2009
State Teacher
Policy Yearbook
California
R ALL GRA
VE D
D+
O
E
National Council on Teacher Quality
Acknowledgments
STATeS
State education agencies remain our most important partners in this effort, and their extensive experience has helped
to ensure the factual accuracy of the final product. Every state formally received a draft of the Yearbook in July 2009 for
comment and correction; states also received a final draft of their reports a month prior to release. All states graciously
reviewed and responded to our drafts. While states do not always agree with our recommendations, the willingness of
most states to acknowledge the imperfections of their teacher policies is an important first step toward reform.
We also thank the many state pension boards that reviewed our drafts and responded to our inquiries.
FuNDerS
The primary funders for the 2009 Yearbook were:
n Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation n George Gund Foundation
n Daniels Fund n Houston Endowment
n Fisher Family Foundation n The Joyce Foundation
n Gleason 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
Kelli M. Rosen, Lead Researcher
Trisha M. Madden, Stephanie T. Maltz and Tracey L. Myers-Preston, Researchers
Thank you to Bryan Gunning and the team at CPS Inc. for their design of the 2009 Yearbook. Thanks also to Colleen
Hale at Summerhouse Studios for the original Yearbook design and to Jeff Hale for technical support.
Executive Summary
Welcome to the California edition of the National Council on Teacher Quality’s 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook.
This analysis is our third annual look at state policies impacting the teaching profession. We hope that this report
will help focus attention on areas where state policymakers can make changes that will have a positive impact on
teacher quality and student achievement.
The 2009 Yearbook presents a comprehensive analysis of state teacher policies. Our evaluation is organized in five
areas encompassing 33 goals. Broadly, these goals examine the impact of state policy on 1) delivering well-prepared
teachers, 2) expanding the teaching pool, 3) identifying effective teachers, 4) retaining those deemed effective and
5) exiting those deemed ineffective.
California at a Glance
overall 2009 Yearbook Grade: D+
area gradeS: goal BreakdoWn:
area 1 Delivering Well Prepared Teachers c Fully meets 6
area 2 Expanding the Teaching Pool D+ nearly meets 5
area 3 Identifying Effective Teachers D- Partially meets 7
area 4 Retaining Effective Teachers c+ only meets a small part 5
area 5 Exiting Ineffective Teachers D- Does not meet 10
Major Policy StrengthS:
• Places no restrictions on alternate route usage or providers
• Requires that all new teachers pass a pedagogy test
• Supports differential pay in high-needs schools and shortage subjects
• Maintains full authority to approve teacher preparation programs
Major Policy WeakneSSeS:
• Awards tenure virtually automatically
• Fails to make evidence of student learning the preponderant criterion in teacher evaluations
• Does not ensure that middle school teachers are appropriately prepared to teach grade-level content
• Does not ensure that elementary teachers are well prepared to teach mathematics
• Lacks an efficient termination process for ineffective teachers
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 1
California
How is California faring?
area 1: C
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
California’s policies supporting the delivery of well-prepared teachers are better than most states but are still in
need of improvement. Regrettably, the state does not require teacher candidates to pass a basic skills test prior to
program admission. However, its strong testing standards and grading format help ensure that elementary teachers
are provided with a broad liberal arts education. Elementary teacher preparation programs are required to address
the science of reading, but they are not required to provide mathematics content specifically geared to the needs of
elementary teachers. The state does require elementary candidates to pass a test that includes the science of reading,
and its mathematics assessment is more rigorous than the national exam utilized by most states. Unfortunately, a
passing mathematics subscore is not required. California also does not sufficiently prepare middle school teachers
to teach appropriate grade-level content, and it allows middle school teachers to teach on a generalist license.
Additionally, the state does not ensure that special education teachers are adequately prepared to teach content-
area subject matter. Commendably, California requires all new teachers to pass a pedagogy test to attain licensure.
Unfortunately, the state does not hold preparation programs accountable for the quality of teachers they produce,
but it has retained full authority over its program approval process. California has also articulated policy that ensures
efficient delivery of content to teacher candidates by monitoring the amount of professional coursework that may
be required by preparation programs.
area 2: D+
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
California’s alternate routes to teacher certification need improvement. The state’s alternate routes are not
sufficiently selective or flexible to the needs of nontraditional candidates and do not ensure that candidates receive
streamlined preparation that meets the immediate needs of new teachers. Commendably, California does not limit
the usage or providers of its alternate routes. However, the state collects no objective data to hold alternate route
programs accountable for the performance of the teachers they prepare. Further, California’s policies targeting
licensure reciprocity create unnecessary obstacles for out-of-state teachers.
area 3: D-
Identifying Effective Teachers
California’s efforts to identify effective teachers are sorely lacking. The state only has two of the three necessary
elements for the development of a student- and teacher-level longitudinal data system, and although it requires
classroom observations as part of teacher evaluations, it fails to require evidence of student learning through objective
measures such as standardized test scores. California also fails to require multiple evaluations for new teachers or
annual evaluations for nonprobationary teachers. In addition, the probationary period for new teachers in California
is just two years, and the state does not require any meaningful process to evaluate cumulative effectiveness in the
classroom before teachers are awarded tenure. California is on the right track when it comes to basing licensure
requirements on evidence of teacher effectiveness; however, the state reports little school-level data that can help
support the equitable distribution of teacher talent.
2 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 4: C+
Retaining Effective Teachers
California requires that all new teachers receive mentoring. Although the state does not support retention bonuses,
its other policies regarding teacher compensation are commendable. California gives districts authority for how
teachers are paid and supports compensation for relevant prior work experience, differential pay for teachers working
in high-needs schools and shortage subject areas, as well as a performance pay initiative. However, the state’s teacher
pension system is not financially sustainable. California provides only a hybrid pension plan for teachers, which,
although it has aspects that make it more flexible, is not portable or fair to all workers. Further, retirement benefits
are determined by a formula that is not neutral, meaning that pension wealth does not accumulate uniformly for
each year a teacher works.
area 5: D-
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
California issues renewable provisional licenses, allowing new teachers who have not passed licensing tests to
remain in the classroom for up to two years. Although the state requires an improvement plan for teachers receiving
unsatisfactory evaluations, it does not address whether subsequent negative evaluations would make a teacher
eligible for dismissal. Regrettably, California allows tenured teachers who are terminated for poor performance to
appeal multiple times, and it fails to distinguish due process rights for teachers dismissed for ineffective performance
from those facing license revocation for dereliction of duty or felony and/or morality violations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 3
California
about the 2009 Yearbook
the 2009 edition of the State Teacher Policy Yearbook is the national council on teacher quality’s
third annual review of state laws, rules and regulations that govern the teaching profession. this
year’s report is a comprehensive analysis of the full range of each state’s teacher policies, measured
against a realistic blueprint for reform.
The release of the 2009 Yearbook comes at a particularly opportune time. Race to the Top, the $4.5 billion federal discretionary
grant competition, has put unprecedented focus on education reform in general, and teacher quality in particular. In many respects,
the Yearbook provides a road map to the Race to the Top, addressing key policy areas such as teacher preparation, evaluation,
alternative certification and compensation. Our analysis makes clear that states have a great deal of work to do in order to ensure
that every child has an effective teacher.
The 2009 Yearbook revisits most of the goals from our first two editions, with a few new goals added for good measure. With
ongoing feedback from state officials, practitioners, policy groups and other education organizations, as well as NCTQ’s own
nationally respected advisory group, we have continued to refine and develop our policy goals. Consequently, many of the goals
and related indicators have changed from previous reviews. We therefore have not published comparisons with prior ratings, but
look forward to tracking state progress in future editions.
Our goals meet NCTQ’s five criteria for an effective reform framework:
1. They are supported by a strong rationale, grounded in the best research available.
(A full list of the citations supporting each goal can be found at www.nctq.org/stpy.)
2. They offer practical, rather than pie-in-the-sky, solutions for improving teacher quality.
3. They take on the teaching profession’s most pressing needs, including making the profession more responsive to
the current labor market.
4. They are for the most part relatively cost neutral.
5. They respect the legitimate constraints that some states face so that the goals can work in all 50 states.
As is now our practice, in addition to a national summary report, we have customized the Yearbook so that each state has its own
report, with its own analyses and data. Users can download any of our 51 state reports (including the District of Columbia) from
our website at www.nctq.org/stpy. Since some national perspective is always helpful, each state report contains charts and graphs
showing how the state performed compared to all other states. We also point to states that offer a “Best Practice” for other states
to emulate.
In addition to giving an overall grade, we also give “sub-grades” in each of the five areas organizing the goals. These grades break
down even further, with an eye toward giving a full perspective on the states’ progress. We rate state progress on the individual
goals using a familiar and useful graphic : .
We hope the Yearbook continues to serve as an important resource for state school chiefs, school boards, legislatures and the many
advocates who press hard for reform. In turn, we maintain our commitment to listen and learn.
Sincerely,
Kate Walsh, President
Goals
area 1: delivering Well PrePared teacherS page
1-A: Admission into Preparation Programs 7
The state should require undergraduate teacher preparation programs to administer a basic skills test as a criterion for
admission.
1-B: Elementary Teacher Preparation 10
The state should ensure that its teacher preparation programs provide elementary teachers with a broad liberal arts
education.
1-C: Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction 16
The state should ensure that new elementary teachers know the science of reading instruction.
1-D: Teacher Preparation in Mathematics 20
The state should ensure that new elementary teachers have sufficient knowledge of mathematics content.
1-E: Middle School Teacher Preparation 23
The state should ensure that middle school teachers are sufficiently prepared to teach appropriate grade-level con-
tent.
1-F: Special Education Teacher Preparation 27
The state should ensure that special education teachers are prepared to teach content-area subject matter.
1-G: Assessing Professional Knowledge 32
The state should use a licensing test to verify that all new teachers meet its professional standards.
1-H: Teacher Preparation Program Accountability 35
The state’s approval process for teacher preparation programs should hold programs accountable for the quality of the
teachers they produce.
1-I: State Authority for Program Approval 38
The state should retain full authority over its process for approving teacher preparation programs.
1-J: Balancing Professional Coursework 41
The state should ensure that teacher preparation programs provide an efficient and balanced program of study.
area 2: exPanding the Pool of teacherS
2-A: Alternate Route Eligibility 45
The state should require alternate route programs to exceed the admission requirements of traditional preparation
programs while also being flexible to the needs of nontraditional candidates.
2-B: Alternate Route Preparation 49
The state should ensure that its alternate routes provide streamlined preparation that is relevant to the
immediate needs of new teachers.
2-C: Alternate Route Usage and Providers 53
The state should provide an alternate route that is free from regulatory obstacles that inappropriately limit its usage
and providers.
2-D: Alternate Route Program Accountability 59
The state should ensure that its approval process for alternate route programs holds them accountable for the perfor-
mance of their teachers.
2-E: Licensure Reciprocity 62
The state should help to make teacher licenses fully portable among states, with appropriate safeguards.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 5
California
Goals
area 3: identifying effective teacherS page
3-A: State Data Systems 67
The state should develop a data system that contributes some of the evidence needed to assess teacher effectiveness.
3-B: Evaluation of Effectiveness 70
The state should require instructional effectiveness to be the preponderant criterion of any teacher evaluation.
3-C: Frequency of Evaluations 74
The state should require annual evaluations of all teachers and multiple evaluations of all new teachers.
3-D: Tenure 78
The state should require that tenure decisions be meaningful.
3-E: Licensure Advancement 81
The state should ensure that licensure advancement is based on evidence of effectiveness.
3-F: Equitable Distribution 85
The state should contribute to the equitable distribution of teacher talent among schools in its districts by means of
good reporting.
area 4: retaining effective teacherS
4-A: Induction 89
The state should require effective induction for all new teachers, with special emphasis on teachers in high-needs schools.
4-B: Pay Scales 92
The state should give local districts full authority for pay scales, eliminating potential barriers such as state salary
schedules and other regulations that control how districts pay teachers.
4-C: Retention Pay 96
The state should support retention pay, such as significant boosts in salary after tenure is awarded, for effective teachers.
4-D: Compensation for Prior Work Experience 98
The state should encourage districts to provide compensation for related prior subject-area work experience.
4-E: Differential Pay 101
The state should support differential pay for effective teaching in shortage and high-needs areas.
4-F: Performance Pay 104
The state should support performance pay, but in a manner that recognizes its infancy, appropriate uses and limitations.
4-G: Pension Sustainability 107
The state should ensure that excessive resources are not committed to funding teachers’ pension systems.
4-H: Pension Flexibility 114
The state should ensure that pension systems are portable, flexible and fair to all teachers.
4-I: Pension Neutrality 122
The state should ensure that pension systems are neutral, uniformly increasing pension wealth with each additional
year of work.
area 5: exiting ineffective teacherS
5-A: Licensure Loopholes 127
The state should close loopholes that allow teachers who have not met licensure requirements to continue teaching.
5-B: Unsatisfactory Evaluations 130
The state should articulate consequences for teachers with unsatisfactory evaluations, including specifying that
teachers with multiple unsatisfactory evaluations are eligible for dismissal.
5-C: Dismissal for Poor Performance 133
The state should ensure that the process for terminating ineffective teachers is expedient and fair to all parties.
aPPendix 137
6 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 1: Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal a – admission into Preparation Programs
The state should require undergraduate teacher preparation programs to
administer a basic skills test as a criterion for admission.
goal components
Figure 1
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Admission Requirements
1. The state should require teacher candidates 0 best Practice States
to pass a basic skills test that assesses read-
ing, writing and mathematics as a criterion for 7 States Meet Goal
Connecticut, Louisiana, Mississippi,
admission to teacher preparation programs. All
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
preparation programs in a state should use a
West Virginia
common test to facilitate program comparison.
The state, not teacher preparation programs, 7 States nearly Meet Goal
should set the score needed to pass this test. Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas
Programs should have the option of exempting Washington, Wisconsin
from this test candidates who submit compa-
rable SAT/ACT scores at a level set by the state. 1 State Partly Meets Goal
Iowa
rationale 5 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
california, Florida, Kentucky,
See appendix for detailed rationale. Oklahoma, Virginia
n The most appropriate time for assessing basic
skills is at program entry. 31 States Do not Meet Goal
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado
n Screening candidates at program entry protects Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia
the public’s investment. Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine,
SuPPorting reSearch Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Research citations to support this goal are Minnesota, Montana, Nevada,
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations. New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wyoming
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 7
California
area 1: Goal a California analysis
State Meets a Small Part of Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California does require aspiring teachers to take, but California meets only a small part of this goal. The state
not pass, a basic skills test as a criterion for admis- should consider requiring approved teacher preparation
sion to a teacher preparation program. The state de- programs to only accept applicants into their programs
lays the requirement to pass the test until teacher who have taken and passed a basic skills test or dem-
candidates are ready to apply for licensure. onstrated equivalent performance on a college entrance
exam. Furthermore, the test, the minimum passing score
Supporting research and the equivalent college entrance exam score should
Education Code Sections 44252 (f) and 44225 (n) be determined by the state.
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/
STDS-preconditions.html
california reSPonSe to analySiS
California recognized the factual accuracy of our
analysis.
8 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 3
d
tion
uire
When do states test
ram mple
t req
ram n to
teacher candidates’
prog r co
st no
prog issio
examples of Best Practice
rep afte
basic skills?
lls te
prepore adm
of pring or
c ski
A number of states--connecticut, louisiana,
bef
basi
Du
Mississippi, north carolina, South carolina,
alabama
tennessee and West virginia--require candidates to alaska
pass a basic skills test as a condition of admission to a arizona
teacher preparation program. These states set a mini- arkansas
mum passing score for the test and also eliminate un- California1
necessary testing by allowing candidates to opt out of colorado
the basic skills test by demonstrating a sufficiently high connecticut
score on the SAT or ACT. Delaware
District of columbia
Florida2
Georgia
Figure 2 hawaii
When do states test teacher candidates’ idaho
basic skills? illinois
indiana
iowa
basic skills test
kansas
not required before admission
to prep program kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
5 Massachusetts
Michigan
15 Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
31 nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
California1 During or after
north Dakota
completion of prep
ohio
program
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia3
Washington
Figures 2 and 3
1 California requires teacher candidates to take, but not pass, a basic
West Virginia
skills test prior to admission. Wisconsin
2 Programs in Florida may accept up to 10 percent of an entering class Wyoming
who have not passed a basic skills test.
3 Programs in Virginia may accept candidates who have not met the 15 31 5
required passing score.
area 1: Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal b – elementary teacher Preparation
The state should ensure that its teacher preparation programs provide
elementary teachers with a broad liberal arts education.
goal components
Figure 4
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in the Preparation of states’ rating for the goal.)
Elementary Teachers
1. The state should require that its approved
0 best Practice States teacher preparation programs deliver a compre-
hensive program of study in broad liberal arts
0 States Meet Goal
coursework. An adequate curriculum is likely
7 States nearly Meet Goal to require approximately 36 credit hours to
california, Massachusetts, Michigan, ensure appropriate depth in the core subject
New Hampshire, Oregon, Texas areas of English, science, social studies and fine
Washington arts. (Mathematics preparation for elementary
teachers is discussed in Goal 1-D.) An appropri-
12 States Partly Meet Goal ate elementary teacher preparation program
Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia should be something like:
Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify) of
a survey of American literature;
17 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify)
Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana
of the technical aspects of good writing and
Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri
Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina grammar;
n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify) of
North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah
Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin a survey of children’s literature;
n■ six credit hours (or standards to justify) of
15 States Do not Meet Goal general science, covering basic topics in earth
Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia science, biology, physics, and chemistry;
Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland n■ six credit hours (or standards to justify)
Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Rhode Island of a survey of U.S. history and/or U.S.
South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming government;
n■ six credit hours (or standards to justify) of
a survey of world history, including ancient
history;
n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify)
of world cultures and religion, including
geography;
n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify) of
a survey of music appreciation; and
n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify) of
a survey of art history.
10 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
goal components cont. rationale
2. The state should require elementary teacher See appendix for detailed rationale.
candidates to complete a content specializa-
tion in an academic subject area. In addition to n Elementary teachers need liberal arts
enhancing content knowledge, this requirement coursework that is relevant to the PK through
also ensures that prospective teachers have 6 classroom.
taken higher level academic coursework. n An academic concentration enhances content
knowledge and ensures that prospective
3. Arts and sciences faculty, rather than education elementary teachers take higher level
faculty, should teach liberal arts coursework to academic coursework.
teacher candidates.
n Standards-based programs can work when
verified by testing.
