2012 state teacher policy yearbook

7/29/2019 2012 State teacher policy yearbook

1/37

PRINTSTORIESCANNOTAPPEARUNTIL:12:01A.M.Wednesday,JANUARY23rd,2013.

PLEASEDONOTSHARETHECONTENTSOFTHISREPORTORANYPORTIONOFTHISREPORTWITHANYONEINADVANCEOFTHE

YEARBOOKRELEASE.


2/37

NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2012 OREGON

: 1

Admissioninto

PreparationPrograms

ElementaryTeac

herPreparation

MiddleSchoolT

eacherPreparatio

n

SecondaryTeach

erPreparation

SpecialEducatio

nTeacherPrepara

tion

StudentTeaching

TeacherPreparatio

nProgram

Accountability

2012 State Teacher

Policy YearbookImproving TeacherPreparation in Oregon

StatePoliciesin

NeedofA

ttention


3/37

Acknowledgments

STATES

State education agencies remain our most important partners in this eort, and their continued cooperation has helped

to ensure the actual accuracy o the nal product. Although this years edition did not require the extensive review that

the comprehensive editions require, we still wanted to make sure that we captured all relevant policy changes and that

states perspectives were represented. Every state ormally received a drat o the policy updates we identied in July 2012

or comment and correction; states also received a nal drat o their reports a month prior to release. All but one state

responded 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:

nBill and Melinda Gates Foundation

nThe Joyce Foundation

nCarnegie Corporation o New York nThe 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 Hale

at EFA Solutions or the original Yearbook design and ongoing technical support.


4/37


: 1

Improving Teacher Preparation inOregon

The 2012 State Teacher Policy Yearbook puts a spotlight on the critical issue o teacher preparation. The2011 edition o the Yearbookprovided a comprehensive review o all aspects o states teacher policies, andalthough considerable progress was noted in areas related to teacher eectiveness, the same could not besaid or teacher preparation. While many states have made advancements in teacher evaluation and tenure

requirements, teacher preparation has yet to capture states attention.

Good preparation does not guarantee that teachers will ultimately be eective, but there is much more thatcan be done to help ensure that new teachers are classroom ready. This edition o the Yearbook oersstates a roadmap o their teacher preparation policies, identiying priorities that need critical attention andalso identiying low-hanging ruit, policy changes that states can implement in relatively short order.

Current Status o Oregons Teacher Preparation PolicyLast years State Teacher Policy Yearbookprovided an in-depth analysis o each o thetopics identied below. The 2012 score includes any policy changes identied in the lastyear. The symbol indicates a score increase rom 2011.

D-

YearbookGoal Topic

2012Score

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


5/37

2 : NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2012 OREGON

Oregon Response to Policy UpdateStates were asked to review NCTQs identied updates and also to comment on policy changes related to teacherpreparation that have occurred in the last year, pending changes or teacher preparation in the state more gener-ally. States were also asked to review NCTQs analysis o teacher preparation authority (See Figure 20).

Oregon was helpul in providing NCTQ with additional inormation about policy changes related to teacherpreparation. The state added that the NES elementary education test is ully aligned to the Common Core StateStandards. It also brings a stronger reading component to the elementary education test.

Oregon pointed out that it is in the process o reviewing its elementary education licensure requirements over thenext year and attention will be given to the depth o reading and mathematics preparation or elementary teach-ers, with plans to adopt a specialization in elementary math. The state urther noted that both middle level andsecondary preparation requirements are also part o an upcoming review.

In addition, Oregons student teaching requirements have been realigned to the NCATE eld placement standards,and all preservice programs must show data regarding candidates perormance in student teaching, including con-tributions to K-12 students learning growth during the student teaching experience. (OAR 584-017-1038)

Oregon also noted that it adopted strong rules regarding low-perorming and at-risk institutions ollowing an

accreditation visit, and it will be participating in the NCATE/CAEP bid or more transparency with regard to sitevisit outcomes. Rules are currently being led with the Oregon secretary o state.

Further, Oregon said that it approved a school counseling alternate route license through the Salem-Keizer school districtand an administrator preparation program through the Conederation o Oregon School Administrators. The state notedthat it has not yet received an alternate route proposal or teacher preparation rom a non-university provider.

Oregon was also helpul in providing NCTQ with additional inormation about state authority or teacher prepara-tion and licensing.

2012 Policy Update orOregonBased on a review o state legislation, rules and regulations, NCTQ has identied the ollowing recent policy

changes in Oregon:

Elementary Teacher Preparation

The Multiple Subjects exam is no longer administered. The required test is now the NES Elementary Education test

(subtests I and II). Subtest I includes reading and English language arts (62%) and social studies (38%). Subtest II

includes math (50%); science (38%); and the arts, health and tness (12%).

www.nestest.com

Middle School Teacher Preparation

Oregon has adopted middle grades content tests in each o the our content areas: English language arts, general

science, math and social science. Candidates opting or a middle-level endorsement may pass the appropriate

single-subject assessment.

www.orela.nesinc.com

Admission to Teacher Preparation Programs

The state now requires candidates to pass the basic skills test as a criterion or admission to teacher preparation

programs. Oregon Administrative Rules 584-017-1028


6/37


: 3

COMING SOON

NCTQ Teacher Prep ReviewPreparing teachers to be eective and success-ul in the classroom requires both the strongstate policy ramework described in the Year-book and quality implementation by statesteacher preparation programs.

How are Oregons programs doing? NCTQ willsoon answer that question with our orthcomingreview o the nations higher education-basedteacher preparation programs that produce 99percent o traditionally-prepared teachers. The

Reviewwill nd the programs that are doing thebest job preparing tomorrows educators, thosethat need to improve and those that need to beradically restructured.

The Reviewwill be released in Spring 2013. Findout more at www.nctq.org/p/edschools.

For a sneak peek, see page 6.

