROVIDERS:To date, many states have limited the usage and pro-viders of their alternate routes, preventing them fromproviding a true alternative pathway into the teachingprofession. North Dakota does not have any alternateroute to certification, and other states unnecessarilyrestrict providers to the state itself (like Alaska), or tocollege and university providers. There are 21 states thatrestrict providers to colleges and universities and do notallow providers such as districts or nonprofit organiza-tions to develop and implement viable alternate routeprograms.

But there are some states on the right track, especiallywith some impetus from last years Race to the Topcompetition. New York recently adopted a new policybroadening the providers of its alternate route to includenonprofit organizations, ending its limitation that alter-nate route programs can only be offered by colleges anduniversities in partnership with local school districts.Illinois, too, now allows the providers of its alternate

route to include nonprofitorganizations, no longer

requiring such providersto partner with an institu-tion of higher education.Washington now allowsalternate route programsto be offered by nonhigher-education providers.

Figure 12

Do states permitalternate route providers

other than colleges anduniversities?

Allo

wsdi

strictrunpr

ogram

s

Allo

wsnon-pr

ofitpr

ovid

ers

Allo

wscolle

gesand

univ

ersiti

esonly

Alabama

Alaska1

ArizonaArkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri 2

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota3

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania 2

Rhode Island

South Carolina2

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

19 23 21

Figure 12Alaskas alternate route is operated by the state department1of education.

ABCTE is also an approved provider.2

North Dakota does not have an alternate route to certification.3

Alternate route diversity isa critical attention area in

28states.States on the right trackinclude Illinois, New York

and Washington.


23/92



: 21

Low-Hanging Fruit

While the Critical Attention Areas section identifies states most urgent priorities, in fashioning a Blue-print for state reform, NCTQ didnt want to overlook the policy opportunities available to states wheresome relatively easy adjustments would lead to real improvements in state teacher policy.

We refer to these areas as low-hanging fruit, and a general summary of these recommendations follows.It is important to remember that some of these policies can only be recommended to states with goodpolicy foundations already in place. For example, states must have requirements for new teacher evalu-ations in place in order for a recommendation that the first evaluation occurs early in the year to be alow-hanging fruit. In other cases, statesnot mentionedwith regard to a particular recommendation mayhave the stronger policy foundation. For example, only states that allow waivers of state licensing examsfor out-of-state teachers can get a recommendation to cease and desist this practice as a low-hangingfruit. States that prohibit such practices are in no need of such advice.

1. ENSURE THAT UNDERGRADUATETEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMSADMIT CANDIDATES WHO ARE PREPAREDTO DO COLLEGE-LEVEL WORK:

Basic skills tests were initially intended as a minimalscreening mechanism for teacher preparation pro-grams, to be used at the point of admission to ensurethat programs do not admit anyone who is not pre-pared to do college-level work. Admitting prospectiveteachers who have not passed basic skills teststhecurrent generation of which generally assess only mid-dle school level skillsmay result in programs devot-ing already limited time to basic skills remediationrather than preparation for the classroom.

NCTQ identifies 28 states that are well positioned toadjust the timing of their tests to require teacher can-didates to pass those basic skills test as a condition ofadmission to a teacher preparation program.


24/92



2. ENSURE THAT SPECIAL EDUCATIONTEACHERS ARE ADEQUATELYPREPARED TO TEACH SUBJECT MATTER:To allow special education students the opportunityto reach their academic potential, special educationteachers should be well trained in subject matter.NCTQ recommends to 35 states that, as a first steptoward ensuring requisite content knowledge, theyshould require that elementary special education can-didates pass the same Praxis II exam or other stateexams required for any other elementary teachers.

At the secondary level, NCTQ recommends to 16states that they ensure that secondary special educa-tion teachers are adequately prepared to teach multi-ple subjects by requiring that teacher preparation pro-grams graduate secondary special education teachercandidates who are highly qualified in at least twosubjects. The most efficient way to accomplish thisobjective is to require that teacher candidates earn theequivalent of two subject-area minors and pass testsin those areas. For states already requiring that gradu-ates are highly qualified in one area, adding a second is

low-hanging fruit.

3. INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUTTEACHER PREPARATIONPROGRAM QUALITY:

There are 28 states well poised to do more to publishdata on teacher preparation programs. While most ofthese states have a long way to go to collect mean-ingful and consequential data, there are datasuchas passing rates on state licensing tests quantified byindividual teacher preparation programs that states

are already required to collect and report to the federalgovernment on the quality of their teacher prepara-tion institutions. At a minimum, states should makethat information available to the public while workingto collect more comprehensive data. This informationwould be an incentive for improvement as well as aservice to prospective teachers.

In addition, there are a group of states with a separatelow-hanging fruit related to teacher preparation pro-gram accountability. Six states would do well to codifythe strong accountability proposals in their Race to theTop proposals so that they do not expire at the end of

the grant period.

4. ENSURE THAT OUT-OF-STATETEACHERS MEET THE STATESTESTING REQUIREMENTS:

While it is important not to create unnecessary obsta-cles for teachers seeking reciprocal licensure in a newstate, testing requirements can provide an importantsafeguard. Particularly given the variance of the pass-ing scores required on licensure tests, states must notassume that a teacher who passed another states testwould meet its passing score as well. NCTQ recom-mends to 33 states that they take steps to uphold theirstandards for all teachers and insist that out-of-stateteachers meet their own licensure test requirements.These states waive their licensing test requirements forout-of-state teachers with a number of years of teach-

ing experience or for teachers who have passed licens-ing tests in other states. A state should not provideany waivers of its content tests unless an applicant canprovide evidence of a passing score under the statesown standards. The negative impact on student learn-ing stemming from a teachers inadequate subject-matter knowledge is not mitigated by the teachersrecent experience.

5. REQUIRE NEW-TEACHEREVALUATIONS TO OCCUREARLY IN THE YEAR:

Clearly, this recommendation is only low-hangingfruit for those states that actually require at least oneannual evaluation for all new teachersand dontalready require that the first one happens early in theschool year (see Figure 6). As a result, in the Blueprints,NCTQ recommends to nine states that they should


25/92



: 23

explicitly require a new-teacher evaluation to be con-ducted during the first half of the school year. Sucha policy allows new teachers to receive immediatefeedback, as well as get the support they need soonerrather than later, especially for those who may bestruggling. A plan for improvement can then be imple-mented, rather than potentially allowing an ineffectivenew teacher to remain in the classroom without anyevaluation or support until late in the year.

6.REPORT SCHOOL-LEVEL DATA ON

THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTIONOF TEACHERS:

In order to promote the equitable distribution ofteacher talent among schools within districts, dataabout teachers should be reported at the individualschool level. NCTQ recommends to the 19 states thatcurrently only publicly report data such as the per-centage of highly qualified teachers in high- and low-poverty schools or high- and low-minority schools atthe state and district levels, to also publicly report thatinformation at the school level.

7. ENSURE THAT STRUGGLINGTEACHERS RECEIVE SUPPORT:NCTQ recommends to 25 states that they adoptpolicies whereby all teachers who receive a singleunsatisfactory evaluation are placed on a structuredimprovement plan, regardless of whether or not theyhave tenure. These plans should focus on performanceareas that directly connect to student learning andshould list noted deficiencies, define specific actionsteps necessary to address these deficiencies, and

describe how and when progress will be measured.Consequences for continued poor performance shouldalso be articulated.

8.STRENGTHEN THE SELECTIVITY OFALTERNATE ROUTES:

In the case of 26 states, NCTQ recommends steps theycould take to strengthen the selectivity of their alter-nate route programs. Alternate routes to certificationprograms should be selective in whom they admit byrequiring a GPA that is higher than what is generallyexpected of teacher candidates in traditional prepara-tion programs. Common requirements such as a mini-mum 2.5 GPA or even a 2.0 GPA are not sufficient indi-cators of selectivity. States should raise their minimumGPA requirements to at least 2.75 for alternate route

candidates, making accommodations as appropriatefor career changers with relevant work experience.In addition, states like Oklahoma should reconsiderrequiring that alternate route candidates have threeyears of work experience after receiving a bachelorsdegreea requirement that rules out talented recentgraduates from applying to teach through alternateroute programs. Some states can improve their selec-tivity by consistently requiring all alternate route can-didates to pass subject-matter tests as a condition ofadmission.


26/92


27/92



: 25

Section 3: Systemic Issues

Across all of the state Blueprints, NCTQ highlights three prominent systemic problems that arein need of serious attention. These are longer-term issues that may not always be on the front

burner, but are critical to a states overall reform agenda.