4. The state should allow elementary teacher
candidates to test out of specific coursework n Mere alignment with student learning
requirements, provided the test that is limited standards is not sufficient.
to a single particular subject area. n Subject-area coursework should be taught by
arts and sciences faculty.
n Teacher candidates need to be able to “test
out” of coursework requirements.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 11
California
area 1: Goal b California analysis
State nearly Meets Goal
analySiS Supporting research
California relies on its standards for teacher preparation Education Preparation Standards
programs as well as its testing requirements as the basis http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/
STDS-prep-program.html
for articulating the subject-matter knowledge that el-
ementary teacher candidates must have across all areas. Multiple Subject Teaching Credential
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/CREDS/iMS-5.html
Although the state does not specify any subject-area
www.cset.nesinc.com
coursework requirements for all teacher candidates, Cali-
http://www.cset.nesinc.com/CS_SMR_opener.asp
fornia is somewhat unique in that it requires all subject-
area coursework to be completed in the undergraduate
program where classes are taught by arts and sciences
faculty. A degree in professional education is not allowed. recoMMendation
Elementary teacher candidates must then complete a California nearly meets this goal. The state is commended
multiple-subject teacher preparation program. for its strong testing standards regarding subject-matter
California has also articulated elementary teaching stan- content for elementary teachers and for administering a
dards that its approved teacher preparation programs three-part licensing test, making it harder for teachers to
must use. Although the state includes important cur- pass if they fail some subject areas. However, the state is
ricular areas such as science, history-social science, visual encouraged to further strengthen its policy and require
and performing arts, physical education and health, it separate passing scores for each subject on its multiple-
does not specify content standards but instead focuses subject test.
on pedagogical preparation. California is also commended for mandating that con-
Finally, it is not enough for a state to direct teacher tent coursework be taught by arts and sciences faculty.
preparation programs to teach to its standards, the state However, it should articulate a more complete set of
must also test candidates on the standards. In Califor- testing standards, and allow teacher candidates to test
nia, elementary teachers are required to pass each of the out of core coursework requirements so that qualified
three subtests that comprise the CSET: Multiple Subjects candidates may pursue other course selections and are
test. The first subtest includes reading, language, litera- not forced to retake survey courses they may have al-
ture, history and social science; the second includes sci- ready had in high school. Unfortunately, the program-
ence and mathematics; and the third includes physical approval standards adopted by the state in January 2009
education, human development, and visual and perform- are much less specific regarding subject-matter knowl-
ing arts. California does articulate standards within the edge than the standards they replaced.
framework of its subject-matter test. These standards
are better than those found in many states, alluding to
important areas of academic knowledge. For example, in
california reSPonSe to analySiS
the area of history and social science, candidates must
California recognized the factual accuracy of our
understand world history, including medieval and early
analysis.
modern times; U.S. history, including early exploration,
the colonial era and the war for independence; and
California history, including the pre-Columbian period
through the gold rush. However, the standards still lack
specific mention of important areas such as American
and world literature and art history.
12 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
examples of Best Practice
Although no state meets this goal, two have articu-
lated noteworthy policies. Massachusetts’s testing
requirements, which are based on the state’s curricu-
lum, ensure that elementary teachers are provided with
a broad liberal arts education. texas articulates detailed
standards in which preparation programs must frame
instruction for elementary teachers. Both states also
require that arts and sciences faculty teach liberal arts
courses to teacher candidates. Neither state requires
separate passing scores for each subject area on general
curriculum tests, but both utilize licensing assessments
based on their own standards.
Figure 5
What subjects does California expect elementary teachers to know? State requirements mention subject
State requirements cover subject in depth
English
american World/british Writing/Grammar children’s X State does not require subject
literature literature composition literature
X X X
sciEncE
chemistry Physics General Physical earth biology/life
Science Science Science
X X
social studiEs
american american american World history World history World history Geography
history i history ii Government (ancient) (Modern) (non Western)
X
FinE arts
art history Music
X
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 13
California
Figure 6
State requirements mention subject
Do states expect State requirements cover subject in depth
elementary teachers
to know core
content?
English
american literature 2
World/british literature 2
Writing/Grammar/
composition 21
children’s literature 7
sciEncE
chemistry 2
Physics 0
General Physical
Science 36
earth Science 34
biology/life Science
36
social studiEs
american history i 17
american history ii 15
american Government 21
World history (ancient) 13
World history (Modern) 10
World history
(non Western) 3
Geography 36
FinE arts
art history 1
Music 32
14 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 7
Do states expect elementary teachers to
complete an academic concentration?
37
California
12
2
academic Minor or not
major concentration required
required1 required2
1 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa3, Massachusetts, Michigan4,
New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia.
2 Mississippi, New Hampshire. Mississippi requires two content
concentrations.
3 Although Iowa requires a subject-area major, it consists mostly of
education courses.
4 Michigan also allows a group major with a minor,
or three minors.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 15
California
area 1: Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal c – teacher Preparation in reading instruction
The state should ensure that new elementary teachers know the science of
reading instruction.
goal components
Figure 8
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Preparing Teachers to states’ rating for the goal.)
Teach Reading
1. To ensure that teacher preparation programs
3 best Practice States adequately prepare candidates in the science
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia
of reading, the state should require that these
programs train teachers in the five instructional
2 States Meet Goal
Oklahoma, Tennessee components shown by scientifically based read-
ing research to be essential to teaching children
6 States nearly Meet Goal to read.
california, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Oregon, Texas 2. The most flexible and effective way of achieving
this crucial goal is by requiring that new teach-
14 States Partly Meet Goal ers pass a rigorous test of reading instruction in
Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, order to attain licensure. Most current tests of
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, pedagogy and reading instruction allow teachers
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, to pass without knowing the science of reading
Washington, West Virginia
instruction. If a state elects to test knowledge of
reading instruction on a general test of pedago-
2 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Arizona, New York gy or elementary content, it should require that
the testing company report a subscore clearly
24 States Do not Meet Goal revealing the candidates’ knowledge in the sci-
Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia, ence of reading. Elementary teachers who do
Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, not possess the minimum knowledge needed
Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, should not be eligible for a teaching license.
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Rhode Island, rationale
South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, See appendix for detailed rationale.
Wisconsin, Wyoming
n Reading science has identified five
components of effective instruction.
n Most current reading tests do not offer
assurance that teachers know the science of
reading.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
16 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 1: Goal c California analysis
State nearly Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California requires that teacher preparation programs California nearly meets this goal. The state is com-
for elementary teacher candidates address the science mended for requiring teacher preparation programs to
of reading. Prior to initial licensure, candidates must sat- address the science of reading, but California should
isfy the “Developing English Language Skills” require- ensure that its assessment tool is rigorous enough to
ment, which includes a comprehensive reading instruction adequately test elementary teacher candidates’ knowl-
course that focuses on “the systematic study of phone- edge of the science of reading.
mic awareness, phonics and decoding; literature, language
and comprehension; and diagnostic and early intervention
techniques.” california reSPonSe to analySiS
California also requires all new elementary and special California recognized the factual accuracy of our
education teachers to pass a reading instruction test-- its analysis.
own Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA).
Some reading scholars question the ability of this test to
screen out candidates who do not know the science of
reading.
Supporting research
Multiple Subject Teaching Credential
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/CREDS/iMS-5.html
http://www.rica.nesinc.com/RC13_whoisrequired.asp
S. Stotsky, “Why American Students Do Not Learn to Read
Very Well: The Unintended Consequences of Title II and
Teacher Testing,” Third Education Group Review 2 No. 2
(2006); and D.W. Rigden, Report on Licensure
Alignment with the Essential Components of Effective
Reading Instruction (Washington, D.C.: Reading First
Teacher Education Network, 2006)
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 17
California
Figure 9
PrEParation tEsting
Do states ensure rEquirEmEnts rEquirEmEnts
elementary teachers
cien ss
test
ing s dress
st
est
ing s ddre
ce
ce
ce
know the science of
te te
ing s ss
cien
cien
ng t
iate
readly addre
readnot ad
readtially a
reading?
equa
eadi
ropr
no r
inad
Par
app
Ful
Do
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
California
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
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
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
25 1 25 5 10 36
Figure 10
examples of Best Practice
Do states require preparation for elementary
teachers in the science of reading? connecticut, Massachusetts and virginia presently
require preparation programs for elementary teacher
candidates to address the science of reading. All three
California states also require candidates to pass comprehensive
25 assessments that specifically test the five elements of
25 instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vo-
cabulary and comprehension.
1
yes Partially no
Figure 11
Do states measure new teachers’ knowledge
of the science of reading?
36
California
5 10
yes inadequate no
test
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 19
California
area 1: Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal D – teacher Preparation in Mathematics
The state should ensure that new elementary teachers have sufficient knowledge
of mathematics content.
goal components
Figure 12
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Preparing Teachers to states’ rating for the goal.)
Teach Math
1. The state should require teacher preparation
1 best Practice State programs to deliver mathematics content of
Massachusetts
appropriate breadth and depth to elementary
teacher candidates. This content should be spe-
0 States Meet Goal
cific to the needs of the elementary teacher (i.e.,
0 States nearly Meet Goal foundations, algebra and geometry, with some
statistics).
3 States Partly Meet Goal
california, Florida, New Mexico 2. The state should require elementary teacher
candidates to pass a rigorous test of mathemat-
33 States Meet a Small Part of Goal ics content in order to attain licensure. Such test
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware,
can also be used to test out of content require-
District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
ments. Elementary teachers who do not possess
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan,
the minimum knowledge needed should not be
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
eligible for a teaching license.
New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, rationale
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, Wyoming See appendix for detailed rationale.
n Required math coursework should be tailored
14 States Do not Meet Goal
in both design and delivery to the unique needs
Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,
of the elementary teacher.
Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, n Most state tests offer no assurance that teach-
West Virginia, Wisconsin ers are prepared to teach mathematics.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
20 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 1: Goal D California analysis
State Partly Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California relies on its subject-matter testing require- California meets this goal in part. Although the state’s
ments as the basis for articulating its requirements for subject-matter test requires some knowledge of algebra,
the mathematics content knowledge of elementary geometry and statistics, California should require teacher
teacher candidates. preparation programs to provide mathematics content
The state does not specify any coursework requirements that is specifically geared to the needs of elementary
regarding mathematics content, but it does require that teachers. This includes coursework in foundations, alge-
all new elementary teachers pass the California Subject bra and geometry, with some statistics. The state should
Examination for Teachers (CSET), a multiple subjects also require a passing mathematics score as part of its
test. The test’s standards address content in mathemat- rigorous subject-matter assessment, which could also
ics foundations, but although they outline such areas as be used to allow candidates to test out of coursework
algebra, geometry and data analysis, the standards are requirements. Teacher candidates who lack minimum
not specifically geared to meet the needs of elementary mathematics knowledge should not be eligible for
teachers. licensure.
The CSET’s mathematics content is more rigorous
than the Praxis II test most states use, but the former
still does not ensure that candidates have appropri- california reSPonSe to analySiS
ate mathematics knowledge. The CSET requires pass- California recognized the factual accuracy of our
ing subscores on all three subtests that comprise the analysis.
overall test, but the mathematics and science scores are
combined, so one can answer many mathematics ques-
tions incorrectly and still pass the test.
Supporting research
www.cset.nesinc.com
http://www.cset.nesinc.com/CS_SMR_opener.asp
“No Common Denominator: The Preparation of
Elementary Teachers in Mathematics by America’s
Education Schools,” NCTQ, June 2008
http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/
nctq_ttmath_fullreport.pdf
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 21
California
Figure 13
examples of Best Practice
Do states require appropriate mathematics
preparation for elementary teachers? Massachusetts ensures that its elementary teachers
have sufficient knowledge of mathematics content. As
part of its general curriculum test, the state utilizes a
separately scored mathematics subtest that covers
California topics specifically geared to the needs of elementary
teachers.
36
14
1
yes1 Partially no2
1 Massachusetts
2 Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, West Virginia,
Wisconsin
Figure 14
Do states measure new elementary teachers’
knowledge of math?
California
49
1 1
yes1 inadequate no2
test
1 Massachusetts
2 Montana
22 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 1: Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal e – Middle School teacher Preparation
The state should ensure that middle school teachers are sufficiently prepared to
teach appropriate grade-level content.
goal components
Figure 15
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Preparing Middle
School Teachers
1. The state should encourage middle school can-
didates who intend to teach multiple subjects 1 best Practice State
Georgia
to earn two minors in two core academic areas
rather than a single major. Middle school can-
5 States Meet Goal
didates intending to teach a single subject area Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana,
should earn a major in that area. Mississippi, New Jersey
2. The state should not permit middle school 12 States nearly Meet Goal
teachers to teach on a generalist license, which Alabama, Arkansas, District of Columbia,
does not differentiate between the preparation Florida, Indiana, Kansas, New York,
of middle school teachers and that of elemen- Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
tary teachers. Tennessee, Virginia
3. The state should require that new middle school 14 States Partly Meet Goal
Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland,
teachers pass a test in every core academic area
Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska,
they intend to teach.
North Carolina, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Texas, Vermont,
rationale West Virginia, Wyoming
See appendix for detailed rationale. 9 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n States must differentiate middle school Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada,
teacher preparation from that of elementary New Hampshire, New Mexico,
teachers. North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah
n Approved programs should prepare middle 10 States Do not Meet Goal
school teacher candidates to be qualified to Alaska, california, Colorado, Idaho,
teach two subject areas. Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon,
Washington, Wisconsin
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 23
California
area 1: Goal e California analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California has not adopted specific middle school teach- California does not meet this goal. The state should not
er preparation policies. Instead, the state offers both a allow middle school teachers to teach on a generalist li-
K-12 Single Subject Teaching Credential and a K-12 Mul- cense that does not differentiate between the prepara-
tiple Subject Teaching Credential; therefore, the type of tion of middle school teachers and that of elementary
credential that middle school teachers are required to teachers. These teachers are less likely to be adequately
have depends on whether they intend to teach in a self- prepared in core academic areas because they are not re-
contained or departmentalized classroom. quired to complete secondary preparation requirements
Teacher candidates who wish to earn a multiple subject or pass a subject-matter test in each subject they teach.
teaching credential must pass all three subtests of the Adopting middle school teacher preparation policies,
state’s subject-matter examination. Those who want a however, will help ensure that students in grades 7 and 8
single-subject credential may demonstrate their sub- have teachers who are more deeply prepared in content
ject-matter competence by either completing a state- than elementary generalist teachers.
approved subject-matter preparation program or passing The state should also encourage middle school teachers
the appropriate subject-matter examination. who plan to teach multiple subjects to earn two minors
in two core academic areas, rather than a single major.
Supporting research Middle school candidates who intend to teach a single
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/requirements.html subject should earn a major in that area.
http://www.cset.nesinc.com/CS14_certrequirements. Finally, California should require subject-matter testing
asp#1 for all middle school teacher candidates in every core
academic area they intend to teach, as a condition of ini-
tial licensure. The state’s current policy of only requiring
middle school teachers who teach multiple subjects to
take the same subject-matter test as elementary teach-
ers is simply not adequate.
california reSPonSe to analySiS
California recognized the factual accuracy of our
analysis.
24 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 16
Do states allow middle
school teachers to teach
examples of Best Practice
mst tain
s
on a K-8 generalist
ance
circu er cer
license? georgia ensures that all middle school teachers are suf-
Und
yes
no
ficiently prepared to teach middle school-level content.
alabama
It requires teachers to earn two minors and pass the
alaska
arizona
state’s own single-subject content test. Other notables
arkansas include louisiana, Mississippi and new jersey. These
California1 states require either two minors or a major for those
colorado teaching one content area, as well as a passing score on
connecticut a single-subject content test.
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois2
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota1
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska1
nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma3
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island1
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah3
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin Figure 16
1 May teach grades 7 and 8 on generalist license if in self-contained
Wyoming classroom
16 5 30 2 Generalist license is K-9
3 With the exception of mathematics
Figure 17
t
nten
What academic
nor f co
ors
preparation do states
ts
r mi nt o
men
ajor
min
or o me
require for a middle school
e
am
uire
mor
two
maj require
ors
e req
than
endorsement or license?
min
r
r
or o
or o
loos
two
less
no
Maj
Maj
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
California
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky1
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts1
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska1
nevada
new 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 Virginia2
Wisconsin Figure 17
Wyoming 1 State does not explicitly require two
minors, but has equivalent requirements.
14 2 9 7 5 14 2 West Virginia elementary candidates need
only one minor to teach middle grades.
area 1: Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal F – Special education teacher Preparation
The state should ensure that special education teachers are prepared to teach
content-area subject matter.
goal components
Figure 18
(The factors considered in determining the states’
rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Preparing
Special Education Teachers
1. The state should require that teacher prepara-
tion programs provide a broad liberal arts pro- 0 best Practice States
gram of study to elementary special education
0 States Meet Goal
candidates. All elementary special education
candidates should have preparation in the con- 0 States nearly Meet Goal
tent areas of math, science, English, social studies
and fine arts and should be required to pass a 12 States Partly Meet Goal
subject-matter test for licensure. Arkansas, california, Idaho, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
2. The state should require that teacher preparation New Mexico, New York, North Dakota,
programs graduate secondary special education Oregon
teacher candidates who are “highly qualified” in
at least two subjects. The most efficient route 10 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
for these candidates to become adequately pre- Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska, New Jersey,
pared to teach multiple subjects may be to earn Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia,
the equivalent of two subject-area minors and West Virginia, Wisconsin
pass tests in those areas.
29 States Do not Meet Goal
3. The state should customize a “HOUSSE” route Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut,
for new secondary special education teachers to Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,
help them achieve highly qualified status in all Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
the subjects they teach.
Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
rationale Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming
See appendix for detailed rationale.
n All teachers, including special education teach-
ers, teach content and therefore need relevant
coursework.
n HQT requirements place unique challenges on
secondary special education teachers.
n Secondary special education teachers need to
graduate highly qualified in two subject areas.
n A customized HOUSSE route is needed to meet
the needs of new special education teachers to
earn highly qualified status.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 27
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations. California
area 1: Goal F California analysis
State Partly Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Although better than those of most other states, Cali- California meets this goal in part. The state should require
fornia’s requirements do not ensure that special edu- that all special education teacher candidates pass subject-
cation teachers are prepared to teach content-area area tests. It should also ensure that secondary special
subject matter. education teachers are adequately prepared to teach mul-
The state does not specify subject-area coursework tiple subjects. The most efficient way to accomplish this is
requirements for teacher candidates for elementary to require these candidates to earn the equivalent of two
special education; however, California requires that subject-area minors and pass tests in those areas.
all subject-area coursework be completed in the un- In addition, California should create a HOUSSE route spe-
dergraduate program, where a degree in professional cifically for new secondary special education teachers.
education is not allowed. In the fifth year, special edu-
Although ideally these teachers will have graduated with
cation teacher candidates must complete an educa-
highly qualified status in two core areas, the state should
tion specialist teacher preparation program. Regret-
provide a practical and meaningful way for these teachers
tably, these candidates are exempt from having to
to achieve highly qualified status in all remaining core sub-
pass the state’s subject-matter test if they complete
jects once they are in the classroom. The state should also
a commission-approved subject-matter program of
phase out its use of HOUSSE for veteran teachers.
coursework.