2012Grade

2011Grade

Delivering well-prepared teachers

Alabama B- C

Alaska F F

Arizona D- D-

Arkansas C C

California D D

Colorado D D-Connecticut C+ C-

Delaware D- D-

District of Columbia D D

Florida B- B-

Georgia C C

Hawaii D D

Idaho D D

Illinois D D

Indiana B- C+

Iowa D D

Kansas D+ D+

Kentucky C+ C-Louisiana C C

Maine D+ D

Maryland D+ D+

Massachusetts C+ C+

Michigan D+ D+

Minnesota C+ C

Mississippi C C

Missouri D+ D+

Montana F F

Nebraska D- D-

Nevada D- D-

New Hampshire C-D

New Jersey C- D+

New Mexico D+ D+

New York C- D+

North Carolina D- D-

North Dakota D D

Ohio C- D+

Oklahoma C C

OREGON D- D-

Pennsylvania C C

Rhode Island C D+

South Carolina C- C-

South Dakota DD

Tennessee B- B-

Texas C+ C+

Utah D D

Vermont C- D+

Virginia C- C-

Washington D+ D+

West Virginia C- C-

Wisconsin D+ D

Wyoming F F

Average State Grade D+ D

Figure 1


7/37


1. Raise admission standards.

Require teacher candidates to pass a test of academic proficiencythat assesses reading, writing and mathematics skills as a criterionfor admission into teacher preparation programs.

Require preparation programs to use a common test normed tothe general college-bound population.

2.Align teacher preparation with

Common Core State Standards.

Ensure that coursework and subject-matter testing for elementaryteacher candidates are well aligned with standards.

Ensure that teacher preparation programs prepare elementaryteaching candidates in the science of reading instruction andrequire a rigorous assessment of reading instruction.

Require teacher preparation programs to provide mathematicscontent specifically geared to the needs of elementary teachers.

3. Improve clinical preparation.

Ensure that cooperating teachers have demonstrated evidence ofeffectiveness as measured by student learning.

Require summative clinical experience for all prospective teachersthat includes at least 10 weeks of full-time student teaching.

4.Raise licensing standards.

Eliminate K-8 generalist licenses.

Require subject-matter testing for middle school teacher candidates.

Require subject-matter testing for secondary teacher candidates.

Require middle school and secondary science and social studiesteachers to pass a test of content knowledge that ensures sufficient

knowledge of the subjects taught.

5.Dont lower the bar or

special education teachers.

Do away with K-12 special education teacher licenses.

Require special education teachers to pass a subject-matter testfor licensure that is no less rigorous than what is required ofgeneral education candidates.

6.Hold teacher preparation

programs accountable.

Collect data that connect student achievement gains toteacher preparation programs.

Gather other meaningful data that reflect program performance.

Establish the minimum standard of performance for eachcategory of data.

Produce and publish an annual report card for each teacherpreparation program.

Teacher Preparation Policy Checklist or States


8/37


: 5

Critical Issues or State Teacher Preparation Policy

Critical Attention: Admission into Teacher Preparation ProgramsOregon does not ensure that teacher preparation programsadmit candidates with strong academic records.

The demands o K-12 classrooms today require teachers with strong academic back-grounds who can positively aect 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 teacher preparation program admissions.

Looking to international examples, such top-perorming countries as Finland and

South Korea admit prospective teacher candidates rom the top 10 percent o the col-lege-going population. While a bar that high is a long way rom average standards inthe United States, it seems reasonable and appropriate that states should limit accessto teacher preparation programs to those who are in the top hal o the college-goingpopulation in terms o academic achievement.

Most states limit their academic screening to basic skills tests, which generally assessonly middle school-level skills and which are generally only normed to the prospectiveteacher population.

Oregon now requires that approved undergraduate teacher preparation programsonly accept teacher candidates who have passed a basic skills test or the equivalentbasic skills testing alternative.

NEXT STEPS FOR OREGON:

n Require that programs use a common admissions test normed to the general college-boundpopulation.

Oregon should require programs to use an assessment that demonstrates that candidates are aca-demically competitive with all peers, regardless o their intended proession. Requiring a common testnormed to the general college population would allow or the selection o applicants in the top hal otheir class while also acilitating program comparison.

n Consider requiring that candidates pass subject-matter tests as a condition o admission intoteacher programs.

In addition to ensuring that programs require a measure o academic perormance or admission, Ore-gon might also want to consider requiring content testing prior to program admission as opposed toat the point o program completion. Program candidates are likely to have completed coursework thatcovers related test content in the prerequisite classes required or program admission. Thus, it would besensible to have candidates take content tests while this knowledge is resh rather than wait two yearsto ulll the requirement, and candidates lacking sucient expertise would be able to remedy decitsprior to entering ormal preparation.

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, ArkansasCaliornia, 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 HampshirNew Jersey, New Mexico, New YorNorth Carolina, North Dakota, OhOklahoma,OREGON, PennsylvanRhode Island, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,Vermont, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Illinois

Texas

49

1

1


9/37


TESTN

ORM

EDTO

COLLEG

E-

BOUNDPO

PULATI

ONPRIORTO

ADMISSIONTO

PREP

PROGRA

M

Testnorm

edonly

tote

ache

r

candid

atesbefo

readmis

sion

toprep

program

Testnorm

edonly

tote

ache

r

candid

atesdu

ringor

after

completio

nofprep

program

Note

strequire

d

Do states appropriately

test teacher candidates'academic proficiency?

1 23 18 9

1

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

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

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

OREGON

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South DakotaTennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 2

SNEAK PEEK:Teacher Prep Review

TheReviewwill be released in Spring 2013.Find out more at www.nctq.org/p/edschools.

Are Oregons undergraduate teacherpreparation programs in the Reviewsufficiently selective?

are not suficiently selective.75%

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


10/37


: 7

Critical Attention: Elementary Teacher Preparation

Oregon does not ensure that newelementary teachers are ready to teach to theCommon Core Standards.