The critical relationship between teacher quality andstudent achievement has been well established, andensuring that all students have teachers with the knowl-edge and skills to support their academic success hasbecome a national priority. Yet the policy frameworkthat governs the teaching profession in most states isalmost entirely disconnected from teacher effective-ness. Although states largely control how teachers areevaluated, licensed and compensated, teacher effec-tiveness in terms of student learning has not been acentral component in these policies.

Fortunately, this is starting to change. Fifteen stateshave made progress in their requirements for teacherevaluation in the last year alone.3 As evaluation ratingsbecome more meaningful, states should plan to con-nect teacher evaluation to an overall system of perfor-mance management. The current siloed approach, with

1. Performance Management

virtually no connection between meaningful evidenceof teacher performance and the awarding of tenure andprofessional licensure, needs a fundamental overhaul.These elements must not be thought of as isolatedand discrete, but rather as part of a comprehensiveperformance system. This system should also includecompensation strategies as well as new teacher sup-port and ongoing professional development, creating acoordinated and aligned set of teacher policies.

A successful performance management systemonethat gives educators the tools they need to be effec-tive, supports their development, rewards their accom-plishments and holds them accountable for resultsis essential to the fundamental goal of all educationreform: eliminating achievement gaps and ensuringthat all students reach their highest potential.

Includes changes to state policies regulating the frequency of evaluations3for probationary and non probationary teachers as well as requirements thatteacher evaluations consider classroom effectiveness.


28/92



2. Pension Reform

State pension systems are in need of a fundamentaloverhaul. In an era when retirement benefits havebeen shrinking across industries and professions, teach-ers generous pensions remain fixed. In fact, nearly allstates continue to provide teachers with a defined ben-efit pension system, an expensive and inflexible modelthat neither reflects the realities of the modern work-force nor provides equitable benefits to all teachers.

The current model greatly disadvantages teachers whomove from one state to another, career switchers whoenter teaching and those who teach for fewer than 20

years. For these reasons alone, reform is needed. Butthe dubious financial health of states pension sys-tems makes this an area in need of urgent attention.Some systems carry high levels of unfunded liabili-ties, with no strategy to pay these liabilities down ina reasonable period, as defined by standard account-ing practices. When funding cannot keep up withpromised benefits, a new approach is clearly needed.

Systemic reform should lead to the development of afinancially sustainable, equitable pension system thatincludes the following:

The option of a fully portable pension system as"!teachers primary pension plan, either through adefined contribution plan or a defined benefit planthat is formatted similarly to a cash balance plan4;

Reasonable district and teacher contribution rates;"!

Figure 13

How well funded arestate pension systems?1

Fundin

grati

o

Yearofla

stactu

arialr

eport

Alabama

Alaska2

ArizonaArkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

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 1

Rhode Island


Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

74.7% 2009N/A

79% 200975.7% 200978.2% 200967% 200970% 200898.8% 200992.2% 200987.1% 200991.9% 200868.8% 200873.7% 200952.1% 200948.2% 2008

81.2% 200958.8% 200863.6% 200959.1% 200974% 200866% 200973.9% 200883.6% 200877.4% 200967.3% 200979.9% 200963.8% 200986.6% 200973.4% 200958.3% 200965% 200967.5% 2009106.6% 200899.3% 200877.7% 200960% 200949.8% 200980.2% 200886% 200860.8% 2008

69.3% 200891.8% 200896.2% 200783.1% 200985.6% 200965.4% 200984% 2008107.9% 200841.3% 200999.7% 200887.5% 2010

A cash balance pension plan is a benefit plan in which participants, and4their employers if they choose, periodically contribute a predeterminedrate to employees individual pension accounts. These contributions growat a guaranteed rate. Upon retirement or withdrawal, the participant mayreceive the full account balance in one lump sum, so long as the benefits arefully vested. (Based on Economic Research Institute, http://www.eridlc.com/resources/index.cfm?fuseaction=resource.glossary)

The reported funding levels are based on states own actuarial reports,1which generally assume a rate of return between 7.5 and 8.25 percent.Some economists argue that these assumed rates of return are too high,and should instead be closer to four percent, which would lower thereported funding levels substantially.