California also does not require that teacher candi-
dates for secondary special education be “highly qual-
ified” in at least two subject areas. The state’s unique california reSPonSe to analySiS
five-year program does ensure that new secondary California contended that the No Child Left Behind Act
special education teachers will be highly qualified in (NCLB) provides for the development of advanced cer-
at least one core academic area upon completion of tification that “must enhance the teacher’s academic
an approved program. Similarly, candidates for sec-
knowledge, and pedagogical practices to improve stu-
ondary special education must either complete an
dent achievement.” The state pointed to its Califor-
approved subject-matter program of coursework or
nia Subject Matter Verification Process for Middle and
pass the state’s subject-matter test.
High School Level Teachers in Special Settings (VPSS)
Finally, California does not have a unique HOUSSE process, which, it argued, provides teachers in special
route to help new secondary special education teach-
settings with certification that verifies “both the con-
ers achieve highly qualified status in all the subjects
tent and skills necessary to provide a rigorous academic
they teach. The state allows new secondary special
program to students in special settings.” To qualify un-
education teachers to use its existing HOUSSE route
der the VPSS process, a teacher must: 1) have at least
to gain highly qualified status in multiple subjects.
a bachelor’s degree, 2) have a California state creden-
tial or have an intern certificate/credential for no more
Supporting research
than three years and 3) have demonstrated NCLB High
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/CREDS/iESS-4.html
Quality Teacher compliance in one NCLB core academ-
California Code of Regulations: 5 CCR sec. 6104 and 5 ic subject and be assigned to teach one or more core
CCR sec. 6111 academic subjects in a setting that includes secondary
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/tq/nclbspecedfaq.asp special education. To be eligible for the VPSS process,
28 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
special education teachers must be NCLB-compliant laSt Word
in one core academic subject or multiple elementary Although California is compliant with NCLB, it is not
subjects; they have up to three years to demonstrate ensuring that its special education teachers are pre-
subject-matter competence in the necessary core aca- pared to teach content-area subject matter. The state is
demic subjects. urged to strengthen its current policy and require that
California also asserted that a specific HOUSSE pro- teacher candidates earn the equivalent of two subject-
cess for new secondary special education teachers “is area minors and pass tests in those areas. California
not necessary” because “IDEA [Individuals with Disabili- should also create a specific HOUSSE process for new
ties Education Act] allows secondary special education secondary special education teachers rather than allow
teachers who are highly qualified in math, English or them to use the one already in existence. While the
science when hired to access the HOUSSE process for state does offer its veteran teachers’ HOUSSE route to
all other assignment areas.” special education teachers, it is not uniquely tailored to
the needs of new special education teachers who face
a difficult set of demands. The challenge of becoming
HQT in all subject areas may be a disincentive to those
considering teaching secondary special education; a
specific HOUSSE route can help mitigate this potential
deterrent.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 29
California
Figure 19
Do states require subject-
ork
ed
rk
quir
ents rsew
ents sewo
est
matter preparation
n re
ter t
irem e cou
examples of Best Practice
irem cour
for elementary special
ratio
mat
requ equat
requ quate
repa
education teachers?
ect-
Unfortunately, NCTQ cannot highlight any state’s
inad
no p
ade
Subj
policy in this area. Preparation of special education
alabama
teachers is a topic in critical need of states’ attention.
alaska
arizona
arkansas
California
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
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
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
6 15 14 26
ed
Figure 20
d
eas
eas lifie
area ualifi
ic ar
ic ar ly qua
y ac ighly
Do states require subject-
mic hly q
adem
in an be h
adem high
matter preparation
cade hig
ified ed to
ne a o be
o ac o be
for secondary special
qualt requir
in oquired t
in twuired t
education teachers?
req
no
re
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
California
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
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
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
0 16 35 nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 31
California
area 1: Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal G – assessing Professional knowledge
The state should use a licensing test to verify that all new teachers meet its
professional standards.
goal components
Figure 21
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Assessing Professional states’ rating for the goal.)
Knowledge
1. The state should assess new teachers’ knowl-
0 best Practice States edge of teaching and learning by means of a
pedagogy test aligned to the state’s profession-
23 States Meet Goal
al standards.
Arizona, Arkansas, california, Florida,
Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, rationale
Nevada, New Mexico, New York,
See appendix for detailed rationale.
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, n A good pedagogy test puts teeth in states’ pro-
Texas, West Virginia fessional standards.
SuPPorting reSearch
2 States nearly Meet Goal
Maryland, Rhode Island Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
4 States Partly Meet Goal
District of Columbia, Idaho,
North Carolina, Utah
5 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri,
Pennsylvania, Wyoming
17 States Do not Meet Goal
Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware,
Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, Wisconsin
32 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 1: Goal G California analysis
State Meets Goal
analySiS california reSPonSe to analySiS
California requires all new teachers to pass a pedagogy California noted that that Teacher Performance Assess-
test based on its standards. ment evaluates a teacher’s pedagogical development
As of July 1, 2008, the state requires all elementary and only and that teacher candidates must also demon-
secondary teacher candidates to pass its own Teaching strate appropriate content knowledge.
Performance Assessment, which measures “the knowl-
edge, skills, and abilities required of a beginning teacher
in California public schools.”
Supporting research
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/TPA-files/
CalTPA-Info-Teacher.pdf
recoMMendation
California meets this goal. The state is commended for
requiring that all new teachers pass a pedagogy test to
verify that they meet its professional standards.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 33
California
Figure 22
hers
w te test
rs
rs
w te test
new st
w
teac
ache
ache
me gy te
e ne
Do states measure new
f som y
ll ne gy
ll ne gy
hers ed o agog
of a dago
of a dago
of so dago
teachers’ knowledge of
teac requir ped
test
ired al pe
ired n pe
examples of Best Practice
ired n pe
teaching and learning?
cial
ogy
requte’s ow
requ merci
requ e’s ow
mer
edag
com
Twenty-three states meet this goal, and
com
Stat
no p
test
Sta
although NCTQ has not singled out one
alabama
alaska
state’s policies for “best practice” honors,
arizona it additionally commends the eight states
arkansas (arizona, california, florida, illinois, new
California Mexico, new york, oklahoma, texas) that
colorado utilize their own assessments to measure
connecticut pedagogical knowledge and skills.
Delaware
District of columbia
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
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah1
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
8 0 18 8 17 1 Not required until teacher advances from Level One to
Level Two license.
area 1: Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal h – teacher Preparation Program accountability
The state’s approval process for teacher preparation programs should hold
programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.
goal components
Figure 23
(The factors considered in determining the states’
rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Holding Preparation
Programs Accountable
1. The state should collect meaningful data about
candidate pass rates on state licensing tests. This 0 best Practice States
means collecting data beyond the pass rate of pro-
0 States Meet Goal
gram completers. The state should require programs
to report the percentage of teacher candidates who 6 States nearly Meet Goal
entered student teaching and who were able to Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan,
pass state licensing tests. Tennessee, Texas
2. In addition to better pass rate information, the 7 States Partly Meet Goal
state should create a more comprehensive index of Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey,
program performance by collecting some or all of North Carolina, Rhode Island,
the following data: South Carolina
n■ Average raw scores of graduates on licensing
tests, including basic skills, subject matter and
14 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts,
professional knowledge tests;
Mississippi, Montana, New York, Ohio,
n■ Satisfaction ratings by school principals and
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
teacher supervisors of programs’ student teach- Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia
ers, using a standardized form to permit program
comparison; 24 States Do not Meet Goal
n■ Evaluation results from the first and/or second Alaska, Arkansas, california, Colorado,
year of teaching; Connecticut, Delaware,
n■ Academic achievement gains of graduates’ District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii,
students averaged over the first three years of Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland,
teaching; and Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
n■ Five-year retention rates of graduates in the New Mexico, North Dakota,
teaching profession. South Dakota, Utah, Washington,
Wisconsin, Wyoming
3. The state should also establish the minimum standard
of performance for each of these categories of data.
Programs must be held accountable for meeting these
standards, and the state, after due process, should shut
rationale
down programs that do not do so.
See appendix for detailed rationale.
4. The state should produce and publish on its website
n States need to hold programs accountable for
an annual report card that shows all the data that
the quality of their graduates.
the state collects on individual teacher preparation
programs. SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
area 1: Goal h California analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS these programs accountable, the state should then es-
California does not collect objective, meaningful data to tablish the minimum standard of performance for each
measure the performance of teacher preparation programs, of these categories of data. Programs that do not meet
nor does it apply any transparent, measurable criteria for the standard, after due process, should be shut down.
conferring program approval. In addition, California’s web- Finally, California should post an annual report card on
site does not include a report card that allows the public to its website that details the data it collects and the cri-
review and compare program performance. teria used for program approval. This report card should
also identify the programs that fail to meet these crite-
Supporting research ria and cite the reasons why they failed.
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/program-accred.
html
california reSPonSe to analySiS
California contended that “it is important to under-
recoMMendation stand that the program review process is an iterative
California does not meet this goal. To generate the hard, process and that the program documents, and even the
objective data needed to hold programs accountable, programs, are modified during the review process. Re-
the state should make objective outcomes the focus of viewers ask questions of the program sponsor and help
its teacher preparation program approval process and guide the sponsor to develop and describe a program
establish precise standards for program performance that meets all the adopted standards. A precondition
that are more useful for accountability purposes. At a is a requirement for initial and continued program ap-
minimum, the state should ensure that programs are proval. Unlike standards, preconditions specify require-
reporting pass rates for individuals entering student ments for program compliance, not program quality.”
teaching, not program completers, for the former is The commission determines, on the basis of program
now the requirement under the 2008 reauthorization documents provided by the college or university,
of the Higher Education Act. It is also a method that will whether programs comply with the adopted precondi-
not mask the number of individuals the program was
tions. Programs that meet all preconditions are eligible
unable to properly prepare.
for a more intensive review to determine whether they
California should also collect meaningful, objective satisfy the commission’s standards.
data to create a more comprehensive index of pro-
gram performance. NCTQ recommends the utilization
of average raw scores of graduates on licensing tests
(including basic skills, subject matter and professional laSt Word
knowledge tests); satisfaction ratings (by school prin- California’s review process can only be strengthened by
cipals and teacher supervisors) of programs’ student the inclusion of objective data, particularly data that
teachers, using a standardized form to permit program reflect the effectiveness of programs’ graduates. Fur-
comparison; evaluation results from first and/or second thermore, the public in general and teacher candidates
year of teaching; academic achievement gains of stu- and hiring school districts in particular can only benefit
dents taught by the programs’ graduates, averaged over from the reporting of these data.
the first three years of teaching; and five-year retention
rates of graduates in the teaching profession. To hold
36 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 24
y
ance
ebsi ublicl
Do states hold teacher
cific ctive
data
orm
s for imum
te
on w ata p
-spe bje
preparation programs
perf
ram cts o
examples of Best Practice
dard min
lable es d
accountable?
progte colle
avai te mak
stante sets
Although no state meets this goal, alabama,
Sta
Sta
Sta
florida, louisiana and Michigan rely on some objective,
alabama
alaska
meaningful data to measure the performance of
arizona teacher preparation programs, and they also all apply
arkansas transparent measurable criteria for conferring program
California approval. Additionally, these four states post program
colorado report cards on their websites.
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida Figure 25
Georgia
Which states collect meaningful data?
hawaii
idaho
illinois avEraGE raW SCorES on liCEnSinG TESTS
indiana alabama, louisiana, Michigan, new Jersey, tennessee
iowa
SaTiSfaCTion raTinG from SCHoolS
kansas
alabama, Florida, kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
kentucky
nevada, texas, Virginia
louisiana
Maine EvaluaTion rESulTS for ProGram GraDuaTES
Maryland Florida, rhode island, South carolina, tennessee, Vermont
Massachusetts
Michigan STuDEnT lEarninG GainS1
Minnesota new Jersey, tennessee, texas
Mississippi
TEaCHEr rETEnTion raTES
Missouri
Missouri, new Jersey, oregon, texas
Montana
nebraska
1 Louisiana is piloting the use of value-added data that connects student
nevada achievement to teacher preparation programs, but not yet using the
new hampshire results for accountability purposes.
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
21 5 17
area 1: Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal i – State authority for Program approval
The state should retain full authority over its process for approving teacher
preparation programs.
goal components
Figure 26
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Maintaining Authority states’ rating for the goal.)
for Program Approval
1. The state should not allow its teacher prepara-
0 best Practice States tion programs to substitute national accredita-
tion for state program approval.
31 States Meet Goal
Alabama, california, Colorado,
2. The state should not require its teacher prepara-
District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, tion programs to attain national accreditation in
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, order to receive state approval.
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Mexico, rationale
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, See appendix for detailed rationale.
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, n States should not cede oversight author-
Washington, Wisconsin ity over their teacher preparation programs to
accreditors.
0 States nearly Meet Goal SuPPorting reSearch
7 States Partly Meet Goal Research citations to support this goal are
Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
Louisiana, Nevada, South Carolina
3 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Maryland, West Virginia, Wyoming
10 States Do not Meet Goal
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware,
Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Utah
38 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 1: Goal i California analysis
State Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California does not require its teacher preparation pro- California meets this goal. The state is commended
grams to attain national accreditation in order to receive for retaining full authority over its program approval
state approval, nor does it allow them to substitute na- process.
tional accreditation for state program approval.
Supporting research
california reSPonSe to analySiS
NCATE State Partnership Features 2009
California recognized the factual accuracy of our
http://www.ncate.org/documents/stateRelations/
analysis.
NCATEStatePartFeatures2008.pdf
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 39
California
Figure 28
but
able
ting , the
roce lays
ired
men review,
uish
atio is indisequired
ppro nizat al
val p ion p
What is the relationship
requ
te a n be
ate a orga ation
val
ss
t
e inv gram
ppro
r sta ion ca
ct
n is
accr rocess ally r
in st n but uire n
distin
between state program
olve
appr itatio
som its pro
ed foreditat
examples of Best Practice
fromroval p technic
a role tio req
n
own
oval
approval and national
tate ccred
ess
edita not
tains ates
l acc
proc
edit
s its
accr te does
t
main e deleg
for stional a
e no
accreditation?
e ha
iona
titut
oval
Thirty-one states meet this goal, and although NCTQ
Whil
Sta
Stat
Stat
nat
app
appr
subs
na
has not singled out one state’s policies for “best prac-
alabama
tice” honors, it commends all states that retain full
alaska
authority over their program approval process. arizona
arkansas
California
Figure 27 colorado
What is the relationship between state program connecticut
approval and national accreditation? Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
national accreditation is
required for state approval 7 Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
national accreditation can be
substituted for state approval 1 indiana
iowa
While not technically kansas
required, the approval
process is indistinguishable
from accreditation
5 kentucky
louisiana
Maine
the state delegates its
program review, but
maintains some involvement
4 Maryland1
Massachusetts
State does not require
Michigan
Minnesota
national accreditation but
organization plays a role in
state approval process
3 Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
the state has its own
distinct approval process 31 nebraska
nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
California
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
31 oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia2
Figure 28
Wisconsin
1 Maryland requires programs that enroll 2,000 or more students to Wyoming
attain national accreditation.
2 West Virginia public preparation programs are required to attain 7 1 5 4 3 31
national accreditation.
area 1: identifying Effective Teachers
Goal J – balancing Professional coursework
The state should ensure that teacher preparation programs provide an efficient
and balanced program of study.
goal components
Figure 29
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Balancing Professional
Coursework
1. The state should adopt policies designed to
encourage efficient delivery of the professional 0 best Practice States
sequence, for both its own requirements and
3 States Meet Goal
those of individual programs.
california, Tennessee, Virginia
1 State nearly Meets Goal
rationale New Jersey
See appendix for detailed rationale.
0 States Partly Meet Goal
n Most states have programs that demand exces-
sive requirements. 6 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
n States need to monitor programs’ total profes-
New Hampshire, Texas, Vermont
sional coursework requirements.
SuPPorting reSearch 41 States Do not Meet Goal
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
Research citations to support this goal are
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 41
California
area 1: Goal J California analysis
State Meets Goal
analySiS california reSPonSe to analySiS
California requires that professional coursework be com- California recognized the factual accuracy of our
pleted in one year of academic study (the state is un- analysis.
usual in having five-year teacher preparation programs).
Requiring that the coursework must be achievable within
a year acts as a clear check on professional programs’
tendency to impose excessive requirements.
recoMMendation
California meets this goal. The state is commended for
ensuring that its teacher preparation programs provide
efficient and balanced programs of study.
42 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 30
examples of Best Practice
Do states cap the amount of professional
coursework programs can require? Although no state was awarded “best practice” honors,
virginia and tennessee are notables because both
47 keep a check on the amount of professional studies that
preparation programs may require.
Figure 32
Are states controlling program excesses?
California
71
California
4
yes1 no
44
1 California, New Jersey2, Tennessee, Virginia.
2 Although not technically a cap, New Jersey requires a minimum
of 90 credit hours distributed among general education and an
academic major.
States with at least one approved
Figure 31 program that requires 60 or more credit
Coursework that supports teacher hours in professional coursework
effectiveness
1 California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
in monitoring the amount of professional Tennessee, Virginia
coursework required by teacher preparation
programs, states also need to consider whether
professional requirements support teacher
effectiveness in the classroom. States should
ensure that the following key areas are addressed:
n Methods for teaching subject matter
n child or adolescent development, with
emphasis on cognitive psychology
n classroom management
n assessment
n Special education
n contemporary issues in education, particularly
the achievement gap
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 43
California
area 2: Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Goal a – alternate route eligibility
The state should require alternate route programs to exceed the admission
requirements of traditional preparation programs while also being flexible to the
needs of nontraditional candidates.
goal components
Figure 33
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.) How States are Faring in Alternate Route
Eligibility
1. With some accommodation for work experi-
ence, alternate route programs should screen 1 best Practice State
candidates for academic ability, such as re- Connecticut
quiring a minimum 2.75 overall college GPA.
0 States Meet Goal
2. All alternate route candidates, including el- 12 States nearly Meet Goal
ementary candidates and those having a ma- Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana,
jor in their intended subject area, should be Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
required to pass a subject-matter test. New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Tennessee
3. Alternate route candidates lacking a major in
the intended subject area should be able to 16 States Partly Meet Goal
demonstrate subject-matter knowledge by Alabama, Alaska, Delaware,
passing a test of sufficient rigor. District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas,
rationale
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia
See appendix for detailed rationale.