To be eective, elementary teacher candidates need liberal arts coursework rel-evant to the K-6 classroom, and they should also be required to pass a rigorouscontent test that ensures appropriate subject-matter knowledge.

The Common Core State Standards, adopted by nearly all states including Oregon,represent an eort to signicantly raise expectations or the knowledge and skillsAmerican students will need or college readiness and global competitiveness. And

Oregon, like all states, must ensure that its teachers are prepared to teach to thesehigh standards.

Although a standards-based approach grants greater fexibility to teacher prepa-ration programs regarding program design, it is dicult to monitor or enorceabsent 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.

Unortunately, Oregons policies ail to ensure that elementary teacher candi-dates will have the subject-area knowledge necessary to teach to these standards.The state does not require a subject-matter test that reports subscores in all coreareas, and its coursework requirements lack the specicity to guarantee relevancy to the elementary class-room. In addition, Oregon does not ensure that teachers will be adequately prepared in the science o reading

instruction, another key element o the Common Core State Standards.


n Require elementary teacher candidates to pass a subject-matter test designed to ensuresuficient content knowledge o all subjects.

Oregon should ensure that its elementary content test is appropriately aligned with the Common CoreState Standards and require separate, meaningul passing scores or each core area on the test. AlthoughOregon is on the right track by administering a two-part licensing test, thus making it harder or teach-ers to pass i they ail some subject areas, the state is encouraged to urther strengthen its policy andrequire separate passing scores or each subject on its multiple-subject test. Regrettably, the state allowsalternative assessment, in which candidates who have twice ailed the content test can petition or a

waiver o this requirement.n Require teacher preparation programs to provide mathematics content specifically geared tothe needs o elementary teachers and require candidates to pass a rigorous math assessment.

Oregon should require teacher preparation programs to provide mathematics content specically gearedto the needs o elementary teachers. This includes specic coursework in oundations, algebra and geom-etry, with some statistics. Oregon should also require a rigorous assessment that reports a separatesubscore or and evaluates mathematics knowledge beyond an elementary school level and challengescandidates understanding o underlying mathematics concepts.

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, RhodeIsland, South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,Wisconsin, Wyoming

Alabama, Caliornia, Connecticut,Indiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire

Massachusetts


11/37


OREGON

n Require teacher candidates to pass a rigorousassessment in the science o reading instruction.

Oregon should require a rigorous reading assess-

ment to ensure that its elementary teachercandidates are adequately prepared in the sci-ence o reading instruction beore entering theclassroom. The assessment should clearly testknowledge and skills related to the science oreading, and i it is combined with an assessmentthat also tests general pedagogy or elementarycontent, it should report a subscore or the sci-ence o reading specically. Although Oregonselementary assessment addresses the compo-nents o scientically based reading instructionin Subtest 1, the breadth o the topics coveredon the exam makes it possible to pass this exam

without correctly answering questions on thescience o reading.

n Ensure that teacher preparation programsdeliver a comprehensive program o study inbroad liberal arts coursework.

Oregon should either articulate a more specicset o standards or establish more comprehensivecoursework requirements or elementary teach-er candidates that align with the Common CoreStandards to ensure that candidates will completecoursework relevant to the common topics in ele-

mentary grades. An adequate curriculum is likely torequire approximately 36 credit hours in the coresubject areas o English, science, social studies andne arts. Presently, Oregon does not speciy anycoursework requirements or general education orelementary teacher candidates, and it has only out-lined a broad set o standards or programs to applyin preparing elementary candidates.

n Require elementary teacher candidates tocomplete a content specialization in anacademic subject area.

In addition to enhancing content knowledge, this

requirement would ensure that prospective teach-ers in Oregon take higher-level academic course-work. This requirement also provides an importantsaeguard in the event that candidates are unableto successully complete clinical practice require-ments. With an academic concentration (or bet-ter still a major or minor), candidates who are notready or the classroom and do not pass studentteaching can still be on track to complete a degree.

YES1 No3InadequateTest2

1. Strong Practice: Alabama4, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota5,New Hampshire, New Mexico6, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin

2. Caliornia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas

3. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District o Columbia,Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,New Jersey, North Carolina7, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island,South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington,West Virginia, Wyoming

4. Alabamas reading test spans the K-12 spectrum.

5. Based on the limited inormation available about the test on

Minnesotas website.

6. Test is under development and not yet available or review.

7. North Carolina has adopted a task orce recommendation to requirethe Foundations o Reading test. Rules have yet to be promulgated,including whether the test will be required or initial licensure. Currentrules require such tests or proessional licensure only.

108

33

Do states measure new teachers knowledge

of the science of reading?

Figure 3


12/37


: 9

No3

2

YES1 InadequateTest2

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

2. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado, Delaware, Districto Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada,New Mexico, New York4, 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 orproessional licensure only.

11

38

OREGON

Do states measure new elementary teachers

knowledge of math?

Figure 4

Do states ensure that

elementary teachers

know core content?

ELEM

ENTARY

CONTENT

TESTWITH

SEPARA

TEPA

SSIN

G

SCORE

FOREA

CHSUBJECT

Elem

enta

rycont

entte

stwith

separate

passin

gscorefo

r

som

esubj

ects

Elem

enta

rycont

entte

stwith

com

posite

score

Note

stre

quir

ed

9 9 29 4

1

2

2

2

3

5

4

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

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

Figure 5

1. Testing is not required or initial licensure.

2. The required test is a questionable assessment ocontent 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 oGeneral Curriculum. Rules have yet to be promulgated,including whether the test will be required or initiallicensure. Current rules require such tests or proessionallicensure only.