Alaska has only a defined contribution pension system.2

Figure 13


29/92

Vesting for teachers no later than the third year of"!employment;

Purchase of time in a defined benefit plan for"!unlimited previous teaching experience at the timeof employment, as well as for all official leaves ofabsence, such as maternity and paternity leaves;

The option in a defined benefit plan of a lump-sum"!rollover to a personal retirement account uponemployment termination, which includes teachercontributions and all accrued interest at a fair

interest rate;Funds contributed by the employer included in"!withdrawals due to employment termination;

A neutral formula for determining pension ben-"!efits, regardless of years worked (eliminating anymultiplier that increases with years of service orlongevity bonuses)5; and

Eligibility for retirement benefits based solely on"!age, not years of service, in order to avoid disincen-tives for effective teachers to continue workinguntil conventional retirement age.

Alabama

Alaska2

ArizonaArkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

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


Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 14

How much do states payfor each teacher thatretires with unreduced

benefits at an early age?1To

tala

mou

ntpaid

per

teache

rfr

omth

eti

meof

reti

rem

ent

untila

ge65

$625,747N/A

$694,621$681,789$310,028$722,108$520,009$577,927$585,737$557,112$624,786$577,686$551,743$572,010$317,727

$551,428$337,385$791,678$780,982$258,357$562,307$594,296$289,187

$0$621,860$676,579$600,767$577,686$780,982$321,325$215,301$734,123$468,926$568,555$551,743$687,264$551,743$361,536$650,011$259,164

$577,142$449,151$499,972$443,420$624,786$486,832$460,705

$0$577,686$416,007$655,506

The formula may include years of service (i.e., years of service x final average5salary x benefit multiplier), but other aspects of the benefit calculation, such asthe multiplier, should not be dependent on years of service.

Figure 14All calculations are based on a teacher who starts teaching at age 22,1earns a starting salary of $35,000 that increases 3 percent per year, andretires at the age when he or she is first eligible for unreduced benefits.The calculations use states current benefit formulas and do not includecost of living increases. The final average salary was calculated as theaverage of the highest three years of salary, even though a few statesmay vary from that standard. Age 65 was used as the point of comparisonfor standard retirement age because it is the minimum eligibility age forunreduced Social Security benefits.

Alaska has only a defined contribution pension system.2


30/92



3. Certification of Special Education Teachers

States requirements for the preparation of specialeducation teachers are one of the most neglected anddysfunctional areas of teacher policy. The low expecta-tions for what special education teachers should knowstand in stark contradiction to state and federal expec-tations that special education students should meetthe same high standards as other students.

Most states set an exceedingly low bar for the con-tent knowledge that special education teachers musthave. But the problem requires a more systemic fixthan just raising content requirements for elemen-tary and secondary special education teachers. The

overarching issue is that too many states make nodistinction between elementary and secondary spe-cial education teachers, certifying all such teachersunder a generic K-12 special education license. Whilethis broad umbrella may be appropriate for teachers of

low-incidence special education students, such asthose with severe cognitive disabilities, it is deeplyproblematic for high-incidence special education stu-dents, who are expected to learn grade-level content.And because the overwhelming majority of specialeducation students are in the high-incidence category,the result is a fundamentally broken system.

It is virtually impossible and certainly impractical forstates to ensure that a K-12 teacher knows all the sub-ject matter he or she is expected to be able to teach.And the issue is just as valid in terms of pedagogi-cal knowledge. Teacher preparation and licensure for

special education teachers must distinguish betweenelementary and secondary levels, as they do for gen-eral education. The current model does little to protectsome of our most vulnerable students.


31/92



: 29

Figure 15

Do states distinguishbetween elementaryand secondary special

education teachers?Off

ersonly

aK-

12certifi

cati

on

Off

ersK-

12and

grade-specifi

c

certifi

cati

on(s)