16 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n■ Alternate route teachers need the advantage california, Colorado, Hawaii,
of a strong academic background. Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri,
n■ Academic requirements for admission Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
to alternate routes should exceed the New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina,
requirements for traditional programs. Vermont, Wyoming
n■ Multiple ways for assessing subject-matter 6 States Do not Meet Goal
competency are needed to accommodate Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota,
nontraditional candidates. Utah, Wisconsin
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 45
California
area 2: Goal a California analysis
State Meets a Small Part of Goal
analySiS ate teacher preparation programs. Although it does al-
While the admission requirements for California’s alter- low candidates a waiver based on a range of evidence,
nate routes do not exceed those for traditional prepa- California should consider eliminating the basic skills test
ration programs and lack flexibility for nontraditional requirement.
candidates, the state does require evidence of subject- California is commended for its requirement that candi-
matter knowledge. dates pass a subject-matter test to demonstrate strong
California classifies the University Internship Credential content knowledge. The state is further commended for its
and the District Intern Credential as alternate routes to test-out option for the U.S. Constitution requirement, but it
certification. Neither requires candidates to demonstrate should consider allowing candidates to utilize the subject-
prior academic performance, such as a minimum GPA. matter test in the same manner to test out of other course-
All candidates are required to pass both a basic skills test work requirements.
and a subject-matter test. It does not appear that the
state allows candidates to use the subject-matter test
to test out of coursework requirements. SAT, ACT or GRE california reSPonSe to analySiS
scores may be used in place of the basic skills test re- California recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
quirement. Candidates are further required to complete
a U.S. Constitution course or pass an examination given
by a regionally accredited university or college.
SuPPorting reSearch
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl707b.pdf
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl674s.pdf
recoMMendation
California meets a small part of this goal. California should
require that candidates to its alternate routes provide some
evidence of good academic performance. The standard
should be higher than what is required of traditional teacher
candidates, such as a 2.75 GPA. The original concept behind
the alternate route into teaching is that the nontraditional
candidate is able to concentrate on acquiring professional
knowledge and skills because he or she has demonstrated
strong subject-area knowledge and/or an above-average
academic background. The state can make accommoda-
tions for mid-career candidates.
California’s requirement that alternate route candidates
pass a basic skills test is impractical and ineffectual. Such
tests should be used for admission into undergradu-
46 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 34
ogra ssion
requ f major est can
al pr dmi
ms
red
Are states’ alternate
irem or
equi
ition for a
ents
sew lieu o or t
routes selective yet
est r
trad ard
cour sed in required
e
examples of Best Practice
rout
eds tand
ter t
flexible?
ate
exce demic s
mat
be u ajor
ork
ltern
ect-
no m
connecticut meets three admission criteria for a qual-
no a
aca
Subj
ity alternate route: 1) a requirement that candidates
alabama 1
have a GPA higher than what is generally expected in alaska
a traditional preparation program, 2) a requirement arizona
that all candidates pass a subject-area test and 3) flex- arkansas
ibility built into its policy that respects nontraditional California
candidates’ diverse backgrounds. colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
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
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Figure 34
Wyoming
1 Elementary candidates only
11 28 19 1
Figure 35 Figure 36
Do states require alternate routes to Do states ensure that alternate route
be selective? teachers have subject matter knowledge?
California California
21
18 28 22
11
1
no academic academic academic no alternate
standard1 standard
too low
standard
exceeds that
route3 1
of traditional
programs2 Subject insufficient no
matter test testing alternate
required for requirements1,2 route3
admission
1 California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, 1 State does not require subject test at all; exempts some candidates; or
South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin does not require candidate to pass test until program completion.
2 Arizona, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, 2 Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
3 North Dakota Wisconsin, Wyoming
3 North Dakota
Figure 37
Do states accommodate the nontraditional
background of alternate route candidates?
California
31
11
8
1
test can be used no major or Major or no
in lieu of major subject area coursework alternate
or coursework coursework required with no route3
requirements1 requirements2 test out option
1 Alabama4, Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia
2 Arkansas, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Washington
3 North Dakota
4 For elementary candidates only
48 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 2: Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Goal b – alternate route Preparation
The state should ensure that its alternate routes provide streamlined preparation
that is relevant to the immediate needs of new teachers.
goal components
Figure 38
(The factors considered in determining the states’
rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Alternate Route
Preparation
1. The state should ensure that the number of credit
hours it either requires or allows is manageable for 0 best Practice States
the new teacher. Anything exceeding 12 credit hours
4 States Meet Goal
of coursework (for which the teacher is required to
Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, New Jersey
physically attend a lecture or seminar) in the first
year may be counterproductive, placing too great a 4 States nearly Meet Goal
burden on the teacher. This calculation is premised Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Virginia
on no more than 6 credit hours in the summer, 3 in
the fall and 3 in the spring. 14 States Partly Meet Goal
Alaska, california, Colorado, Delaware,
2. The state should ensure that alternate route Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,
programs offer accelerated study not to exceed six New York, South Carolina, South Dakota,
courses (exclusive of any credit for mentoring) over Texas, Utah, West Virginia
the duration of the program. Programs should be no
longer than two years, at which time the new teach- 17 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
er should be eligible for a standard certificate. Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana,
3. Any coursework requirements should target the Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma,
immediate needs of the new teacher (e.g., semi- Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
nars with other grade-level teachers, training in a Washington, Wyoming
particular curriculum, reading instruction and class-
room management techniques). 12 States Do not Meet Goal
Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
4. The state should ensure that candidates have an Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina,
opportunity to practice teach in a summer train- North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin
ing program. Alternatively, the state can provide an
intensive mentoring experience, beginning with a
trained mentor assigned full-time to the new teach-
er for the first critical weeks of school and gradually
reducing the amount of time. The state should
support only induction strategies that can be
effective even in a poorly managed school: intensive
mentoring, seminars appropriate to grade level or
subject area, a reduced teaching load and frequent
release time to observe other teachers.
rationale n Induction support is especially important for alternate route
See appendix for detailed rationale. teachers.
n The program must provide practical, meaningful SuPPorting reSearch
preparation that is sensitive to a new teacher’s Research citations to support this goal are
stress level. available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
area 2: Goal b California analysis
State Partly Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California does not ensure that its alternate routes California meets this goal in part. California should pro-
provide streamlined preparation that meets the im- vide specific coursework guidelines focused on those
mediate needs of new teachers. topics that provide the greatest benefit with the least
The University Internship Credential route require- burden to new teachers. Appropriate courses include
ments vary, depending on the type of internship cre- grade-level or subject-level seminars, methodology in
dential sought and the specific program requirements the content area, classroom management, assessment
established by the college or university through and scientifically based early reading instruction. The
which the internship will be completed. state should also be mindful that too many courses can
be counterproductive to a teacher’s success. California
District Intern Credential candidates must complete
should ensure that a new teacher’s workload is limited to
120 clock hours or six semester units of training in
one course at a time while teaching.
child development and teaching methods. Elemen-
tary candidates must also complete additional The state should offer a highly structured, well-supervised
instruction in these areas during their first semester induction program for all alternate route candidates.
of teaching. Effective strategies include practice teaching prior to
starting to teach in the classroom, intensive mentor-
Candidates in the University Internship Creden-
ing with full classroom support in the first few weeks or
tial program are not provided a practice teaching
months of school, a reduced teaching load and relief time
opportunity, nor is there a requirement that all can-
to allow new teachers to observe experienced teachers
didates receive a mentor. The District Intern must be
during each school day.
assisted and guided throughout the training program
by either a person designated as a mentor teacher, a California is commended for limiting the length of its al-
teacher selected through a competitive process or a ternate route programs.
person employed by the program to supervise stu-
dent teachers.
The University Internship Credentials route offers california reSPonSe to analySiS
one- and two-year programs. District Intern Creden- California recognized the factual accuracy of our
tial candidates can complete their program and earn analysis.
full certification in two years.
Supporting research
http://134.186.81.79/fmi/xsl/CTC_apm/recordlist.html
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl402a.pdf
50 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 39
nity
ngth
Do states’ alternate routes
ortu
ork
m le
provide streamlined
opp
sew
ork
e
ogra
rout
sew
rt
cour
hing
preparation that meets
ppo
le pr
cour
ate
teac
ined
the immediate needs of
e su
ltern
onab
vant
tice
nsiv
aml
new teachers?
no a
reas
Prac
rele
Stre
inte
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
California
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
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
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
14 9 24 16 12 1
Figure 40
examples of Best Practice
Do states curb excessive coursework
requirements? arkansas, delaware, georgia and new jersey ensure
California
that their alternate routes provide streamlined prepa-
ration that meets the immediate needs of new teach-
32 ers. Each state requires a manageable number of credit
hours, relevant coursework and intensive mentoring.
14
4
1
yes1 Somewhat2 no no alternate
route3
1 Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,
Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas,
Virginia
2 Indiana, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming
3 North Dakota
Figure 41
Do states require mentoring of high quality
and intensity?
California
38
12
1
yes1 no no
alternate
route2
1 Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia,
Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia
2 North Dakota
52 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 2: Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Goal c – alternate route Usage and Providers
The state should provide an alternate route that is free from regulatory obstacles
that inappropriately limit its usage and providers.
goal components
Figure 42
(The factors considered in determining the states’
rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Alternate Route
Usage and Providers
1. The state should not treat the alternate route
as a program of last resort or restrict the avail- 0 best Practice States
ability of alternate routes to certain geographic
20 States Meet Goal
areas, grades or subject areas.
Arkansas, california, Colorado,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,
2. The state should allow districts and nonprofit Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
organizations other than institutions of higher Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
education to operate alternate route programs. North Carolina, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
3. The state should ensure that its alternate route Virginia, Wisconsin
has no requirements that would be difficult to
meet for a provider that is not an institution of 4 States nearly Meet Goal
higher education. Such requirements include
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia
an approval process based on institutional
accreditation or raining requirements articulat-
10 States Partly Meet Goal
ed in only credit hours and not clock hours. Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana,
Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico,
rationale Oklahoma, Washington
See appendix for detailed rationale. 2 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
South Carolina, Vermont
n Alternate routes should be structured to do
more than just address shortages; they should 15 States Do not Meet Goal
provide an alternative pipeline for talented Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
individuals to enter the profession. Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
SuPPorting reSearch Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon,
Wyoming
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 53
California
area 2: Goal c California analysis
State Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California does not limit the usage or providers of its California meets this goal. California is commended
alternate routes. for not limiting the grade, subject or geographic areas
California does not have restrictions on the usage of its available to alternate route teachers.
alternate routes with regard to subject, grade or geo- The state is also commended for structuring its pro-
graphic teaching areas. grams to allow a diversity of providers. A good diver-
Coursework is outlined in clock hours, and programs are sity of providers helps all programs, both university and
run by both institutions of higher education and local non-university based, to improve.
districts.
Supporting research california reSPonSe to analySiS
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl707b.pdf
California recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
54 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 43
c are ,
aphi jects
as
Are states’ alternate
eogr sub
s
ider
nd g ross
routes free from
e
rout
prov
es a e ac
examples of Best Practice limitations?
ate
gradad usag
of
ltern
rsity
Twenty states meet this goal, and although NCTQ has
no a
Dive
bro
not singled out one state’s policies for “best practice”
alabama
honors, it commends all states that permit both broad alaska
usage and a diversity of providers for their alternate arizona
routes. arkansas
California
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
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
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
28 26 1
Figure 44
Can alternate route teachers teach any
subject or grade anywhere in the state?
California
28 22
1
yes no no
alternate
route
Figure 45
Are providers other than colleges or
universities permitted?
California
24
26
1
yes no no
alternate
route
56 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 46
ous
eme ds
uine
genu
nts
prov at nee
Do states provide real
ute gen
disin
alternative pathways?
nt im e th
e ro arly
e
Figure 47
rout
e is
ifica rout
rnat r ne
ate
Do states provide real alternative pathways?
rout
altenuine o
signernate
ltern
red
no a
offe
alt
Ge
California
alabama 21
alaska
arizona
24
arkansas
California
colorado 5
connecticut
Delaware
1
District of columbia Genuine or alternate offered no
Florida nearly route that route is alternate
genuine needs disingenuous route
Georgia alternate significant
hawaii route improvements
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
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
5 24 21 1
Figure 48
n
r
atte
maj st ca
ngth
ect m
What are the
u of or te
ork
or
ance
m le
rform ng
s
ort
sew
ork
ider
characteristics of
c pe stro
subj
in lie ired
ogra
supp
sew
cour
prov
sed requ
emi e of
wled n of
states’ alternate
le pr
cour
her
age
ined
acadrequisit
of
knorificatio
ge
ajor
teac
onab
routes?
rsity
d us
vant
aml
no m
new
broa
reas
Dive
be u
rele
Pre
Stre
Ve
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
California
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
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
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
11 28 19 14 9 24 12 28 26
area 2: Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Goal D – alternate route Program accountability
The state should ensure that its approval process for alternate route programs
holds them accountable for the performance of their teachers.
goal components
Figure 49
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Alternate Route
Program Accountability
1. The state should collect some or all of the
following data to create a more comprehensive 0 best Practice States
index of program performance to hold alternate
0 States Meet Goal
route programs accountable:
n■ Average raw scores of graduates on
3 States nearly Meet Goal
licensing tests, including subject matter and Florida, Louisiana, Texas
professional knowledge tests;
n■ Satisfaction ratings by school principals and 5 States Partly Meet Goal
teacher supervisors of programs’ student Alabama, Delaware, Kentucky,
teachers, using a standardized form to Maryland, Tennessee
permit program comparison;
n■ Evaluation results from the first and/or
8 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa,
second year of teaching;
Massachusetts, Michigan, Vermont,
n■ Academic achievement gains of graduates’
Washington
students averaged over the first three years
of teaching; and 35 States Do not Meet Goal
n■ Five-year retention rates of graduates in the Alaska, california, Colorado,
teaching profession. Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine,
2. The state should also establish the minimum
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
standard of performance for each of these
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
categories of data. Programs must be held New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
accountable for meeting these standards, and North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
the state, after due process, should shut down Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
programs that do not do so. Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia,
3. The state should produce and publish on its website
Wisconsin, Wyoming
an annual report card that shows all the data that
the state collects on individual teacher preparation
programs.
rationale
See appendix for detailed rationale.
n Alternate route programs should show they
consistently produce effective teachers.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 59
California
area 2: Goal D California analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California neither collects objective, meaningful data to California does not meet this goal. To generate the hard,
measure the performance of its alternate route programs objective data needed to hold programs accountable,
nor applies any transparent, measurable criteria for con- the state should make objective outcomes the focus of
ferring program approval. its approval process for alternate route programs and
In addition, California’s website has no report card that establish precise standards for performance that are
allows the public to review and compare program per- useful for accountability purposes.
formance. California should collect meaningful, objective data to
create a comprehensive index of program performance.
Supporting research NCTQ recommends the use of 1) graduates’ average
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/program-accred. raw scores on licensing tests (including subject-matter
html and professional knowledge tests); 2) satisfaction rat-
ings (by principals and teacher supervisors) of programs’
student teachers, using a standardized form to permit
program comparison; 3) evaluation results from the first
and/or second year of teaching; 4) academic achieve-
ment gains of students taught by the programs’ gradu-
ates, averaged over the first three years of teaching; and
5) five-year retention rates of graduates in the teach-
ing profession. To hold these programs accountable,
the state should then establish a minimum standard of
performance for each of these categories of data. Pro-
grams that do not meet the standard, after due process,
should be shut down.
Finally, California should post an annual report card
on its website that details the data it collects for all
programs, both alternate route and traditional, as well
as the criteria used for program approval. This report
card should also identify the programs that fail to meet
these criteria and cite the reasons why they failed.
california reSPonSe to analySiS
California recognized the factual accuracy of our
analysis.
60 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 50
y
ance
ebsi ublicl
Do states hold alternate
cific ctive
data
orm
s for imum
te
on w ata p
route programs
-spe bje
perf
ram cts o
examples of Best Practice
dard min
lable es d
accountable?
progte colle
avai te mak
stante sets
While no state earns a “best practice” designation for
Sta
Sta
Sta
1
this goal, louisiana comes the closest. Louisiana uses
alabama
objective, meaningful data to measure the performance
alaska
arizona of its alternate route programs and posts this data
arkansas annually on the state’s website. Louisiana is also well
California ahead of other states in setting standards for program
colorado performance and measuring each program according
connecticut to those standards. Program scores are determined
2
Delaware on the basis of a relatively complex rating formula.
District of columbia The state provides a system to reward programs that
1
Florida attain performance scores each year at an Exemplary
Georgia or High Performing level. Teacher preparation programs
hawaii
that are rated as being At Risk for four years or that are
idaho
designated as Low Performing and do not become Sat-
illinois
isfactory within two years lose their state approval.
indiana
iowa
kansas
1
kentucky
louisiana Figure 51
Maine Which states collect meaningful data?
Maryland
Massachusetts
avEraGE raW SCorES on liCEnSinG TESTS
Michigan
tennessee
Minnesota
Mississippi SaTiSfaCTion raTinG from SCHoolS
Missouri alabama, Florida, kentucky, Maryland, texas, Vermont,
Montana Washington
nebraska
nevada EvaluaTion rESulTS for ProGram GraDuaTES
new hampshire alabama, Delaware, Michigan, tennessee
new Jersey
STuDEnT lEarninG GainS1
new Mexico Florida, tennessee, texas
new york
north carolina TEaCHEr rETEnTion raTES
north Dakota3 arkansas, Delaware, Florida, texas
ohio
oklahoma
1 Louisiana is piloting the use of value-added data that connects student
oregon achievement to teacher preparation programs, but not yet using the
Pennsylvania results for accountability purposes.
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
2
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington Figure 50
1 The posted data do not allow the public to review and compare
West Virginia alternate route program performance because institutional data are not
Wisconsin dissaggregated.
Wyoming 2 The posted data do not allow the public to review and compare
program performance because data are not disaggregated by individual
16 1 7 program provider.
3 North Dakota does not have an alternate route to certification.
area 2: Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Goal e – licensure reciprocity
The state should help to make teacher licenses fully portable among states, with
appropriate safeguards.
goal components
Figure 52
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Licensure Reciprocity states’ rating for the goal.)
1 best Practice State 1. The state should offer fully certified teachers
Alabama moving from other states standard licenses,
without using transcript analysis or recency
1 State Meets Goal
requirements as a means of judging eligibility.
Texas
The state can and should require evidence of
3 States nearly Meet Goal good standing in previous employment.
Delaware, North Carolina, West Virginia
2. The state should uphold its standards for all
5 States Partly Meet Goal teachers by insisting that certified teachers
Idaho, New York, Rhode Island, coming from other states meet the incoming
Washington, Wyoming state’s testing requirements.
31 States Meet a Small Part of Goal 3. The state should accord the same license to
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
teachers from other states who completed an
District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
approved alternate route program as it accords
Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
teachers prepared in a traditional preparation
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
program.
Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, rationale
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin See appendix for detailed rationale.
n Using transcripts to judge teacher competency
10 States Do not Meet Goal provides little value.
california, Connecticut, Hawaii,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, n Testing requirements should be upheld, not
Nebraska, Nevada waived.
n Signing on to the NASDTEC Interstate Agree-
ment at least signals a state’s willingness to
consider portability.
n States licensing out-of-state teachers should
not differentiate between experienced teach-
ers prepared in alternate routes and those
prepared in traditional programs.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
62 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 2: Goal e California analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS Finally, California has indicated its willingness to sup-
Teachers with comparable out-of-state certificates are port the portability of teacher licenses by signing the
eligible for California’s Clear Teaching Credential. NASDTEC (National Association of State Directors of
Those with two or more years of experience are required Teacher Education and Certification) Interstate Agree-
to complete one of the following: 150 hours of profes- ment. While signing this agreement does not ensure
sional activities, a master’s degree or higher and a bach- that a state will provide unconditional reciprocity, it is,
elor’s degree with a minimum of 150 semester units. at the very least, symbolically important. In addition, via
Teachers must also earn an authorization to teach Eng- the NASDTEC agreement, the state has signaled its con-
lish learners as well as meet the state’s subject-matter sideration of licensure reciprocity for teachers who have
competence, meaning the out-of-state credential must completed an alternate route.
correspond to a California subject area or the candidate
must complete 32 units of coursework in the California Supporting research
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/out-of-state.html
subject area.
www.nasdtec.org
Teachers with less than two years of experience are also
eligible for the state’s clear credential if they complete
the state’s two-year induction program, in addition to
earning an authorization to teach English learners and recoMMendation
meeting the state’s subject-matter competence. Also, California does not meet this goal. Although the state
those with National Board for Professional Teaching has signed the NASDTEC agreement, its requirements
Standards Certification will be issued a clear credential create serious barriers to reciprocity. The state should
for that particular subject area. reconsider its requirement of a master’s degree or ex-
Unfortunately, alternate route teachers applying for even cessive undergraduate coursework, for research has
the preliminary certificate in California must have com- concluded that these requirements do not positively
pleted their programs at a regionally accredited institu- affect teacher effectiveness. The professional activities
tion; therefore, district-run alternate route programs or requirement is also burdensome and may deter talent-
programs provided by groups such as Teach For America ed out-of-state teachers from applying for certification
or the New Teacher Project would not meet the state’s in California. The state’s induction requirement is not
definition. Additionally, the program must have provided unreasonable for teachers with less experience; how-
student teaching, even though a responsible alternate ever, the decision about whether or not an out-of-state
route program might have instead provided a strong in- teacher needs additional support may best be left in
duction program with intensive mentoring. the hands of school principals.
Transcripts are required for all applicants; however, it is The state should widen its definition of a valid alternate
not clear whether the state analyzes these transcripts route program, accommodating out-of-state teachers
to determine whether a teacher was prepared through who have completed an alternate route program by re-
a traditional or alternate route or whether additional moving its condition that alternate route teachers can
coursework will be required. It is also unclear whether only have completed a program through a college or
California upholds its standards for all teachers by in- university. States that cite the evidence of uneven qual-
sisting that out-of-state teachers meet its testing ity of alternate route programs are ignoring the simi-
requirements. larly uneven quality of traditional teacher preparation
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 63
California
programs. The policy is also premised in speculation; california reSPonSe to analySiS
there are no research findings to suggest that alternate California recognized the factual accuracy of our
route teachers who completed a regionally accredited analysis.
program are more effective than those who did not.
California should also consider discontinuing its re-
quirement for the submission of transcripts. Transcript
analysis is likely to result in additional coursework re-
quirements, even for traditionally prepared teachers;
alternate route teachers, on the other hand, may have
to virtually begin anew, repeating some, most or all of a
teacher preparation program in California. Regardless of
whether a teacher was prepared through a traditional
or alternate route, all certified out-of-state teachers
should receive equal treatment.
In addition, the state should uphold its standards for
all teachers and insist that out-of-state teachers meet
its own testing requirements, and it should not provide
any waivers of its teacher tests unless an applicant
can provide evidence of a passing score under its own
standards.
64 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 54
h no
What do states require
hed wit
ents
of teachers transferring
ttac city
irem
examples of Best Practice
gs a ipro
from other states?
requ
strin nse rec
ts
scrip
ncy
alabama makes teacher licenses fully portable among
lice
rece
tran
states by not specifying any additional coursework or
alabama
recency requirements to determine eligibility for either alaska
traditional or alternate route teachers. The state also arizona
does not grant any waivers of its testing requirements arkansas
and appropriately requires all out-of-state teachers to California
meet Alabama’s passing scores on assessments. It has colorado
also signed on to the NASDTEC agreement, signaling connecticut
the state’s willingness to consider licensure reciprocity Delaware
for teachers from other states. District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
Figure 53
idaho
Do states require all out-of-state teachers to illinois
pass their licensure tests? indiana
California iowa
kansas
kentucky
36 louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
15 Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
nevada
yes1 no new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
1 Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, 1
North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, new york
Washington, Wisconsin north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
1
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
1
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
1
Wyoming
Figure 54 9 41 14
1 For traditionally-prepared teachers only
Figure 55
arati ually
teac cles
ate r ate o the
hers
te
Do states treat out-of-state
oute bsta
cher or alt nt
erna
prep s eq
on
ltern o cre with
e tea ts f fere
teachers the same whether
s of cher
rout iremen fies dif
for aential t policies
they were prepared in a
rdles s tea
s
requte speci
traditional or an alternate
regate treat
pot te has
route program?
Sta
Sta
Sta
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
California
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
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
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
66 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California 6 7 38
area 3: identifying Effective Teachers
Goal a – State Data Systems
The state should develop a data system that contributes some of the evidence
needed to assess teacher effectiveness.
goal components
Figure 56
(The factors considered in determining the states’
rating for the goal.) How States are Faring in the Development
of Data Systems
1. The state should establish a longitudinal data
system with at least the following key compo- 1 best Practice State
nents: Tennessee
n■ A unique statewide student identifier number
0 States Meet Goal
that connects student data across key data-
bases across years; 2 States nearly Meet Goal
n■ A unique teacher identifier system that can Louisiana, Ohio
match individual teacher records with indi-
vidual student records; and 18 States Partly Meet Goal
n■ An assessment system that can match indi- Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,
vidual student test records from year to year Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Mississippi,
in order to measure academic growth. Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
2. Value-added data provided through the state’s South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia,
longitudinal data system should be considered Wyoming
among the criteria used to determine teachers’
effectiveness. 28 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Alaska, Arizona, california, Colorado,
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Idaho,
rationale Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
See appendix for detailed rationale. Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
n Value-added analysis connects student data to New Jersey, New York, North Dakota,
teacher data to measure achievement and per- Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont,
formance. Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin
n There are a number of responsible uses for
value-added analysis. 2 States Do not Meet Goal
Maryland, Nevada
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 67
California
area 3: Goal a California analysis
State Meets a Small Part of Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California does not have a data system that can be used California meets only a small part of this goal. The state
to provide evidence of teacher effectiveness. should assign unique teacher identifiers that would en-
However, California does have two of three necessary able it to match individual teacher records with indi-
elements that would allow for the development of a vidual student records to support the development of
student- and teacher-level longitudinal data system. value-added analysis. The state should also support the
The state has assigned unique student identifiers that use of value-added data to provide part of the evidence
connect student data across key databases across years. of teacher effectiveness, particularly for decisions about
It also has the capacity to match student test records granting teachers tenure. Value-added data are also
from year to year in order to measure student academic important and necessary for local districts adopting
growth. performance pay plans to reliably measure individual
teacher and overall school performance.
California does not assign unique teacher identifiers
that would enable it to match individual teacher re-
cords with individual student records.
Until recently, the state prohibited the use of data california reSPonSe to analySiS
from the state data system to be used for purposes of California asserted that in March 2006, the California
teacher pay, promotion, sanction or evaluation. In Sep- Department of Education (CDE), in cooperation with the
tember 2009, the legislation passed a bill that removed California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC),
this limitation. was given authorization to begin the development of a
California teacher data system, identified as the California
SuPPorting reSearch Longitudinal Teacher Integrated Data Educational System
www.dataqualitycampaign.org (CALTIDES). “The issuance of unique teacher identifiers
began in the 2008-2009 school year. Once implemented,
SB 19 (2009)
all public education agencies, including local educational
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/
agencies (LEAs) and the CDE, will use these identifiers on
sb_0001-0050/sb_19_bill_20090915_enrolled.pdf
all teacher records. CALTIDES/CALPADS will allow local
educational agencies to match individual teacher records
with individual student records, should the local educa-
tional agency choose to do so.”
68 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 58
ses
ss da that
time
taba
s
er re ds
cord
acro tifier
r
Do state data systems
tifie
each ecor
over
data iden
iden
ith t ent r
have the capacity to
atch
ects dent
examples of Best Practice
cher
ch w tud
reliably assess teacher
rds m
mat idual s
systique tea
connque stu
effectiveness?
reco
em
tennessee not only has all three elements of a stu-
indiv
Uni
test
Un
dent- and teacher-level longitudinal data system--
alabama
unique student identifiers that connect student data alaska
across key databases across years, unique teacher arizona
identifiers that enable the state to match individ- arkansas
ual teacher records with individual student records California
and the capacity to match student test records from colorado
year to year so as to measure student academic connecticut
growth--but it is also the only state that uses this Delaware
value-added data to measure teacher effectiveness by District of columbia
isolating each teacher’s impact on individual stu- Florida
Georgia
dents’ academic growth. It translates this impact into
hawaii
a “teacher effect” score and then uses it as part of a
idaho
teacher’s evaluation.
illinois
indiana
iowa
Figure 57 kansas
kentucky
Do states use value-added data as a criterion louisiana
for assessing teacher effectiveness?
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
48 Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
California
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
nevada1
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york2
north carolina
north Dakota
3 ohio
oklahoma
Use value- Do not oregon
added data1 use value- Pennsylvania
added data rhode island
South carolina
1 Louisiana uses value-added data to assess certain aspects of teacher South Dakota
effectiveness; however, this information is not used to decide tenure.
Ohio uses value-added data to improve classroom instruction; tennessee
however, it is not clear whether this information plays a role in teacher texas
evaluations. Tennessee uses value-added data to measure teacher
effectiveness by isolating the impact each teacher has on individual Utah
students’ academic growth, which can be used as part of a teacher’s Vermont
evaluation.
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Figure 58
1 Nevada prohibits the use of value-added data in teacher evaluations.
Wisconsin
2 New York prohibits the use of student-achievement data in teacher
Wyoming
tenure decisions.
50 46 48 21
area 3: identifying Effective Teachers
Goal b – evaluation of effectiveness
The state should require instructional effectiveness to be the preponderant
criterion of any teacher evaluation.
goal components
Figure 59
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Evaluating states’ rating for the goal.)
Teacher Effectiveness
1. The state should either require a common
1 best Practice State evaluation instrument in which evidence of stu-
Florida
dent learning is the most significant criterion or
should specifically require that student learn-
3 States Meet Goal
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas ing be the preponderant consideration in local
evaluation processes. Evaluation instruments,
0 States nearly Meet Goal whether state or locally developed, should be
structured so as to preclude a teacher from re-
ceiving a satisfactory rating if found ineffective
11 States Partly Meet Goal in the classroom.
Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia,
Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, 2. Evaluation instruments should require class-
New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, room observations that focus on and document
Utah the effectiveness of instruction.
22 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Alaska, Arizona, california, Colorado, 3. Teacher evaluations should consider objective
Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, evidence of student learning, including not only
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, standardized test scores, but also classroom-
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, based artifacts such as tests, quizzes and stu-
New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, dent work.
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
rationale
14 States Do not Meet Goal
Arkansas, District of Columbia, Idaho, See appendix for detailed rationale.
Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, n Teachers should be judged primarily by their
New York, North Dakota, Oregon, impact on students.
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont,
Wyoming SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
70 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 3: Goal b California analysis
State Meets a Small Part of Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California does not require instructional effectiveness California meets only a small part of this goal.
to be the preponderant criterion of any teacher California’s recommendation that local districts include
evaluation. actual student outcomes is commendable, but the
California requires local school districts to develop broad loophole allowing districts to determine whether
teacher evaluations that meet a list of criteria these would be “applicable” weakens and undermines
established by the state. California’s policy states the rigor of the evaluation process. The state should
that the teacher evaluation instruments used in the consider modifying its policy to require districts to use
districts should include, among other criteria, evidence evidence of student learning garnered through objective
of student progress toward district-established measures such as standardized test results, in addition
“standards of expected pupil achievement” and, if to subjective measures, as the preponderant criterion
applicable, achievement on state-adopted criterion- of teacher evaluations. In addition, California should
referenced assessments. Criteria for the evaluation ensure that evaluation instruments do not permit
also include observations of instructional technique teachers found ineffective in the classroom to receive
and maintenance of a suitable learning environment, satisfactory ratings.
among others. Although the state explicitly directs
districts to include classroom observations as part of
the evaluation, the state only recommends the use of california reSPonSe to analySiS
student achievement data when applicable, a loophole California recognized the factual accuracy of our
that undermines the rigor of the evaluation. analysis.
California recently passed legislation ending the
prohibition on the use of data from its state data system
for the purpose of teacher evaluations. While the state
is commended for ending this prohibition, this policy
only permits the use of objective evidence of student
learning, it does not require it.
SuPPorting reSearch
California Education Code 44662 and 10601.5
California Senate Bill 19 (2009)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-
0050/sb_19_bill_20090915_enrolled.pdf
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 71
California
Figure 60
res o lude
ude
uati rion e
for
eval crite e th
earn easu inc
rvati incl
f
Do states consider
teac onder arning e of
ent l ive m on to
her ant to b
obse tion to
on
prepdent leevidenc
classroom effectiveness
on
stud objectevaluati
room alua
ing
as part of teacher examples of Best Practice
classuires ev
stu quires
any uires
evaluations?
florida explicitly requires teacher evaluations to
req
re
req
be based primarily on evidence of student learning.
alabama
alaska
The state requires evaluations to rely on classroom
arizona observations as well as objective measures of student
arkansas learning, including state assessment data. South caro-
California lina, tennessee and texas also structure their formal
colorado evaluations so that teachers cannot get an overall satis-
connecticut factory rating unless they also get a satisfactory rating
Delaware on classroom effectiveness.
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
Figure 61
idaho
illinois Sources of objective evidence of
indiana student learning
iowa
Many educators struggle to identify possible
kansas
sources of objective student data. here are
kentucky
some examples:
louisiana1
Maine n Standardized test scores
Maryland n Periodic diagnostic assessments
Massachusetts n Benchmark assessments that show
Michigan student growth
Minnesota2 n artifacts of student work connected
Mississippi to specific student learning standards
Missouri that are randomly selected for review
Montana by the principal or senior faculty, scored
nebraska using rubrics and descriptors
nevada n examples of typical assignments,
new hampshire assessed for their quality and rigor
new Jersey n Periodic checks on progress with the
new Mexico curriculum coupled with evidence of
new york student mastery of the curriculum from
north carolina quizzes, tests and exams
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia Figure 60
Wisconsin 1 Louisiana has an optional teacher evaluation system that does make
explicit the need to include objective measures of student learning as
Wyoming part of the teacher evaluation.
2 Minnesota has implemented an optional teacher evaluation system
30 16 4 based on evidence of student learning as measured by classroom
observations and objective measures, such as student achievement data.
Figure 62
trum cally ut
ent te-
t ap t or
d ins ve lo ce b
tate alen men e-
ed
trum e sta
by s l equiv instru e stat
Do states direct how
prov
lope ppro uidan
ents
ents
trum lly
t
men
d ins st us
d ins loca
stru n
loca elopedmust us
teachers should be
on in ole i
deves not avides g
lope s mu
lope oves
uati no r
evaluated?
devete appr
dev tricts
devedistrict
doe te pro
eval te has
Dis
Sta
Sta
Sta
all
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
California
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia 1
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana 1
nebraska
nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island 1
South carolina
South Dakota 1
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Figure 62
9 3 2 17 20 1 The state has no policy regarding any aspect of
teacher evaluations.
area 3: identifying Effective Teachers
Goal c – Frequency of evaluations
The state should require annual evaluations of all teachers and multiple
evaluations of all new teachers.
goal components
Figure 63
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Frequency of states’ rating for the goal.)
Evaluations
1. The state should require that all nonproba-
1 best Practice State tionary teachers receive a formal evaluation
Oklahoma
annually.
5 States Meet Goal
Idaho, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, 2. The state should require that all new, nonper-
Washington manent teachers receive a minimum of two
formal evaluations annually. At least one evalu-
4 States nearly Meet Goal ation should occur during the first half of the
Arizona, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Wyoming school year.
14 States Partly Meet Goal rationale
Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, See appendix for detailed rationale.
Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, n Annual evaluations are standard practice in
South Carolina, West Virginia
most professional jobs.
6 States Meet a Small Part of Goal n Evaluations are especially important for new
Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, teachers.
North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah
SuPPorting reSearch
21 States Do not Meet Goal Research citations to support this goal are avail-
Alaska, california, Colorado, able at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, Montana,
New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,
Wisconsin
74 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 3: Goal c California analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California requires new teachers to be formally evalu- California does not meet this goal. The state should re-
ated once a year. The state’s policy does not include any quire that all new, probationary teachers be formally
guidelines on when these evaluations should occur. evaluated at least twice annually and that the first eval-
Once teachers attain “permanent status,” California uation occur within the first half of their first school
requires evaluations at least every other year. Teachers year. By doing so, the state will ensure that local dis-
who have been employed by the district for at least 10 tricts more efficiently determine whether new teach-
years may be evaluated only once every five years if ers are demonstrating appropriate classroom skills. The
they are highly qualified, and the evaluator and certifi- point of requiring that one evaluation occur early in the
cated employee agree. year is to be able to immediately offer feedback and
support to new teachers, especially if the observation
SuPPorting reSearch indicates any unsatisfactory performance. That way, the
California Code 44664(a) teacher and school or district leadership can implement
a plan for improvement, rather than potentially allow
an ineffective new teacher to remain in the classroom
without any evaluation until late in the year.
California should also require annual formal evaluations
for all nonprobationary teachers regardless of their em-
ployment record.
california reSPonSe to analySiS
California recognized the factual accuracy of our
analysis.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 75
California
Figure 64
Do states require districts to evaluate all
veteran teachers each year?
examples of Best Practice
oklahoma not only requires that new teachers be eval-
yes no
uated twice a year, but it also articulates that the first
alabama
alaska1
evaluation must be completed by November 15. This
arizona allows new teacher performance to be assessed early in
arkansas the year with an unsatisfactory performance addressed
California by an improvement plan. Oklahoma also requires that
colorado nonprobationary teachers are evaluated annually.
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia Figure 65
hawaii Do states require districts to evaluate all
idaho veteran teachers each year?
illinois
indiana
California
iowa
kansas
kentucky
36
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts 15
Michigan
Minnesota2
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
yes no
nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina3
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas4
Utah
Vermont
Virginia Figure 64
1 Teachers in Alaska who exceed performance standards can waive annual
Washington evaluation; they are evaluated every two years.