5. Oregon allows alternative assessment or candidateswho ail twice.


13/37


ALABAMA

Alaska

ArizonaArkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

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 CarolinaSouth Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

FINE

ARTS

ArtH

istory

Music

SCIENCE

Chemist

ry

Physics

GeneralPh

ysica

lScienc

e

EarthScie

nce

Biology/Lif

eScie

nce

SOCIAL STUDIES

Americ

anHist

oryI

Americ

anHist

oryII

Americ

anGovernm

ent

WorldHist

ory(A

ncie

nt)

WorldHist

ory(M

odern)

WorldHist

ory

(Non

-Weste

rn)

Geography

ENGLISH

America

nLit

eratur

e

World/B

ritish

Literatur

e

Writin

g/Gramm

ar/

Com

positio

n

Child

ren'sLite

ratu

reDo states expect

elementary teachersto have in-depth

knowledge of

core content?

Subject mentioned Subject covered in depth

Figure 6

Alabama

Alaska

ArizonaArkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

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 CarolinaSouth Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming


14/37


: 11

Figure 8

Teacher licensing structure in Oregon

Massachusetts

AlabamaAlaska

ArkansasIdahoIowa

MarylandNew Jersey

OhioSouth Dakota

TennesseeVirginia

West Virginia

ColoradoConnecticut

DelawareDistrict of Columbia

HawaiiIndianaKansas

KentuckyLouisiana

MaineMississippiMissouri

New 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, Caliornia, 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.

Figure 7

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

State setspassing scoreat the mean

(average score ofall test takers)

State sets score wellbelow mean

(one standard deviation~16th percentile)

State sets score farbelow mean

(two standard deviations~2nd percentile)

50th Percentile

Pre K KK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

EARLY CHILDHOOD (PRE K-4)

EARLY CHILDHOOD/ELEMENTARY (PRE K-8)

ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE LEVEL (3-8)

MIDDLE LEVEL SINGLE SUBJECT (5-9)

MIDDLE/HIGH SCHOOL SINGLE SUBJECT (7-12)

(BIRTH - K)*

* SPECIAL EDUCATION EARLY INTERVENTION

SPECIAL EDUCATION EARLY CHILDHOOD/ELEMENTARY (PRE K-8)

SPECIAL EDUCATION ELEM./MIDDLE LEVEL (3-9)

SPECIAL EDUCATION MIDDLE/HIGH SCHOOL (5-12)


15/37


Critical Attention: Middle School Teacher Preparation

Oregon does not ensure that new middle schoolteachers will be prepared to teach appropriategrade-level content

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

Too many states, including Oregon, ail to distinguish the knowl-edge and skills needed by middle school teachers rom those needed

by an elementary teacher. Whether teaching a single subject ina departmentalized setting or teaching multiple subjects in a sel-contained classroom, middle school teachers must be able to teachsignicantly more advanced content than what elementary teachersare expected to teach.

Oregon allows middle school teachers to teach on a generalist 3-8license. The state oers middle-level endorsements, but candidateshave the option o either completing a major or passing a contenttest. Candidates opting or the generalist 3-8 license are only requiredto pass the elementary content test.

Further, Oregon allows alternative assessment, in which any candidate who has twice ailed the content test

can petition or a waiver o the subject-matter requirement.


n Eliminate the generalist license.

Teachers with a license that spans elementary and middle grades are less likely to be adequately pre-pared to teach core academic areas at the middle school level because their preparation requirementsare not specic to the middle or secondary levels. By requiring specic middle grades certication,Oregon will help ensure that students in those grades have teachers who are appropriately prepared toteach grade-level content, which is dierent and more advanced than what elementary teachers teach.

n Require content testing in all core areas.

As a condition o initial licensure, all candidates teaching middle grades in Oregon should have to pass asubject-matter test in every core academic area they intend to teach.

n Encourage middle school teachers licensed to teach multiple subjects to earn two subject-matter minors.

This would allow candidates to gain sucient knowledge to pass state licensing tests and be highlyqualied in both subjects, and it would increase schools stang fexibility. However, middle school can-didates in Oregon who intend to teach a single subject should earn a major in that area.

25

23

Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, 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 oColumbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey,Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia,West Virginia

3


16/37


: 13

1. Caliornia oers a K-12 generalist licenseor sel-contained classrooms.

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

3. With the exception o mathematics.

4. Oregon oers 3-8 license.

5. Wisconsin oers 1-8 license.

K-8LICEN

SEN

OT

OFFERED

K-8

license

off

ered

for

self

-contain

edc

lassro

om

s

K-8

license

off

ered

Do states distinguish middlegrade preparation fromelementary preparation?

32 5 14

3

4

5

1

2

Figure 9

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

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


17/37


Do middle school teachers

have to pass an appropriate

content test in every core

subject they are licensed

to teach?YE

S No,te

stdo

esnot

report

subs

core

sfo

r

allc

oresubj

ects

No,K

-8lic

ensere

quir

es

only

elem

enta

ryte

st

No,te

stin

gof

alls

ubje

cts

notre

quir

ed

25 4 15 7

1

2

4

5

6

7

3

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

OREGON

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

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 schoolcertication requirements.

4. It is unclear how new legislation will aecttesting 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 orcandidates who ail twice.

Figure 10


18/37


: 15

Critical Attention: Secondary Teacher Preparation

Oregon does not ensure that newsecondary teachers will be prepared to teachappropriate grade-level content.

Secondary teachers must be experts in the subject matter they teach, and only

a rigorous test ensures that teacher candidates are sufciently and appropriately

knowledgeable in their content area. Coursework is generally only indicative o

background in a subject area; even a major oers no certainty o what content has

been covered.

Yet not all states ensure that secondary teachers have sufcient content knowledge

in the subjects they are licensed to teach. And nearly all stateseven those that

do generally require content testing or secondary teachersallow some science

and/or social studies teachers to teach with broad licenses that have signifcant

loopholes.

Most high school science courses are specialized, and the teachers o these sub-

jects are not interchangeable. Nonetheless, most states allow teachers to obtain

general science or combination licenses across multiple science disciplines, and, in

most cases, these teachers need only pass a general knowledge science exam that

does not ensure subject-specifc content knowledge. This means that a teacher with

a 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 physics

questions incorrectly.