Doe

snot

offe

raK

-12

certifi

cati

on

Alabama

Alaska

ArizonaArkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

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

Pennsylvania1

Rhode Island


Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

22 17 12

1 New policy goes into effect January 1, 2013.


32/92

TotalC

riti

calA

ttenti

on

Are

asassigned

Ensureth

at

teache

revaluati

ons

assessclassroom

effe

ctiv

eness

Conn

ectte

nure

decisionsto

teache

r

effe

ctiv

eness

Preventin

effe

ctiv

e

teache

rsfr

om

rem

ainingin

the

classroomindefinit

ely

Ensureth

at

elem

enta

ryte

ache

rs

knowth

escie

nceof

readin

gEn

sureth

at

elem

enta

ryte

ache

rs

know

elem

enta

ry

cont

entm

ath

Ensure

adequate

subj

ect-m

atte

r

preparatio

nfo

r

middl

escho

ol

teache

rsH

old

teache

r

prep

aratio

nin

stit

utio

ns

accountabl

efo

rthe

qualit

yofth

ete

ache

rs

they

produce

Clo

selic

ensure

loophole

sto

ensure

thatte

ache

rskn

owth

e

cont

entth

eyte

ach

Policies that need to better connectto teacher effectiveness

Policies that fail to ensure thatteachers are well prepared

Policies teachers w

subject-mat

CRITICAL

ATTENTION

AREAS

3

5566666667777

7778888888999999999101010101010

101010101011111111111111

42 46 46 43 49 22 30 34

Massachusetts

ColoradoFlorida

Delaware


Louisiana

Oklahoma

Rhode Island

Tennessee

Virginia

Arkansas

Connecticut

Georgia

Maryland

New YorkSouth Carolina

Texas

Alabama

Illinois

Kentucky

Mississippi

New Jersey

North Carolina

Ohio

California

Hawaii

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nevada

North Dakota

Washington

West Virginia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

New Hampshire

New Mexico

Pennsylvania

South DakotaUtah

Vermont

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Alaska

Arizona

Idaho

Maine

Montana

Nebraska

Oregon


33/92

Massachusetts

ColoradoFlorida

Delaware


Louisiana

Oklahoma

Rhode Island

Tennessee

Virginia

Arkansas

Connecticut

Georgia

Maryland

New YorkSouth Carolina

Texas

Alabama

Illinois

Kentucky

Mississippi

New Jersey

North Carolina

Ohio

California

Hawaii

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nevada

North Dakota

Washington

West Virginia

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

New Hampshire

New Mexico

Pennsylvania

South DakotaUtah

Vermont

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Alaska

Arizona

Idaho

Maine

Montana

Nebraska

Oregon

Provid

efle

xibilit

yin

dem

onstrating

cont

ent

knowle

dgefo

ralte

rnate

rout

es

Allo

wfo

ralte

rnate

rout

ediversit

y

Ensure

programsad

mit

teache

rcandid

ates

who

areprep

ared

todo

colle

ge-level

work

Ensureth

atspecial

educ

atio

nte

ache

rsare

adequately

preparedto

teach

subj

ectm

atte

r

Info

rmth

epubl

icab

out

teache

rprep

aratio

n

program

qualit

y

Ensureth

atout-

of-

statete

ache

rsm

eet

thestateste

stin

g

require

ments

Require

newte

ache

r

evaluati

onsto

occur

earlyin

theye

ar

Repo

rtscho

olle

veld

ata

tosupp

ort

theeq

uitabl

edi

strib

utio

n

ofte

ache

rs

Ensureth

atstru

gglin

g

teache

rsre

ceiv

esupp

ort

Strength

ensele

ctivit

y

ofalte

rnaterout

es

Policies that limitthe teacher pipeline

38 28 28 44 34 33 9 19 25 26

LOW-HANGING

FRUIT


34/92



2010 Policy Update:

2009 Overall Grade:

Summary of Blueprint for Change in Alabama

Low-Hanging Fruit:This section highlights areas where a small adjustment would result in significantly stronger policy.

Ensure that undergraduate teacher preparation programs admit candidates who are prepared to do college-level work."!

Report school-level data to support the equitable distribution of teachers."!

Strengthen selectivity of alternate route programs."!

Update testing requirements for new teachers."!

Critical Attention Areas:This section identifies the highest priority areas for Alabama as it works to advance teacher quality.

Ensure that teacher evaluations assess effectiveness in the classroom."!

Connect tenure decisions to teacher effectiveness."!

Prevent ineffective teachers from remaining in the classroom indefinitely."!

Ensure that elementary teachers know the science of reading."!

Ensure that elementary teachers know elementary content math."!

Ensure that elementary content tests adequately assess content knowledge in each subject area."!

Provide flexibility to alternate route teachers in demonstrating content knowledge."!

Broaden alternate route usage and providers."!

Teacher Evaluation: The state has replaced its PEPE teacher evaluation system with the new EDUCATEAlabama sys-tem. Under EDUCATEAlabama, every teacher is observed at least twice, and both observations are unannounced. Oneobservation must occur in the fall (October-mid December), and the other must occur in the spring (late January-March).A post-observation conference follows each formal classroom observation.http://www.educatealabama.net/

C-


35/92



: 33

2010 Policy Update:

2009 Overall Grade:

: 33

Summary of Blueprint for Change in Alaska

No recent policy changes were identified.