West Virginia 2 Minnesota requires multiple evaluations per year for teachers who
Wisconsin participate in the optional QComp program.
Wyoming 3 North Carolina allows districts to grant waivers to its annual evaluation
requirement.
15 36 4 Texas’s annual evaluation may be waived for teachers rated proficient on
most recent evaluation.
Figure 68
How many times do
Figure 66 states require districts to
es
d
evaluate a new teacher
e tim
esse
How many times do states require districts to
addr
during a school year?
mor
evaluate a new teacher during a school year?
es
e
1 tim
2 tim
3 or
not
California alabama1
alaska
18 14 arizona
9 10 arkansas2
California
colorado
connecticut
Delaware3
not 1 2 3 or more District of columbia
addressed time times times Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
Figure 67
illinois
Do states require districts to evaluate new indiana
teachers early in the school year? iowa
kansas
California
kentucky1
louisiana
17 25 Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
9 Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri1
Montana
yes1 no evaluation nebraska
frequency nevada
not addressed2 new hampshire
1 Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, new Jersey
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South new Mexico
Carolina, Washington, West Virginia
new york
2 District of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont north carolina1
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee1
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Figure 68
1 State requires multiple observations followed by Washington3
post-observation conferences. West Virginia1
2 The state’s mentoring program requires multiple Wisconsin4
observations followed by formative feedback.
Wyoming
3 State requires two observations followed by
post-observation conferences. 9 18 14 10
4 Only applies to first-year teachers
area 3: identifying Effective Teachers
Goal D – tenure
The state should require that tenure decisions be meaningful.
goal components
Figure 69
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring on Tenure states’ rating for the goal.)
0 best Practice States 1. A teacher should be eligible for tenure after a
certain number of years of service, but tenure
0 States Meet Goal should not be granted automatically at that
juncture.
0 States nearly Meet Goal
0 States Partly Meet Goal 2. The state should articulate a process, such as a
hearing, that local districts must administer in
11 States Meet a Small Part of Goal considering the evidence and deciding whether
Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, a teacher should receive tenure.
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Ohio 3. Evidence of effectiveness should be the prepon-
derant criterion in tenure decisions.
40 States Do not Meet Goal
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
4. The minimum years of service needed to achieve
california, Colorado, Delaware, District
tenure should allow sufficient data to be accu-
of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
mulated on which to base tenure decisions; five
Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
years is the ideal minimum.
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, rationale
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
See appendix for detailed rationale.
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West n Tenure should be a significant and consequen-
Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming tial milestone in a teacher’s career.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
78 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 3: Goal D California analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California does not require any process to ensure that California does not meet this goal. The awarding of
tenure decisions are meaningful. tenure is a milestone in every teacher’s career and should
California has a two-year probationary period for be afforded the consideration it deserves, regardless of
new teachers, but there is no indication that at the whether the state is bestowing a lifetime or limited-
conclusion of this period any additional process term position. The state should consider extending the
evaluating cumulative evidence of teacher effectiveness minimum probationary period for tenure to five years,
is required for tenure. The awarding of tenure appears to which would allow for the accumulation of sufficient
be virtually automatic. data on teacher effectiveness to support meaningful
tenure decisions. Although it is appropriate for teachers
SuPPorting reSearch to achieve tenure after a certain number of years, tenure
California Code 44251(a) should not automatically be granted at this juncture. To
justify this leap in professional standing, most notably
a tremendous advantage in due process, the state
should identify a process, such as a hearing, that local
districts would be required to administer, where the
cumulative evidence of teacher effectiveness would be
considered for each teacher and a determination made
of whether to award tenure. Teacher effectiveness in the
classroom, rather than years of experience, should be
the preponderant criterion in tenure decisions.
california reSPonSe to analySiS
California recognized the factual accuracy of our
analysis.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 79
California
Figure 70
How long before a
teacher earns tenure?
examples of Best Practice
olicy
ars
ars
ars
ars
ars
ars
ar
Unfortunately, NCTQ cannot highlight any
no P
1 ye
2 ye
3 ye
4 ye
5 ye
6 ye
7 ye
state’s policy in this area. All states need to
alabama improve how tenure is awarded, but four
alaska states have policies that are initial steps in
arizona the right direction. iowa and new Mexi-
arkansas co require the consideration of some evi-
California dence of teacher performance when making
colorado tenure decisions, although it is not the
connecticut preponderant criterion. Minnesota requires
Delaware local school boards to consult with peer re-
District of columbia view committees that evaluate probationary
Florida teachers, but there is no requirement that
Georgia teacher effectiveness must be considered.
hawaii New policy in north carolina requires teach-
idaho ers to achieve a minimum “proficient” rating
illinois on all five of the state’s professional teaching
indiana standards on their annual evaluations in order
iowa
to be recommended for tenure. Regrettably,
evidence of student learning is not the pre-
kansas
ponderant criterion in the evaluation.
kentucky
louisiana
Maine1
Maryland
Figure 71
Massachusetts
Michigan How are tenure decisions made?
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri 47
Montana
nebraska California
nevada2
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon 4
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina consideration of Virtually
some evidence1 automatically
South Dakota
tennessee
1 Iowa, New Mexico and North Carolina require some
texas evidence of teacher performance, although evidence
Utah of student learning is not the preponderant criterion.
Minnesota requires a peer review process, but does not
Vermont specify that the review include classroom effectiveness.
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Figure 70
1 The probationary period must not exceed two years.
1 2 8 32 5 2 0 1 2 New teachers with three consecutive satisfactory
evaluations may qualify for tenure after one year.
area 3: identifying Effective Teachers
Goal e – licensure advancement
The state should ensure that licensure advancement is based on
evidence of effectiveness.
goal components
Figure 72
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring on Licensure Advancement
1. The state should base advancement from a pro- 1 best Practice State
bationary to a nonprobationary license on evi- New Mexico
dence of classroom effectiveness.
0 States Meet Goal
2. The state should not require teachers to fulfill 0 States nearly Meet Goal
general, nonspecific coursework requirements
to advance from a probationary to a nonproba- 14 States Partly Meet Goal
tionary license. Arkansas, california, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio,
3. The state should not require teachers to have an South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
advanced degree as a condition of professional Washington, Wisconsin
licensure.
13 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
rationale
Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
See appendix for detailed rationale. New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island
n The reason for probationary licensure should be
to determine teacher effectiveness. 23 States Do not Meet Goal
n Most state requirements for achieving per- Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut Delaware,
manent certification have not been shown to District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho,
impact teacher effectiveness. Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New York, North
SuPPorting reSearch Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Research citations to support this goal are Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 81
California
area 3: Goal e California analysis
State Partly Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California defines two types of certification most com- California meets this goal in part. California should
monly used in elementary and secondary schools, require evidence of effectiveness to be a factor in deter-
respectively. To advance from the Preliminary Multi- mining whether teachers advance to the next licensure
ple Subject Teaching Credential to the Clear Multiple level. While the requirements of its induction program
Subject Teaching Credential, a teacher must complete are a step in the right direction, the state should con-
an approved Professional Teacher Induction Program, sider additional requirements that base professional li-
which includes advanced study of health education, censure on evidence of teacher effectiveness.
special populations, computer technology and teach- The state is commended for its specific, rather than
ing English learners. In addition, a category of program general, coursework requirements, and for not requir-
standards addresses “opportunities for participants to ing the completion of a master’s degree for certifica-
demonstrate effective teaching.” tion advancementto classroom performance. Rather,
The requirements are the same as above for teachers advancement should be based on evidence of teacher
advancing from a Preliminary Single Subject Teach- effectiveness.
ing Credential to a Clear Single Subject Teaching
Credential.
Another option for advancement is certification by the california reSPonSe to analySiS
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. California recognized the factual accuracy of our
analysis.
SuPPorting reSearch
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/requirements.html
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl560c.pdf
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl561c.pdf
Induction Program Standards
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/standards/
Induction-Program-Standards.pdf
82 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 73
ness
her
of
Do states require teachers to
ctive
teac
nce
ness evide
effe
ance e of
show evidence of effectiveness
examples of Best Practice
orm enc
of
ctive ant
before conferring professional
nce
perfme evid
effe onder
vide
licensure? In addition to three years’ teaching experience and
Prep
no e
So
completing the mentoring requirement, new Mexico
alabama requires new teachers to submit a professional develop-
alaska
ment dossier to advance from the probationary to the
arizona
nonprobationary certificate. The dossier is divided into
arkansas
five strands, including evidence of teacher effectiveness
California
colorado and evidence of student learning, and teachers must
connecticut meet or exceed the standards in all strands to advance.
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida Figure 74
Georgia
Do states require teachers to earn
hawaii
advanced degrees before conferring
idaho professional licensure?
illinois
indiana California
iowa
kansas
kentucky 35
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan 11
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
5
Montana
nebraska yes, required required no
nevada for mandatory for optional
new hampshire professional advanced
license1 license2
new Jersey
new Mexico
1 Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Oregon all
new york require a master’s degree or coursework equivalent to a
north carolina master’s degree.
north Dakota 2 Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana,
ohio Nebraska, New Mexico, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 83
35 15 1 California
Figure 75
Do states require teachers to take additional,
nonspecific coursework before conferring
professional licensure?
California
23 28
yes1 no
1 Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Idaho, Kentucky,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming
84 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 3: identifying Effective Teachers
Goal F – equitable Distribution
The state should contribute to the equitable distribution of teacher talent among
schools in its districts by means of good reporting.
goal components
Figure 76
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring on Equitable Distribution
The state should make the following data publicly 0 best Practice States
available:
1. An index for each school that includes factors
0 States Meet Goal
associated with teacher quality, such as: 0 States nearly Meet Goal
n■ teachers’ average SAT or ACT scores;
n■ the percentage of teachers failing basic skills 6 States Partly Meet Goal
licensure test at least once; Connecticut, New Jersey, New York,
n■ the percentage of teachers on emergency North Carolina, Rhode Island,
credentials; South Carolina
n■ average selectivity of teachers’ undergraduate
colleges; and 34 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n■ the percentage of new teachers;
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, california,
Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
2. The percentage of highly qualified teachers,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
disaggregated both by individual school and by
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
teaching area;
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon,
3. The annual teacher absenteeism rate reported
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
for the previous three years, disaggregated by Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
individual school;
11 States Do not Meet Goal
4. The average teacher turnover rate for the previous Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan,
three years, disaggregated by individual school, New Hampshire, North Dakota,
by district and by reasons that teachers leave. Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah,
Vermont, Wyoming
rationale
See appendix for detailed rationale.
n Distribution data should show more than
just teachers’ years of experience and highly
qualified status.
n States need to report data at the level of the
individual school.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 85
California
area 3: Goal F California analysis
State Meets a Small Part of Goal
analySiS should expand its data collection and reporting efforts
Comprehensive reporting may be the state’s most im- to include other areas that would shine a light on the
portant role for ensuring the equitable distribution of distribution of teachers both across and within districts.
teachers among schools. California reports little school- Individual school report cards should include an index
level data that can help support the equitable distribu- of teacher quality with such data as teachers’ average
tion of teacher talent. SAT or ACT scores, the percentage of teachers failing
California does not collect or publicly report on most of basic skills licensure tests at least once and the selectiv-
the data recommended by NCTQ. The state does not ity of teachers’ undergraduate colleges. School report
provide a school-level teacher index that demonstrates cards should also include teacher absenteeism and
the academic background of a school’s teachers. Cali- turnover rates. These data can be used to address issues
fornia does not report teacher absenteeism or turnover of staff quality and stability. As California does with
rates. highly qualified teachers, providing comparative data
for schools with similar poverty and minority popula-
California does report on the percentage of teachers on
tions would yield an even more comprehensive picture
emergency credentials, the percentage of first- and sec-
of gaps in the equitable distribution of teachers.
ond-year teachers and the percentage of highly quali-
fied teachers. Commendably, these data are reported
for each school, rather than aggregated by district. The
state is also commended for comparing the percentage california reSPonSe to analySiS
of highly qualified teachers at high- versus low-poverty California recognized the factual accuracy of our
schools for each district. California’s Highly Qualified analysis.
Teacher Plan, published in November 2006, reports on
the disparities between the percentages of highly quali-
fied teachers relative to poverty levels and minority Figure 77
populations, but there has been no further update. Does California publicly report
school-level data about teachers?
SuPPorting reSearch
Teacher Credential and Experience at School Level
an index for each school that includes
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
factors associated with teacher quality no
California Highly Qualified Teacher Plan
http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/hqtplans/ Percentage of teachers on emergency
credentials1 yeS
ca.doc
School Accountability Report Card http://www.cde. Percentage of new teachers1
ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/
yeS
Percentage of highly qualified teachers
yeS
recoMMendation annual turnover rate
California meets only a small part of this goal. California no
is commended for reporting the percentage of teach-
teacher absenteeism rate
ers on emergency credentials, new teacher ratios, and no
the percentage of highly qualified teachers by school
as well as comparing the percentage of highly qualified 1 Ideally, percentage of new teachers and percentage of teachers on
teachers at high- versus low-poverty schools. The state emergency credentials would be incorporated into a teacher quality index.
86 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 78
qual ssociat l that
ed
rs 1
ualifi
ed
Do states publicly
ntia 1 n
teac tors schoo
rede ers o
ache
rate
hly q
ls
report school-level
w te
cy c each
ism
ate
ity
with udes fac r each
a
f hig
ver r
examples of Best Practice
ntee
f ne
rgen of t
data about teachers?
incl index fo
ge o
urno
abse
ge o
her
eme entage
enta
enta
ual t
hers
her
No state has an outstanding record when it
Perc
an
Perc
teac
Perc
teac
ann
comes to public reporting of teacher data that
alabama
can help to ameliorate inequities in teacher alaska
quality. However, connecticut, new jersey, arizona
new york, north carolina, rhode island arkansas
and South carolina report more school-level California
data than other states. Each of these states colorado
reports four of the five following factors at connecticut
the school level: the percentage of teachers Delaware
on emergency credentials, the percentage District of columbia
of new teachers, the percentage of highly Florida
Georgia
qualified teachers, the annual absenteeism
hawaii
rate and the average teacher turnover rate.
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
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1 Ideally, percentage of new teachers and percentage of
teachers on emergency credentials would be incorporated 0 18 10 39 7 5
into a teacher quality index.
area 4: retaining Effective Teachers
Goal a – induction
The state should require effective induction for all new teachers, with special
emphasis on teachers in high-needs schools.
goal components
Figure 79
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring on Induction
1. The state should require that new teachers 1 best Practice State
receive a high-quality mentoring experience. South Carolina
2. The state should ensure that new teachers
9 States Meet Goal
Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky,
receive mentoring of sufficient frequency and
Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
duration, especially in the first critical weeks of
North Carolina, West Virginia
school.
15 States nearly Meet Goal
3. Mentors should be carefully selected based on california, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa,
evidence of their own classroom effectiveness Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi,
and subject-matter expertise. Mentors should Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma,
be trained, and their performance as mentors Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia
should be evaluated.
10 States Partly Meet Goal
4. Induction programs should include only strate- Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, Maryland,
gies that can be successfully implemented even New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
in a poorly managed school. Such strategies Washington, Wisconsin
include intensive mentoring, seminars appro-
7 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
priate to grade level or subject area, a reduced Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
teaching load and frequent release time to North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas
observe other teachers.
9 States Do not Meet Goal
rationale Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire,
See appendix for detailed rationale. Oregon, Vermont, Wyoming
n Too many new teachers are left to “sink or
swim” when they begin teaching.
n Vague requirements simply to provide
mentoring are insufficient.
n New teachers in high-needs schools
particularly need quality mentoring.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 89
California
area 4: Goal a California analysis
State nearly Meets Goal
analySiS california reSPonSe to analySiS
California requires a mentoring program for its new California was helpful in providing NCTQ with the
teachers. The California Beginning Teacher Support facts necessary for our analysis.
and Assessment (BTSA) Induction Program is a state-
funded program, cosponsored by the California
Department of Education (CDE) and the Commission
on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC), designed to support Figure 80
the professional development of newly credentialed Does California policy articulate the
beginning teachers and to fulfill the requirements elements of an effective induction
for the California Clear Multiple and Single Subject program?1
Credentials. BTSA programs are locally designed and Mentoring for all new teachers yeS
implemented in accordance with the Standards for
Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Mentoring of sufficient frequency
Induction Programs, which outline some important and duration yeS
program requirements.
Mentoring provided at beginning
of school year
yeS
Supporting research
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
http://www.btsa.ca.gov/BTSA_basics.html careful selection of mentors yeS
http://www.btsa.ca.gov/faq.html
Mentors must be trained yeS
http://www.btsa.ca.gov/ba/pubs/html/
btsa_standards.html
Mentors must be evaluated no
Induction Program Standards
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/standards/ Mentor is compensated no
Induction-Program-Standards.pdf
Use of a variety of effective
induction strategies yeS
recoMMendation
California nearly meets this goal. To ensure a quality 1 California mentoring programs are locally designed and implemented.
program, the state should mandate more specific
requirements. For example, California should set more
specific parameters for its programs, such as ensuring
mentors are trained in a content area or grade level
similar to that of the new teacher and mandating a
method of performance evaluation. The state should
also offer specifics on release time or reducing teaching
responsibilities.
90 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 82
Do states have policies that
n
ctio
articulate the elements of
indu
ion
examples of Best Practice effective induction?
k
duct
n
wea
ctio
ng in
ted/
ndu
South carolina requires that all new teachers,
no i
limi
Stro
prior to the start of the school year, be assigned
alabama
mentors for at least one year. Districts carefully alaska
select mentors, who must undergo additional train- arizona
ing, based on experience and similar certifications arkansas
and grade levels. Adequate release time is mandated California
by the state so that mentors and new teachers may colorado
observe each other in the classroom, collaborate on connecticut
effective teaching techniques and develop professional Delaware
growth plans. Mentor evaluations are mandatory and District of columbia
stipends are recommended. Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
Figure 81 illinois
Do states have policies that articulate the indiana
elements of effective induction? iowa
kansas
California kentucky
louisiana
Maine
25 Maryland
16 Massachusetts
Michigan
10 Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
no limited / weak Strong
induction induction induction nevada
new 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
10 16 25
area 4: retaining Effective Teachers
Goal b – Pay Scales
The state should give local districts full authority for pay scales, eliminating
potential barriers such as state salary schedules and other regulations that
control how districts pay teachers.
goal components
Figure 83
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Pay Scales states’ rating for the goal.)
0 best Practice States 1. While the state may articulate teachers’ start-
ing salaries, it should not require districts to
0 States Meet Goal adhere to a state-dictated salary schedule that
sets minimum pay for every level.
1 State nearly Meets Goal
Minnesota
2. The state should discourage districts from tying
30 States Partly Meet Goal additional compensation to advanced degrees.
Alaska, Arizona, california, Colorado, The state should eliminate salary schedules
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, that establish higher minimum salaries or other
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, requirements to pay more to teachers with
Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, advanced degrees.