Just as with broad feld science, most states oer 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 political

science to anthropology and psychology. Under such a license a teacher who majored in psychology could

teach history to high school students having passed only a general knowledge test and answering mostand

perhaps allhistory questions incorrectly.

Oregon does not ensure that its secondary teachers are adequately prepared to teach grade-level content.

Although the state requires that its secondary teacher candidates pass a content test to teach any core sec-

ondary subjects, it allows alternative assessment, in which candidates who have twice ailed the content

test can petition or a waiver o this requirement. Further, Oregon oers a secondary endorsement in inte-

grated science, which appears to be the equivalent o the general science endorsement ound in other states. It

also oers secondary certifcation in general social science. Teachers with these licenses are not required to

pass individual content tests or each discipline they are permitted to teach.


n Require subject-matter testing or secondary teacher candidates.

Oregon should reconsider its waiver policy and, as a condition o licensure, require all secondary teachercandidates to pass a content test in each subject area they plan to teach to ensure that they possessadequate subject-matter knowledge and are prepared to teach grade-level content.

Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, 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


19/37


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

YES

No

Do all secondary teachers

have to pass a content

test in every subject

area they are licensed

to teach?

3

Looph

ole

in

science

28

Looph

ole

in

social

studie

s

34 12

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

1

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

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

Figure 11

n Require secondary science teachers to passa content test or each discipline they arelicensed to teach.

By allowing a general science certicationand only requiring a general knowledge sci-ence examOregon is not ensuring thatthese secondary teachers possess adequatesubject-specic content knowledge. The statesrequired assessment combines all subject areas(e.g., biology, chemistry, physics) and does notreport separate scores or each subject area.

n Require secondary social studies teachersto pass a content test or each disciplinethey are licensed to teach.

By allowing a general social studies certica-tionand only requiring a general knowledgesocial studies examOregon is not ensuringthat its secondary teachers possess adequatesubject-specic content knowledge. The statesrequired assessment combines all subject areas(e.g., history, geography, economics) and doesnot report separate scores or each subject area.


20/37


: 17

Critical Attention: Special Education Teacher Preparation

Oregon could do more to ensure that new specialeducation teachers will know the subject matter thatthey will be required to teach.

Across the country, states are raising perormance expectations to ensure that

students who graduate rom high school are college and career ready. These more

rigorous 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

Common Core State Standards is even more pronounced or special education

teachers, who typically have had to meet an even lower bar or content prepara-

tion than general educators. And certifcation rules or special education teachersthat do not dierentiate between teaching at the elementary and secondary levels

only exacerbate the 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 the

subject matter they are expected to teach; this issue is just as valid in terms o

pedagogical knowledge.

While a K-12 special education license may be appropriate or low-incidence

special education students, such as those with severe cognitive disabilities, it is

deeply problematic or the overwhelming majority o high-incidence special education students who are

expected to learn grade-level content.

Commendably, Oregon does not oer a K-12 special education certifcation. Oregon also holds its ele-

mentary special education teachers to the same preparation and subject-matter testing requirements as

general elementary teachers. However, as noted in the elementary section, these standards are insufcient

to ensure that teachers will be prepared to teach to the Common Core State Standards. Because the state

requires special education teachers to also hold a basic or standard teaching license with a subject-matter

endorsement, secondary special education candidates are required to pass a single-subject content test,

which, although not ensuring content knowledge o every subject that will be taught, does more to ensure

subject-matter preparation than the requirements o most states. Unortunately, Oregon allows alterna-

tive assessment, in which any candidate who has twice ailed a content test can petition or a waiver o

the subject-matter requirement.

NEXT STEPS FOR OREGON:n Require that all elementary teacher candidates pass the same content test as generaleducation teachers.

Oregon should reconsider its waiver o subject-matter testing. Failure to ensure that teachers pos-sess requisite content knowledge deprives special education students o the opportunity to reachtheir academic potential.

Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, District oColumbia, 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


21/37


DOES

NOT

OFF

ERA

K-12

CER

TIFI

CATI

ON

Off

ersK

-12

and

grad

e-sp

ecifi

c

certifi

cati

on(s)

Off

ersonly

aK-

12

certifi

catio

n

Do states distinguish

between elementary

and secondary special

education teachers?

16 10 25

1

1

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

OREGON

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 12

n Provide a broad liberal arts program ostudy to elementary special educationcandidates.

Oregon should ensure that special educationteacher candidates who will teach elementarygrades possess not only knowledge o eectivelearning strategies but also relevant knowledgeo the subject matter at hand by requiring core-subject coursework relevant to the elementaryclassroom. Failure to ensure that teachers pos-sess requisite content knowledge deprives spe-cial education students o the opportunity toreach their academic potential.

n Ensure that secondary special education

teachers possess adequate contentknowledge.

Secondary special education teachers are re-quently generalists who teach many core sub-ject areas. While it may be unreasonable toexpect secondary special education teachers tomeet the same requirements or each subjectthey teach as other teachers who teach onlyone subject, Oregons current policy o requir-ing limited subject-matter testing is unac-ceptable and will not help special educationstudents to meet rigorous learning standards.

To provide a middle ground, Oregon shouldconsider a customized HOUSSE route or newsecondary special education teachers and lookto the fexibility oered by the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA), which allowsor a combination o testing and coursework todemonstrate requisite content knowledge inthe classroom.

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


22/37


: 19

Elementary Subject-Matter Test

Required or an elementaryspecial education license

Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey,New York, OREGON1, Pennsylvania2, RhodeIsland, Texas, West Virginia3, Wisconsin

Required or a K-12special education license

Colorado, Idaho

Secondary Subject-Matter Test(s)

Tests in all core subjectsrequired or secondaryspecial education license

None

Test in at least one subjectrequired or secondary specialeducation license

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, New Jersey,New York4, OREGON1, Pennsylvania2,Rhode Island, West Virginia3

Required or a K-12

special education license

None

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 certication 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 dualcertication 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?