D



Ensure that special education teachers are adequately prepared to teach subject matter."!


Inform the public about teacher preparation program quality."!

Critical Attention Areas:This section identifies the highest priority areas for Alaska as it works to advance teacher quality.





Ensure that elementary teachers know elementary math content."!

Ensure adequate subject-matter preparation for middle school teachers."!

Ensure that teacher preparation programs are accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce."!

Close licensure loopholes to ensure that teachers know the content they teach."!


Ensure that alternate route candidates have sufficient content knowledge."!

Broaden alternate route usage and providers."!


36/92



2010 Policy Update:

2009 Overall Grade:

Summary of Blueprint for Change in Arizona

Critical Attention Areas:This section identifies the highest priority areas for Arizona as it works to advance teacher quality.











Broaden alternate route usage."!

Teacher Evaluation: New legislation requires the use of an evaluation framework that includes quantitative data onstudent academic progress that accounts for between 33 percent and 50 percent of outcomes. By school year 2012-2013, districts must use this instrument for annual evaluations of all teachers. Teachers who are rated as inadequatenow have 60 days to improve rather than 85. Arizona Revised Statute 15-203, amended H.B. 2011

Tenure: Districts are now prohibited from using tenure as a factor in teacher layoffs, and they no longer have toconsider tenure when they rehire. Also, if salary reductions are necessary, districts may reduce the salaries of sometenured teachers and not others. H.B. 2011

Teacher Dismissal: Teachers dismissed for cause now have only 10 days to request a hearing rather than 30.H.B. 2011

Alternative Certification: Arizona now requires that alternate route candidates complete 45 classroom hours orthree credit hours of training in research-based systematic phonics instruction. H.B. 2298

D+


37/92



: 35

2010 Policy Update:

2009 Overall Grade:

Arizona Summary continued





Ensure that out-of-state teachers meet the states testing requirements."!

Evaluate new teachers early in the year."!

Ensure that struggling teachers receive support."!



38/92



2010 Policy Update:

2009 Overall Grade:

Summary of Blueprint for Change in Arkansas

No recent policy changes were identified.

C-

Critical Attention Areas:This section identifies the highest priority areas for Arkansas as it works to advance teacher quality.








Low-Hanging Fruit:

This section highlights areas where a small adjustment would result in significantly stronger policy.

Evaluate new teachers early in the year."!






39/92



: 37

2010 Policy Update:

2009 Overall Grade:

Summary of Blueprint for Change in California

State Data System: The state eliminated its prohibition against using data from the state data system for the pur-pose of teacher evaluations. In addition, such data can also now be used to evaluate teacher preparation programs.www.dataqualitycampaign.org; Senate Bill X5 1

Alternative Certification: California now allows community-based organizations and nongovernmental organiza-tions to be providers of alternate routes. Senate Bill X5 1

D+

Critical Attention Areas:This section identifies the highest priority areas for California as it works to advance teacher quality.
















40/92



2010 Policy Update:

2009 Overall Grade:

Summary of Blueprint for Change in Colorado

Teacher Evaluation: Colorado now requires annual evaluations for all teachers. Probationary teachers must receiveat least two documented observations that result in a written evaluation report each academic year. Beginningwith the 2012-2013 school year, nonprobationary teachers must receive a written evaluation each academic year.Beginning in the fall of 2013, teachers will be rated highly effective, effective or ineffective. Fifty percent of ateachers evaluation will be based on students academic growth as measured partially by test scores.S.B. 10-191

Tenure: Probationary teachers must earn three consecutiveeffective ratings to become nonprobationary. Veteran,or nonprobationary, teachers who receive two consecutive ineffective ratings return to probationary status and

have a year to improve or face termination.S.B. 10-191Teacher Preparation Program Accountability: Beginning in 2011, the state must annually report on the effective-ness of teacher preparation programs using aggregate data, including the correlation among different preparationprograms and student academic growth, educator placement, and educator mobility and retention.S.B. 10-036

D+

Critical Attention Areas:This section identifies the highest priority areas for Colorado as it works to advance teacher quality.











41/92



: 39

2010 Policy Update:

2009 Overall Grade:

Summary of Blueprint for Change in Connecticut

Critical Attention Areas:This section identifies the highest priority areas for Connecticut as it works to advance teacher quality.

Ensure that teacher evaluations assess effectiveness i

Stpy National

Documents

Transcript of Stpy National