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, 3. The state should discourage salary schedules
North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, that imply that teachers with the most expe-
South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, rience are the most effective. The state should
Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming eliminate salary schedules that require that the
highest steps on the pay scale be determined
3 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
solely by seniority.
Illinois, Rhode Island, Texas
17 States Do not Meet Goal rationale
Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia,
Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, See appendix for detailed rationale.
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, n Compensation reform can be accomplished
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, within the context of local control.
Washington, West Virginia
n There is an important difference between a
state’s setting the minimum teacher salary and
setting a salary schedule.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
92 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 4: Goal b California analysis
State Partly Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California gives local districts the authority for pay California meets this goal in part. Although the state
scales, eliminating barriers such as state salary sched- is commended for not requiring districts to adhere to
ules and other regulations that control how districts a state-dictated salary schedule, it should articulate
pay teachers. The state mandates a minimum salary policies that definitively discourage districts from tying
but allows districts to determine the remainder of the compensation to advanced degrees or assuming teachers
schedule. with the most experience are the most effective. Such
policies would ensure that the highest steps on the pay
Supporting research scales are not determined solely by seniority.
California Education Code 45023.0
california reSPonSe to analySiS
California recognized the factual accuracy of our
analysis.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 93
California
Figure 84
What role does the
ry
lary
ority
sala
state play in deciding
m sa
examples of Best Practice
dule um
istri auth
teacher pay rates?
imu
sches minim
cts
to d es full
min
Unfortunately, no state meets this goal. Twenty-five
Giv
Set
Sets
states do not require districts to adhere to salary sched-
alabama
alaska
ules or minimum salary requirements, giving them full
arizona control of teacher pay rate. Although no state has
arkansas articulated a policy that discourages tying compen-
California sation to advanced degrees or basing salary solely on
colorado1 years of experience, Minnesota’s Quality Compensa-
connecticut tion for Teachers program is on the right track. Q Comp
Delaware requirements prevent participating districts’ local salary
District of columbia schedules from tying compensation primarily to factors
Florida that do not correlate with teacher effectiveness, while
Georgia
still allowing districts the flexibility to establish their
hawaii
own pay system and policies.
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa Figure 85
kansas
What role does the state play in deciding
kentucky
teacher pay rates?
louisiana
Maine
Maryland 25
Massachusetts California
Michigan
Minnesota
17
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska 9
nevada
new hampshire
Sets minimum Sets Gives full
new Jersey salary schedule minimum authority to
new Mexico salary districts
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island2
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin Figure 84
Wyoming 1 Colorado gives districts option of a salary schedule, a performance pay
policy or a combination of both.
17 9 25 2 Rhode Island requires that local district salary schedules are based on
years of service, experience and training.
Figure 86
Do states require districts to pay
more to teachers who have earned
advanced degrees?
yes no
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
California
colorado1
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho2
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 island3
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia Figure 86
Wisconsin 1 If Colorado districts choose to have salary schedules, one variable must
be teacher’s education.
Wyoming
2 Idaho refers to “education index” in district-determined schedules.
18 33 3 Rhode Island requires local district salary schedules to include teacher
“training.”
area 4: retaining Effective Teachers
Goal c – retention Pay
The state should support retention pay, such as significant boosts in salary after
tenure is awarded, for effective teachers.
goal components
Figure 87
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring on Retention Pay states’ rating for the goal.)
0 best Practice States 1. The state should encourage districts to provide
a significant pay increase to teachers awarded
0 States Meet Goal tenure, provided tenure is based on sufficient
data to determine effectiveness.
0 States nearly Meet Goal
0 States Partly Meet Goal 2. The state should not support longevity bonus-
es, which are awarded at the end of teachers’
0 States Meet a Small Part of Goal careers and do not provide effective retention
strategies.
51 States Do not Meet Goal
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
california, Colorado, Connecticut, rationale
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, See appendix for detailed rationale.
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, n Connecting additional compensation to the
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, awarding of tenure would add to its significance
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and improve teacher retention.
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
SuPPorting reSearch
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Research citations to support this goal are
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming examples of Best Practice
Unfortunately, NCTQ cannot highlight any state’s
policy in this area.
96 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 4: Goal c California analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California does not support retention pay for effec- California does not meet this goal. The state should
tive teachers, such as significant boosts in salary after encourage local districts to provide a significant pay
tenure is awarded. The state sets a minimum salary for increase to teachers awarded tenure, provided tenure
teachers, and then it is up to local districts to determine is based on sufficient data to determine effectiveness.
additional compensation. Offering financial incentives for classroom performance
is a valuable tool for keeping effective new teachers
Supporting research in the school system, rather than more commonly
California Education Code 45023.0 employed incentives such as longevity bonuses, which
are awarded toward the end of teachers’ careers and are
not connected to teachers’ effectiveness.
california reSPonSe to analySiS
California recognized the factual accuracy of our
analysis.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 97
California
area 4: retaining Effective Teachers
Goal D – compensation for Prior Work experience
The state should encourage districts to provide compensation for related prior
subject-area work experience.
goal components
Figure 88
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring on Compensation for states’ rating for the goal.)
Prior Work Experience
1. The state should encourage districts to com-
1 best Practice State pensate new teachers with relevant prior work
North Carolina experience through mechanisms such as starting
these teachers at an advanced step on the pay
1 State Meets Goal
scale. Further, the state should not have regula-
california
tory language that would block such strategies.
0 States nearly Meet Goal
4 States Partly Meet Goal
rationale
Delaware, Georgia, Texas, Washington
See appendix for detailed rationale.
0 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n Districts should be allowed to pay new teachers
45 States Do not Meet Goal with relevant work experience more than other
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, new teachers.
Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, SuPPorting reSearch
Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Research citations to support this goal are
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, Wyoming
98 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 4: Goal D California analysis
State Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
In California, local districts are encouraged to compen- California meets this goal. The state is commended for
sate teachers for related prior subject-area work ex- encouraging local districts to compensate new teachers
perience, namely by recognizing “relevant professional with relevant prior work experience.
experience on the salary schedule in lieu of units and
degrees or in lieu of teaching experience.”
california reSPonSe to analySiS
Supporting research
California recognized the factual accuracy of our
California Education Code 45028(e)
analysis.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 99
California
Figure 89
examples of Best Practice
Do states direct districts to compensate
teachers for related prior work experience? north carolina compensates new teachers with
relevant prior-work experience by awarding them one
California yes1 year of experience credit for every year of full-time
work, after earning a bachelor’s degree, that is related
to their area of licensure and work assignment. One
6 year of credit is awarded for every two years of work
experience completed prior to earning a bachelor’s
degree.
45
no
1 California, Delaware, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and Washington
100 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 4: retaining Effective Teachers
Goal e – Differential Pay
The state should support differential pay for effective teaching in shortage and
high-needs areas.
goal components
Figure 90
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring on Differential Pay
1. The state should support differential pay for 1 best Practice State
effective teaching in shortage subject areas. Georgia
2. The state should support differential pay for 15 States Meet Goal
effective teaching in high-needs schools. Arkansas, california, Florida, Hawaii,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
3. The state should not have regulatory language Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
that would block differential pay Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming
3 States nearly Meet Goal
rationale Maryland, Pennsylvania, Washington
See appendix for detailed rationale. 5 States Partly Meet Goal
n States should take the lead in addressing Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Utah,
chronic shortages and needs. Wisconsin
SuPPorting reSearch 9 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Research citations to support this goal are available Connecticut, Illinois, Mississippi, Montana,
at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations. Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Vermont
18 States Do not Meet Goal
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Idaho, Indiana,
Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island,
West Virginia
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 101
California
area 4: Goal e California analysis
State Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California supports differential pay by which a teacher California meets this goal. The state is commended
can earn additional compensation by teaching certain for supporting differential pay initiatives to link
subjects. The state encourages public school employers compensation more closely with district needs and to
to “provide incentives to teachers to accept teaching achieve a more equitable distribution of teachers.
assignments in areas of highest need.” However, Cali-
fornia does not state specifically which subjects one
must teach to qualify or the amount of stipend or sal- california reSPonSe to analySiS
ary increase that may be rewarded. These decisions are California recognized the factual accuracy of our
left to the local school district. analysis.
California also offers a $20,000 incentive award to
teachers who earn certification from the National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and agree
to teach at least 50 percent of the time in a high-needs
school (Academic Index of 5 or lower) for four consecu-
tive years. The incentive is paid in $5,000 installments
over the four years.
Supporting research
California Education Code 45028(e) and 44395
NBPTS California Profile
http://www.nbpts.org/resources/state_local_informa-
tion/CA
102 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 91
high-nEEds shortagE
Do states provide schools subjEct arEas
incentives to teach in
ess
ess
examples of Best Practice
ay
ay
high-needs schools or
iven
iven
ial p
ial p
ort
forg
forg
rent
rent
shortage subject areas?
upp
georgia supports differential pay by
Diffe
Diffe
loan
loan
no s
which teachers can earn additional
alabama
compensation by teaching certain alaska
subjects. The state is especially com- arizona
mended for its new compensation arkansas
strategy for math and science teachers, California
which moves teachers along the salary colorado
schedule rather than just providing a connecticut1
bonus or stipend. The state also sup- Delaware
ports differential pay initiatives to link District of columbia
compensation more closely with dis- Florida
Georgia
trict needs and to achieve a more eq-
hawaii
uitable distribution of teachers. Geor-
idaho
gia’s efforts to provide incentives for
illinois
National Board Certification teachers indiana
to work in high-needs schools are also iowa
noteworthy. kansas
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
South carolina
South Dakota3
tennessee
texas
Figure 91
1 Connecticut offers mortgage assistance and
Utah
incentives to retired teachers. Vermont
2 Maryland offers tuition reimbursement for Virginia
retraining in the areas of mathematics and
science, if the teacher agrees to teach in the
Washington
public school system for at least two years West Virginia
following certification. It also offers a stipend
to alternative route candidates who agree to
Wisconsin
teach math, science or special education in a Wyoming
public school for at least three years.
3 South Dakota offers scholarships and signing 21 8 20 9 18
bonuses.
area 4: retaining Effective Teachers
Goal F – Performance Pay
The state should support performance pay, but in a manner that recognizes its
infancy, appropriate uses and limitations.
goal components
Figure 92
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring on Performance Pay states’ rating for the goal.)
1 best Practice State 1. The state should support performance pay
Tennessee efforts, rewarding teachers for their effective-
ness in the classroom.
10 States Meet Goal
Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, 2. The state should allow districts flexibility to
Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, define the criteria for performance pay; however,
Utah the state should ensure that districts’ criteria are
connected to evidence of student achievement.
3 States nearly Meet Goal
Alaska, california, Oklahoma
3. Any performance pay plan should allow for the
5 States Partly Meet Goal participation of all teachers, not just those with
Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, students who take standardized tests.
Missouri
rationale
0 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
See appendix for detailed rationale.
32 States Do not Meet Goal
Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, n Performance pay is an important retention
District of Columbia, Georgia, strategy.
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, n States should set guidelines for districts to
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, ensure that plans are fair and sound.
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
SuPPorting reSearch
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Research citations to support this goal are
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
104 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 4: Goal F California analysis
State nearly Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California supports a performance pay initiative. The California nearly meets this goal. Although the state
state’s Certified Staff Performance Incentive Act awards is commended for recognizing performance pay and
one-time financial incentives to teachers in underachiev- basing financial incentives on measures of student
ing schools who contribute to the significant improve- achievement, it should allow local districts the flexibility
ment of academic performance beyond the “minimum to define specific criteria by which performance is
percentage growth target.” California requires that the rewarded.
State Board of Education establish criteria for deter-
mining the eligibility of schools to receive awards. The
maximum amount of the award is $25,000. To qualify california reSPonSe to analySiS
for this program, a school’s aggregate score for student California recognized the factual accuracy of our
performance must fall below the 50th percentile on the analysis.
state’s performance index.
Supporting research
California Education Code 44650; 44651; 45028(e)
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 105
California
Figure 93
charactEristics
Do states support oF Program
pay
performance pay?
ent ence ance
ance
examples of Best Practice
ent
ers
stud to evid erform
evemof
ance pport
orm
each
pay
perf
pay nects p
perf s not su
all t
achi
tennessee requires differentiated pay plans,
orts
n to
orm
con
Doe
Supp
which may include performance pay. If
ope
alabama districts choose to include a performance
alaska1 pay component, it must be based on
arizona student achievement gains and be criterion-
arkansas based so that all teachers meeting the
California2 standard, not just those with students who
colorado
take standardized tests, are eligible for the
connecticut
reward. Although the state does not indicate
Delaware
specific incentive amounts, it requires that
District of columbia
Florida the award be significant enough to make a
Georgia difference to teachers.
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
ohio1
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota1
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin Figure 93
Wyoming 1 Alaska, Ohio and South Dakota fund pilot programs.
2 California only offers incentives to teachers in under-
19 32 16 14 achieving schools.
area 4: retaining Effective Teachers
Goal G – Pension Sustainability
The state should ensure that excessive resources are not committed to funding
teachers’ pension systems.
goal components
Figure 94
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring on Pension Sustainability
1. The state should ensure that its pension system 3 best Practice States
is financially sustainable. The system should not Delaware, New York, Wisconsin
have excessive unfunded liabilities or an inap-
propriately long amortization period.
4 States Meet Goal
District of Columbia, North Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee
2. Mandatory employee and employer contribu-
tion rates should not be unreasonably high. 11 States nearly Meet Goal
Excessively high employee contribution rates Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Nebraska,
reduce teachers’ paychecks, while excessive Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah,
employer contributions commit district Vermont, Washington, Wyoming
resources that could otherwise be spent on sala-
ries or incentives. 16 States Partly Meet Goal
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
california, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas,
rationale Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
See appendix for detailed rationale. Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey,
Virginia
n Many states’ pension systems are based on
promises they cannot afford to keep. 15 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n Pension plans disadvantage teachers early in Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,
their careers by overcommitting employer
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi,
New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio,
resources to retirement benefits.
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
SuPPorting reSearch West Virginia
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations. 2 States Do not Meet Goal
Indiana, New Mexico
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 107
California
area 4: Goal G California analysis
State Partly Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
As of June 30, 2007 (the most recent date for which California meets this goal in part. The state needs to
an actuarial valuation is available), California’s pension ensure that its pension system is financially sustainable.
system for teachers is 87.6 percent funded and has an The state would be better off if its system had an
infinite amortization period. This means at the current amortization period of 30 years or less and a system
rate of contributions and benefits, California will never that was more that 95 percent funded to allow more
pay off its unfunded liabilities. While its funding level protection during financial downturns.
is above the conventionally recommended minimum
funding level of 80 percent, California’s system is
not financially sustainable according to actuarial california reSPonSe to analySiS
benchmarks. California was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts
California does not commit excessive resources that enhanced our analysis.
toward its teachers’ retirement system. The mandatory The state added that as of June 30, 2008, the Defined
employee contribution rate to the defined benefit plan Benefit Supplement Program (a cash balance plan)
is 8 percent, and the current employer contribution rate was just over 100 percent funded, and although the
is 8.25 percent for local districts. The state contributed investment losses of 2008-2009 are likely to decrease
an additional 1.86 percent for the 2008-2009 school the funded ratio significantly, because the plan only
year (the actuarial equivalent of the 2.017 percent needs to credit individual members accounts at a
of compensation credited two years earlier required minimum interest rate based on 30-year U.S. Treasury
by law). These rates are reasonable, considering that notes, it is very likely that future contributions and
teachers and local districts are not also contributing to investment returns will be sufficient to meet future
Social Security. obligations.
Supporting research
www.publicfundsurvey.org
laSt Word
California is commended for fully funding its
supplemental program; however, that does not
compensate for the fact that its main defined benefit
plan has an infinite amortization period and was not
over 95 percent funded at the height of the market. It is
further noted that California is closing its fully funded
component while maintaining its less funded plan (see
Goal 4-H).
108 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 95
Pension glossary
accrued liability: The value of a pension plan’s promised benefits calculated by an actuary (actuarial valua-
tion), taking into account a set of investment and benefit assumptions to a certain date.
actuarial valuation: In a pension plan, this is the total amount needed to meet promised benefits. A set of
mathematical procedures is used to calculate the value of benefits to be paid, the funds available and the
annual contribution required.
amortization Period: The gradual elimination of a liability, such as a mortgage, in regular payments over a
specified period of time.
Benefit formula: Formula used to calculate the amount teachers will receive each month after retirement.
The most common formula used is (years of service x final average salary x benefit multiplier). This amount is
divided by 12 to calculate monthly benefits.
Benefit multiplier: Multiplier used in the benefit formula. It, along with years of service, determines the total
percentage of final average salary that a teacher will receive in retirement benefits. In some plans, the multiplier
is not constant, but changes depending upon retirement age and/or years of service.
Defined Benefit Plan: Pension plan that promises to pay a specified amount to each person who retires after
a set number of years of service. Employees contribute to them in some cases; in others, all contributions are
made by the employer.
Defined Contribution Plan: Pension plan in which the level of contributions is fixed at a certain level, while
benefits vary depending on the return from the investments. Employees make contributions into a tax-
deferred account, and employers may or may not make contributions. Defined contribution pension plans, unlike
defined benefit pension plans, give the employee options of where to invest the account, usually among stock,
bond and money market accounts.
lump-sum Withdrawal: Large payment of money received at one time instead of in periodic payments.
Teachers leaving a pension plan may receive a lump-sum distribution of the value of their pension.
normal Cost: The amount necessary to fund retirement benefits for one plan year for an individual or a whole
pension plan.
Pension Wealth: The net present value of a teacher’s expected lifetime retirement benefits.
Purchasing Time: A teacher may make additional contributions to a pension system to increase service credit.
Time may be purchased for a number of reasons, such as professional development leave, previous out-of-state
teaching experience, medical leaves of absence or military service.
Service Credit/Years of Service: Accumulated period of time, in years or partial years, for which a teacher
earned compensation subject to contributions.
Supplemental retirement Plan: An optional plan to which teachers may voluntarily make tax-deferred con-
tributions in addition to their mandatory pension plans. Employees are usually able to choose their rate of
contribution up to a maximum set by the IRS; some employers also make contributions. These plans are gener-
ally in the form of 457 and 403(b) programs.
vesting: Right an employee gradually acquires by length of service to receive employer-contributed benefits,
such as payments from a pension fund.
Sources: Barron’s Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms, Seventh Edition; California State Teachers’
Retirement System http://www.calstrs.com/Members/Defined%20Benefit%20Program/glossary.aspx;
Economic Research Institute, http://www.eridlc.com/resources/index.cfm?fuseaction=resource.glossary
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 109
California
Figure 96
Are state pension systems
ed
od
tion ear
financially sustainable?
fund
peri
rtiza 30 y
examples of Best Practice
0%
amoximum
ast 8
delaware, new york and Wisconsin provide finan-
at le
Ma
cially sustainable pension systems without committing
alabama
alaska
excessive resources. The systems in these states are
arizona fully funded, without requiring excessive contributions
arkansas from teachers or school districts.