Figure 13


23/37


Critical Attention: Student Teaching

Oregon does not ensure that teacher preparationprograms will provide teacher candidates with ahigh-quality summative clinical experience.

The importance o clinical practice in teacher preparation has become a majorarea o ocus. Student teaching is the nal clinical experience o teacher prepara-tion, and teacher candidates have only one chance to experience the best possibleplacement. Student teaching will shape candidates own perormance as teachersand help determine the type o school in which they will choose to teach. A medio-cre student teaching experience, let alone a disastrous one, can never be undone.

Central to the quality o the student teaching experience is the classroom teacherwho serves as the teacher candidates mentor, or cooperating teacher. Only strongteachers with evidence o their eectiveness, as assessed by objective measures ostudent learning and the teachers principals, should be able to serve as cooperat-ing teachers. Yet placement is much more likely to be the luck o the draw. NCTQsstudy Student Teaching in the United Statesound that three out o our teacherpreparation programs ail to require that cooperating teachers must be eectiveinstructors.

Oregon does not articulate any requirements or cooperating teachers. In addition,although the state requires candidates to complete at least 15 weeks o studentteaching, only a minimum o nine weeks must be ull time.

NEXT STEPS FOR OREGON:n Ensure that cooperating teachers have demonstrated evidence o eectiveness as measured bystudent learning.

In addition to the ability to mentor an adult, cooperating teachers in Oregon should also be careullyscreened or their capacity to urther student achievement. Research indicates that the only aspect o astudent teaching arrangement that has been shown to have an impact on student achievement is thepositive eect o selection o the cooperating teacher by the preparation program, rather than by thestudent teacher or school district sta.

n Make the states teacher evaluation system the basis or selecting cooperating teachers.

Oregon requires objective measures o student growth to be a signicant criterion o its teacher evalua-

tions. The state should thereore utilize its evaluation results, which provide evidence o eectiveness inthe classroom, in the selection o eective cooperating teachers.

n Require teacher candidates to spend at least 10 weeks student teaching.

Although Oregon does require a ull-time student teaching experience o nearly 10 weeks, the stateshould consider extending the minimum duration. Alignment with a school calendar or at least 10weeks ensures both adequate classroom experience and exposure to a variety o ancillary proessionalactivities.

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, District oColumbia, 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


24/37


: 21

1. Based on new REPA II regulations.

2. Candidates can student teach orless than 12 weeks i determinedto be procient.

COOPERATIN

GTE

ACHER

SELE

CTED

BASED

ON

EFFE

CTIVEN

ESS

FULLTIMESTUDEN

T

TEACHIN

GLA

STSAT

LEAST10WEEKS

Do states requirethe elements of a

high-quality studentteaching experience?

283

2

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana1

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

OREGON

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 14


25/37


Critical Attention: Teacher Preparation Program Accountability

Oregon does not hold its teacher preparationprograms accountable or the eectiveness 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 that ensure that allapproved programs meet minimum perormance standards. Such an accountabil-ity system inorms the publicincluding prospective teachers seeking a programas well as districts hiring graduatesby shining a light on high perormers as wellas identiying those programs perorming poorly.

Further, as more states begin to raise expectations or teachers by way o evalu-ations ocused on eectiveness, there is an even greater need to hold teacherpreparation programs accountable or the eectiveness o the teachers they pro-duce. Although the quality o both the subject-matter preparation and proes-sional sequence is crucial, there are also additional measures that can provide thestate and the public with meaningul, readily understandable indicators o howwell programs are doing when it comes to preparing teachers to be successul inthe classroom.

Oregon neither monitors how well programs are preparing teachers to be suc-cessul by means o collecting program-specic, objective data that refect program perormance, nor has itestablished minimum perormance standards that can be used or accountability purposes. Further, the state

does not provide the public with meaningul, readily understandable indicators o how well programs aredoing.


n Collect data that connect student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs.

As one way to measure whether programs are producing eective classroom teachers, Oregon shouldconsider the academic achievement gains o students taught by programs graduates, averaged over therst three years o teaching. Data that are aggregated to the institution (e.g., combining elementaryand secondary programs) rather than disaggregated to the specic preparation program are not useulor accountability purposes. Such aggregation can mask signicant dierences in perormance amongprograms.

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia,Connecticut, Delaware, District oColumbia, 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


26/37


: 23

n Establish minimum standards o perormanceor accountability purposes or all licensurepathways.

Although measures o student growth are animportant indicator o program eectiveness,they cannot be the sole measure o programquality or several reasons, including the actthat many programs may have graduates whosestudents do not take standardized tests. Theaccountability system must thereore includeother objective measures that show how wellprograms are preparing teachers or the class-room, such as:

Evaluation results rom the rst and/or

second year o teaching; Satisaction ratings by school principals and

teacher supervisors o programs studentteachers, using a standardized orm to per-mit program comparison;

Average raw scores o teacher candidateson licensing tests, including basic skills,subject matter and proessional knowledgetests;

Number o times, on average, it takesteacher candidates to pass licensing tests;

Five-year retention rates o graduates inthe teaching proession.

n Establish minimum standards operormance.

Merely collecting the types o data describedabove is insucient or accountability purposes.The next and perhaps more critical step is or thestate to establish precise minimum standards orteacher preparation program perormance oreach category o data. Programs should then beheld accountable or meeting these standards,

and there should be consequences or ailing todo so, including loss o program approval.

n Publish an annual report card on the stateswebsite.

Oregon should produce an annual report card

that shows all the data the state collects onindividual teacher preparation programs, whichshould be published on the states website atthe program level or the sake o public trans-parency. Data should be presented in a mannerthat clearly conveys whether programs have metperormance standards.

n Maintain ull authority over teacherpreparation program approval.

There appears to be considerable overlap betweenthe public process o state program approval and

the private process o national accreditation inOregon. While it is not unreasonable that thestate may wish to coordinate these processesor institutions also seeking national accredita-tion, Oregon should ensure that it is the statethat considers the evidence o program peror-mance and makes the decision about whetherprograms should continue to be authorized toprepare teachers.


27/37


Do states hold teacher

preparation programs

accountable?

OBJECTIVE

PROGRAM

-

SPECIFI

CDA

TACOLLECTED

MINIMUM

STANDA

RDSFO

R

PERF

ORM

ANCESET

DATA

PUBLICLY

AVAILABLE

ONWEB

SITE

33 5 15

1 2

2

2

1

1

1

4

4

1

4

2

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado3

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana5

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine1

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada1

New Hampshire6

New Jersey1

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio1

Oklahoma

OREGON

Pennsylvania1

Rhode Island1

South Carolina1


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia1

Washington

West Virginia1

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 16

OREGON

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.

YES1 In Race to theTop plan, butnot in policy2

No3

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, Caliornia, 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 studentachievement data to hold

teacher preparationprograms accountable?

Figure 15


28/37


: 25

TEACHER PRODUCTION IN OREGON

States have long established requirements or teacher preparation and licensure and have lately turned their attention

toward accountability systems or preparation programs. But one topic that has received little attention rom states is the

issue o teacher production. From the number o teachers who graduate rom preparation programs each year, only a subsetare certied and only some o those certied are actually hired in the state; the relationship between these numbers has

important implications or related policymaking.

States are rightly ocused on areas o chronic teacher shortages, such as secondary mathematics and science, but littleconsideration is given to areas o consistent oversupply, particularly the overproduction in most states o elementary teach-

ers. While it is certainly desirable to produce a big enough pool to give districts choice in hiring, the substantial oversupply

in some teaching areas is not good or the proession. Limited resources are squandered on individuals who will not go on

to teach, most critically the scarce supply o student teaching placements with eective cooperating teachers. Admissions

criteria, licensure requirements and program accountability standards may be unnecessarily depressed i the dots are notconnected rom graduation to certication to actual employment in a district.

Marylands Teacher Stang Report provides a model or other states. Published biennially, the report has been tracking

stang trends in the state or almost three decades. While its primary purpose is to determine teacher shortage areas, italso identies areas o surplus. By collecting hiring data rom districts, Maryland has a rich set o data that can inorm policy

decisions.

The latest edition o the Teacher Stang Report can be ound at: http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/divisions/certication/progapproval/mtsr.

Oregon teacher production data: NCTQ was unable to nd any published data on teacher production in Oregon that con-

nects program completion, certication and hiring statistics.


29/37


1. National accreditation can be substituted or state approval.

There are some areas where a small adjustmentwould result in signicantly stronger policy. Here aresome issues that represent low-hanging ruit, poli-cies that can be addressed in relatively short order.

n To ensure adequate subject-area knowledge,

Oregon should require secondary teacherswho obtain certification in general science

or general social studies to pass individual

content tests, or a composite test that reportsindividual subscores, or each discipline theywill be licensed to teach, as noted in the sec-ondary critical attention section.

What is the relationship

between state program

approval and national

accreditation?

Natio

nala

ccreditatio

nis

require

dfo

rpro

gram

approval

Overla

pofaccredita

tion

and

stateapproval

31 12

STATEH

ASITSO

WN

APPR

OVA

LPRO

CESS

8

1

1

1

1

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

OREGON

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 17


30/37


: 27

The policies discussed in the Critical Attention section o this report primarily ocus on traditional teacherpreparation 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 cer-tication were developed based on the idea that there should be pathways into the teaching proession ornontraditional candidates who are able to demonstrate strong subject-area knowledge and an above-averageacademic background.

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

A high-quality, genuinely alternative licensure pathway should be rigorous yet fexible in admissions, ocusedand deliberate in preparation, and open to broad usage across subjects and grades.

State policy or alternate routes to teacher licensure should ensure that:

n Strong academic perormance and subject-matter-knowledgetesting are prerequisites or program admission.

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

n Coursework is streamlined and not overly burdensome, and itmeets the immediate needs o new teachers.

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

n Limits are not placed on the subjects and/or grades an alternate route teacher

can teach, and alternate route providers are not restricted to colleges and universities;districts and nonprots should be permitted to oer programs as well.

Oregon has two alternate route programs: Approved NCLB Alternative and the Restricted TransitionalLicense. High-quality, alternative licensure pathways should be rigorous yet fexible in admissions, ocusedand deliberate in preparation, and open to broad usage across subjects and grades. Unortunately, Oregonsprograms do not meet these criteria, and, as a result, neither oers a genuinely alternate route into the teach-ing proession (see Figure 19).


n Set high standards or admission into alternate routes and provide candidates with fexibilityor meeting them.

Oregon should set a minimum GPA requirement as a rst step toward ensuring that candidates are ogood academic standing. The standard should be higher than what is required o traditional teachercandidates, such as a GPA o at least 2.75. Alternatively, the state could require one o the standardizedtests o academic prociency commonly used in higher education or graduate admissions, such as theGRE.

Alternate Routes to Certification


31/37


Elementary level candidates are required to demonstrate subject-matter competency by passing a sub-ject-matter exam, but the state should extend this requirement to all o its candidates. The conceptbehind alternate routes is that the nontraditional candidate is able to concentrate on acquiring proes-

sional knowledge and skills because he or she has strong subject-area knowledge. Teachers without su-cient subject-matter knowledge place students at risk.

n Ensure that preparation coursework and support target the immediate needs o new teachers.

Oregon does not ensure that its alternate route candidates will receive streamlined preparation thatmeets the immediate needs o new teachers. Oregon provides no specic guidelines about the natureor quantity o coursework or its alternate routes. There is no limit on the amount o coursework thatcan be required overall nor on the amount o coursework a candidate can be required to take while alsoteaching. The state should articulate guidelines regarding the nature and amount o coursework requiredo candidates. Requirements should be manageable and contribute to the immediate needs o newteachers. Appropriate coursework should include grade-level or subject-level seminars, methodology inthe content area, classroom management, assessment and scientically based early reading instruction.

Oregon also should consider shortening the length o time it takes an alternate route teacher to earnstandard certication. The route should allow candidates to earn ull certication no later than the endo the second year o teaching.

In addition, while the state does mention mentoring, Oregon should provide more detailed guidelines toensure that new teachers will receive the support they need to acilitate their success in the classroom.Eective induction strategies include practice teaching prior to teaching in the classroom, intensivementoring with ull classroom support in the rst ew weeks or months o school, a reduced teachingload and release time to allow new teachers to observe experienced teachers during the school day.

n Eliminate restrictions on alternate route usage and providers.

Oregon limits the usage and providers o its alternate routes. The state requires districts to documentthat no traditionally certied teachers were available beore hiring an alternate route teacher. Further-more, Oregon authorizes only local universities and colleges to oer alternate route programs. The stateshould eliminate requirements that alternate route teachers can only be hired i traditionally certiedteachers cannot be ound. Alternate routes should not be programs o last resort but rather a way toexpand the teacher pipeline throughout the state. Oregon also should specically authorize alternateroute programs run by local school districts and nonprots, as well as institutions o higher education.A good diversity o providers helps all programs, both university- and nonuniversity-based, to improve.


32/37


: 29

Do states provide real

alternate pathways to

certification?

Offeredrouteisdisingenuous

Alternateroutethatneeds

significantimprovements

26 19

GENUINEORNEARLY

GENUINEALTERNATEROUTE

6

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

OREGON

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 18


33/37


What are the characteristics

of states alternate routes?

PREREQ

UISITE

OFSTRO

NG

ACADEM

ICPERF

ORM

ANCE

VERIFI

CATI

ON

OFSUBJECT-

MATTERKN

OWLED

GE

AVAILABILITY

OFTE

ST

OUT

OPTIONS

STRE

AMLINED

COURSEW

ORK

RELEVA

NT

COURSEW

ORK

REAS

ONABLE

PROGRA

MLEN

GTH

PRACTI

CETE

ACHIN

GAND/

OR

INTENSIVE

MEN

TORIN

G

BROAD

USA

GE

DIVERSITY

OFPR

OVIDERS

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

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

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


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 19


34/37


: 31

1.Set high standards and provide

fexibility or meeting them.

Screen candidates based on academic ability.

Set a higher standard for entry than is set for

traditional teacher preparation. Require candidates to pass the states subject-matter

licensing test.

Dont require a major in the intended subject area;instead, allow candidates to demonstrate subject-matter knowledge on a rigorous test.

2. Provide streamlined preparation.

Limit coursework (ideally to no more than12 credits a year).

Require that the alternate route is an accelerated

course of study.

Ensure that all coursework requirements target theimmediate needs of the new teacher

Offer candidates an opportunity topractice teach in a summer training program.

Provide intensive mentoring.

3. Remove regulatory obstacles.

Allow for a diversity of alternate route providers.

Dont limit the use of alternate routes to shortageareas or to certain grades or subjects.

Alternate Route Policy Checklist or States


35/37


Figure 20

Authority for Teacher Preparation in Oregon

The Teacher Standards

and PracticesCommission holds theauthority for setting

teacher preparation

program standards

and admission criteria.

The Teacher Standardsand Practices

Commission is the state

authority charged with

adopting rules regarding

teacher certification.

The Teacher Standardsand Practices

Commission holds theauthority to approve

teacher education

programs.

Members of the Oregon State

Board o Education are appointed

by the Governor.

Members of the Teacher

Standards and Practices

Commission are appointed by

the Governor.

The Governor o Oregon is the

Superintendent o Public Instruction.

There is overlap between

NCATE accreditation and

state approval of teacher

education programs.


36/37


: 33

Red

AUTHORITY

ADMISSION INTO

PREPARATION

PROGRAMS

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.

Teacher Standards andPractices Commission

ELEMENTARY

TEACHER

PREPARATION

Require all elementary teacher candidates to pass a rigorouscontent test that assesses knowledge o all subjects.

Require preparation programs to provide mathematics contentspecically geared to the needs o elementary teachers, andrequire candidates to pass a rigorous math assessment.

Require a rigorous assessment in the science o readinginstruction.

Require a content specialization in an academic subject area.


MIDDLE SCHOOL

TEACHER

PREPARATION

Eliminate the generalist K-8 license.

Require middle school candidates to pass a content test inevery core area they intend to teach.

Encourage two subject-matter minors or candidates who arelicensed to teach multiple subjects; those who teach singlesubjects should earn a content major.


SECONDARY

TEACHER

PREPARATION

Require all secondary candidates to pass a content test in eachsubject they are licensed to teach as a condition o licensure.

Require secondary science and social studies teachers to pass acontent test or each discipline they are licensed to teach.


STUDENTTEACHING

Ensure that cooperating teachers have demonstrated evidenceo eectiveness as measured by student learning.

Require at least 10 weeks o ull-time student teaching.


TEACHERPREPARATIONPROGRAMACCOUNTABILITY

Collect perormance data to monitor programs.

Set minimum standards or program perormance withconsequences or ailure to meet those standards.

Publicly report perormance data.


Yellow

AUTHORITY

SPECIALEDUCATIONTEACHERPREPARATION

Require that all elementary special education candidates passthe same content test as general elementary teachers.

Ensure that secondary special education teachers possessadequate content knowledge.


Critical Attention Summary forOregon


37/37

1420 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005

Tel: 202-393-0020 Fax: 202-393-0095 Web: www.nctq.org

Subscribe to NCTQs blog PDQ

Follow NCTQ on Twitter and Facebook

NCTQ is available to work with individual states to improve teacher policies.For more inormation, please contact:

Sandi Jacobs

Vice President

2012 state teacher policy yearbook

Documents