California
colorado
connecticut
Figure 97
Delaware
District of columbia Are state pension systems financially
Florida sustainable?
Georgia
hawaii California
idaho
illinois
indiana 24 27
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri yes no
Montana
nebraska
nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio1
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming1
Figure 96
31 37 1 According to the most recent valuations, Ohio and Wyoming are
79 percent funded.
Figure 99
How well funded are
state pension systems?
Figure 98
%
00%
w 60
Real Rate of Return
9%
4%
60-7
80-9
95-1
belo
The pension system funding levels presented in alabama
Goal 4-G are based on each state’s individual alaska
actuarial valuation, which use a series of varying arizona
assumptions. One of these assumptions con- arkansas
cerns rate of return, which greatly affects a sys- California
colorado
tem’s funding level. If investment returns fall
connecticut
short of assumptions, the fund will have a defi-
Delaware
cit; if returns are greater than expected, the fund
District of columbia
will have a surplus. Higher assumed rates involve Florida
more risk, while rates closer to inflation (typically Georgia
in the 3-5 percent range) are safer. hawaii
Most state pension funds assume a rate between idaho
illinois
7.5 percent and 8.25 percent. A state using a 7.5
indiana
percent rate will report a lower funding level that
iowa
if it had used 8.25 percent, even though its liabili-
kansas
ties remain the same. Many states report that kentucky
they do meet or exceed an eight percent rate of louisiana
return over the life of the plan. Maine
However, some economists argue that states’ Maryland
assumed rates of return are too high, and should Massachusetts
Michigan
instead be closer to four percent. They cau-
Minnesota
tion that the risk associated with states’ higher
Mississippi
rates is borne by taxpayers, with the result that
Missouri
tax rates rise to fund pension deficits. A rate Montana
closer to four percent would make the vast nebraska
majority of the nation’s pension systems less nevada
than 50 percent funded. In light of the current new hampshire
market situation, the debate over the rate of new Jersey
return is particularly timely. With no current con- new Mexico
sensus by experts or policymakers, NCTQ used new york
states’ self-reported numbers rather than recal- north carolina
culate all funding levels based on a standard rate north Dakota
ohio
of return. Considering how many states’ systems
oklahoma
NCTQ found in questionable financial health
oregon
without using the lower rates some economists
Pennsylvania
prefer, it is clear this is an issue that demands rhode island
policymakers’ attention. South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
5 17 18 11
Figure 101
What are the current employer1 contribution rates to
state pension systems?
Figure 100
employer contribution rate
What is a reasonable rate for pension Social Security (+6.2%)
contributions? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
alabama
n 4-7 percent each for teachers and districts in alaska
states participating in Social Security arizona
n 10-13 percent each for teachers and districts arkansas
in states not participating in Social Security California
colorado
Analysts generally agree that workers in their connecticut
20’s with no previous retirement savings should Delaware
save, in addition to Social Security contributions, District of columbia
about 10-15 percent of their gross income in Florida
Georgia2
order to be able to live during retirement on 80
hawaii
percent of the salary they were earning when
idaho
they retired. While the recommended savings
illinois
rate varies with age and existing retirement sav- indiana
ings, NCTQ has used this 10-15 percent bench- iowa
mark as a reasonable rate for its analyses. To kansas
achieve a total savings of 10-15 percent, teacher kentucky
and employer contributions should each be in louisiana
the range of 4-7 percent. In states where teach- Maine
ers do not participate in Social Security, the total Maryland
recommended retirement savings (teacher plus Massachusetts
employer contributions) is about 12 percent high- Michigan
Minnesota
er, to compensate for the fact that these teachers
Mississippi
will not have Social Security income when they
Missouri
retire. In order to achieve the appropriate level of
Montana
total savings, teacher and employer contributions nebraska
in these states should each be in the range of 10- nevada
13 percent. new hampshire
new Jersey
Sources: new Mexico
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/plan- new york
ning/retirement/saving/strategies?cmsid=P- north carolina
990053&lvl1=planning&lvl2=retirement& north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/planningeduca-
oregon
tion/retirement/PEdRetInvHowMuchToSaveContent.
Pennsylvania
jsp#early rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Figure 101 West Virginia3
1 The employer contribution rate includes the contributions of both school Wisconsin
districts and state governments, where appropriate.
Wyoming
2 Some school districts in Georgia do not contribute to Social Security.
3 The employer contribution to the defined benefit plan is 15 percent for
employees hired prior to July 1, 2005.
Figure 103
How much do state pension systems require teachers
Figure 102
to contribute?
Do states require excessive contributions to employee contribution rate
their pension systems? Social Security (+6.2%)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
California alabama
26 alaska
arizona
25 arkansas
California
colorado
connecticut
Delaware1
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
yes no hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan2
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york3
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Figure 103 Washington4
1 There is no employee contribution for income equal to and below $6,000. West Virginia
2 The rate is 3.4 percent of pay up to $15,000. Wisconsin
3 The rate is 3 percent until 10 years of service, after which there is no Wyoming
employee contribution.
4 The rate is 4.26 percent for the defined benefit plan. The rate varies for
the defined contribution plan with a minimum of 5 percent.
area 4: retaining Effective Teachers
Goal h – Pension Flexibility
The state should ensure that pension systems are portable,
flexible and fair to all teachers.
goal components
Figure 104
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring on Pension Flexibility states’ rating for the goal.)
0 best Practice States 1. Participants in the state’s pension system should
have the option of a fully portable pension
2 States Meet Goal system as their primary pension plan. States
Alaska, South Dakota
may provide this through a defined contribution
4 States nearly Meet Goal plan or a defined benefit plan that is formatted
california, Ohio, South Carolina, similar to a cash balance plan.
Virginia
2. Participants in the state’s pension system
19 States Partly Meet Goal should be vested no later than the third year of
Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, employment.
Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, 3. Defined benefit plans should offer the option of
New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, a lump-sum rollover to a personal retirement
Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming account upon employment termination. This
option at minimum should include employee
14 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
contributions and accrued interest at a fair
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois,
interest rate. In addition, withdrawal options from
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
either defined benefit or defined contribution
Mississippi, Missouri, New York,
plans should include funds contributed by the
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee employer.
12 States Do not Meet Goal 4. Defined benefit plans should allow participants
Arkansas, District of Columbia, Georgia, to purchase time for unlimited previous teaching
Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, experience at the time of employment. Teachers
New Hampshire, New Mexico, should also be allowed to purchase time for all
North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, official leaves of absence, such as maternity and
West Virginia paternity leave.
rationale
See appendix for detailed rationale.
n Anachronistic features of teacher pension plans
disadvantage teachers early in their careers.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are available
at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
114 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 4: Goal h California analysis
State nearly Meets Goal
analySiS Vesting is a key component of defined benefit plans
California does not offer a fully portable pension plan, because it guarantees a teacher’s eligibility to receive
such as a defined contribution plan, as an option for a lifetime monthly benefit payments and be fully entitled
teacher’s mandatory pension plan. The only mandatory to all other additional benefits. When vested teachers
plan available to a teacher is a hybrid plan composed of a stop working in a particular system, they may leave their
defined benefit component (DB plan) and a cash balance funds in the system and later receive benefits when they
component, known as the Defined Benefit Supplement reach the defined retirement age, or they may withdraw
Program (DBS), which started in 2001. Currently, California some or all of the funds according to the plan’s guidelines.
teachers’ mandatory contribution rate of 8 percent is Nonvested teachers may only withdraw funds; they may
divided with 6 percent going to the DB plan and 2 percent not receive retirement benefits. California’s defined
going to DBS. Additionally, employers and employees benefit plan does not vest until year five.
contribute 8 percent of any extra compensation (e.g. Teachers who withdraw their funds when they stop
summer school, coaching) to DBS. However, as of January teaching in California only receive their contributions plus
1, 2011, the 2 percent of regular compensation will no interest. This means that teachers who withdraw their
longer go to DBS and will instead fund the DB plan. Extra funds accrue no benefits beyond what they might have
compensation contributions will continue to go to DBS. earned had they simply put their contributions in basic
Members are immediately vested in their DBS accounts. savings accounts. This may be particularly problematic in
Contributions earn interest at a rate set at the beginning light of the fact that teachers leaving the pension system
of each plan year, July 1 through June 30, by the Teachers’ have saved below the level conventionally recommended
Retirement Board, based on the 30-year U.S. Treasury by retirement advisers for individuals not also contributing
rate. The rate through June 2010, compounded daily, is to Social Security. Furthermore, teachers who remain in
4.25 percent, which is equivalent to an annual interest the field of education but enter another pension plan
rate of over 6 percent. Furthermore, additional funds may (such as in another state) will find it difficult to purchase
be contributed by the state when the system is more the time equivalent to their prior employment in the new
than 110 percent funded. system because they are not entitled to any employer
Because teachers in California do not participate in Social contribution.
Security, defined benefit plans could be a suitable option The ability to purchase time is important because defined
among multiple plans. However, as the sole option, defined benefit plans’ retirement eligibility and benefit payments
benefit plans severely disadvantage mobile teachers and are often tied to the number of years a teacher has
those who enter the profession later in life. worked. California’s plan allows teachers to purchase time
California is commended for offering optional for approved leaves of absence, including maternity leave,
supplementary defined contribution plans. There are 76 up to a total of 24 months per leave, and leave covered
approved vendors that provide either 403(b) or 457 tax- by the Family and Medical Leave Act, up to four months
deferred savings vehicles for California’s teachers; local for every 12-month period. The state’s plan also allows
districts decide which vendors’ plans will be available to for the purchase of time for all prior out-of-state work
their teachers. CalSTRS maintains an informational website experience. Additionally, vested teachers may purchase
to provide teachers with information on the choices five years of “air time” for any reason.
that are available to them and allows them to compare
products prior to participating in a particular plan.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 115
California
Supporting research Moreover, given that the objective of the defined benefit
http://www.calstrs.com/Help/forms_publications/ program is to pay retirement benefits, to divert employer
printed/2007MBRHB/MH_Entire.pdf, http://www. contributions to pay teachers who will never retire does
calstrs.com/Help/forms_publications/printed/ not appear to be fair to all teachers.
PurchaseSC.pdf California also stated that teachers are a unique
demographic population with a unique set of needs and
desires. While the state understands that portability may
recoMMendation be an attractive feature for individuals that plan on hav-
California nearly meets this goal. The state offers teach- ing several careers over their lifetimes, it finds that typi-
ers the option of participating in a supplemental defined cal teachers with five years of experience tend to remain
contribution plan; the portability of this type of plan is teachers throughout their entire careers. In California, all
attractive to an increasingly mobile teacher workforce. public school teachers belong to CalSTRS and continue to
California should consider requiring employer contribu- accrue the same exact benefit even as they move from
tions to this plan or allowing teachers to choose to which school district to school district. As a result, the cost to
plan they want their mandatory employer contribution every member and employer that would be required
applied. If the state maintains its defined benefit option, in order to increase the portability of the plan is not
it should also consider allowing vesting after year three worth the foreseeable benefits that NCTQ is promoting.
instead of year five and providing an employer match to
Supporting research
teachers who withdraw their funds.
www.403bCompare.com
The defined benefit plan has a very generous policy for
the purchase of previous work experience, but the state
should consider increasing the amount of time that can
be purchased for leaves of absence such as parental
laSt Word
Teachers’ benefits systems should provide retirement
leaves. NCTQ recognizes that “air time” could be used to
benefits to all teachers, not only those that spend their
purchase any lost time.
entire careers in one system. Allowing earlier vesting and
the withdrawal of at least partial employer contributions
into a retirement account would be fairer to teachers who
california reSPonSe to analySiS leave the profession before retirement age and those that
California was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that move among states. While this would increase the costs,
enhanced our analysis. the costs could be offset by raising the age at which one
California acknowledged that CalSTRS vests members can receive unreduced benefits and ending special provi-
in the defined benefit program after five years and does sions for those teachers that stay a longer period of time.
not allow members to withdraw the employer contribu- NCTQ acknowledges that many teachers, once estab-
tions. The state contended that NCTQ’s suggestion that lished, remain in the profession in the same system. How-
pension systems should vest benefits after three years ever, more individuals may be attracted to the profession
and allow members to withdraw employer contributions if retirement benefits were more portable, especially in
would be in direct conflict with Goal 4-G to ensure the high-needs areas that require intense hours or may place
adequate and reasonable financing of the pension fund. a higher value on a career switcher’s skill set. Portabil-
If CalSTRS members were able to vest after three years ity within California is valuable due to its immense size,
and withdraw their employer contributions, the cost of but portability across the nation is still needed for many
the program would increase substantially, resulting in ad- individuals.
ditional increased required contributions to the program.
116 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 105
on
plan r
tion fit o
buti
enta d co with
What type of pension
nly
ribu bene
l pla ntri
lem efine plan
lan o
n
utio
systems do states offer
cont ned
n
suppional d enefit
fit p
only ntrib
teachers?
ned defi
bene
lan 1
planfined co
opt fined b
defioice of
rid p
ned
De
hyb
Defi
De
ch
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
California 2
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana 2
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
3
ohio
oklahoma
oregon 2
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina 2
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
1 A hybrid plan has components of both
Washington 4
a defined benefit plan and a defined
West Virginia contribution plan.
Wisconsin 2 Supplemental defined contribution
plan also offered.
Wyoming
3 Ohio also offers the option of a hybrid plan.
30 13 4 3 1 4 Washington offers a choice between a
defined benefit or hybrid plan.
examples of Best Practice Figure 106
What type of pension systems do states
alaska provides a fair and flexible defined contri- offer teachers?
bution pension plan for all teachers. This plan is also
highly portable, as teachers are entitled to 100 per- 30
cent of employer contributions after five years of
service. South dakota’s defined benefit plan has some
creative provisions, which makes it more like a defined
contribution plan. Most notably, teachers are able to
California
withdraw 100 percent of their employer contribu- 13
tions after three years of service. In addition, florida,
ohio and South carolina are noteworthy for offering
teachers a choice between a defined benefit plan and a 3
defined contribution plan. 4 1
Defined Defined hybrid choice of Defined
benefit benefit plan plan1 defined contribution
plan only with defined benefit or plan only
contribution defined
supplemental contribution
plan plan
1 A hybrid plan has components of both a defined benefit plan and a
defined contribution plan
118 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 108
How many years before
Figure 107 teachers vest?
less
How many years before teachers vest?
ars
ars
r
ars o
5 ye
9 ye
ears
10 y
3 ye
4 to
6 to
alabama
California
alaska
arizona
37 arkansas
California1
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
9 Florida2
Georgia
3 2 hawaii
idaho
illinois
3 years 4 to 5 6 to 9 10 years indiana
or less years years
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
ohio3
oklahoma
oregon4
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina5
Figure 108
1 California offers a hybrid plan in which teachers vest immediately in South Dakota
the defined contribution component and vest in the defined benefit tennessee
component after five years.
texas
2 Florida’s defined benefit plan does not vest until year six; teachers vest
in the state’s defined contribution plan after one year. Utah
3 Ohio’s defined benefit plan does not vest until year five; teachers vest in Vermont
the state’s defined contribution plan after one year. Virginia
4 Oregon offers a hybrid plan in which teachers vest immediately in the Washington6
defined contribution component and vest in the defined benefit
component after five years. West Virginia
5 South Carolina’s defined benefit plan does not vest until year five; Wisconsin
teachers vest immediately in the state’s defined contribution plan. Wyoming
6 Based on Washington’s Plan 2. The state also offers a hybrid plan in
which teachers vest immediately in the defined contribution component 3 37 2 9
and vest in the defined benefit component after 10 years.
Figure 109
n
utio
inte er
rest
rest
What funds do states permit
tion e em ion
tion yer on
plus ploy
tion
ntrib
ribu plo buti
tribu f th but
inte
n
teachers to withdraw from
rest ntribu
tion ow
cond part o contri
cont full em contri
n co
plus
ribu their
their defined benefit plans if
n co
r ow
an r own
and r own
conts than
r ow
they leave after five years? 1
thei
inte
thei
thei
thei
only
les
plus
alabama
alaska2
arizona
arkansas
California
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
1 States’ withdrawal policies may vary
depending on teachers’ years of service. Florida3
Year five is used as a common point of Georgia
comparison.
hawaii
2 As of July 1, 2006, Alaska only offers a de-
fined contribution plan to new members, idaho
which allows teachers leaving the system illinois
after five years to withdraw 100 percent
of the employer contribution. indiana4
3 Since Florida teachers do not contribute iowa
to the defined benefit plan, the only funds kansas
participants could withdraw upon leaving
are those made for special circumstances kentucky
such as purchasing time. Florida also has louisiana
a defined contribution plan, which allows
teachers with at least one year of service Maine
who are leaving the system to withdraw Maryland
100 percent of the employer contribution.
Massachusetts
4 Indiana teachers transfering to another
governmental retirement plan may also Michigan
withdraw the amount necessary to pur- Minnesota
chase creditable service in the new plan.
Mississippi
5 Most teachers in Nevada fund the system
through salary reductions or forgoing pay Missouri
raises, and thus do not have direct contri- Montana
butions to withdraw. The small minority
that are in a contributory system may nebraska
withdraw their contributions plus interest. nevada5
6 Ohio has two other pension plans. Ohio’s new hampshire
defined contribution plan allows teachers
with at least one year of service who new Jersey
are leaving the system to withdraw 100 new Mexico
percent of the employer contribution.
Exiting teachers with at least five years new york
of experience in Ohio’s combination plan north carolina
may withdraw their employee-funded
defined contribution component, but north Dakota
must wait until age 50 to withdraw funds ohio6
from the employer-funded defined benefit
component. oklahoma
7 Oregon only has a hybrid retirement plan, oregon7
which allows exiting teachers to withdraw Pennsylvania
their contributions plus earnings from
their defined contribution component; rhode island
they still receive the employer-funded South carolina8
defined benefit payments at retirement age.
South Dakota
8 South Carolina also has a defined
contribution plan, which allows exiting tennessee
teachers to withdraw 100 percent of their texas
contributions and employer contributions,
plus interest. Utah9
9 Since Utah teachers do not contribute to Vermont
the defined benefit plan, the only funds Virginia
participants could withdraw upon leaving
are those made for special circumstances Washington10
such as purchasing time. West Virginia
10 Washington also has a hybrid plan, which Wisconsin
allows exiting teachers to withdraw their
contributions plus earnings from their Wyoming
defined contribution component; they
still receive the employer-funded defined 3 5 35 5 2
benefit payments at retirement age.
Figure 110 food for thought
Do states permit teachers to purchase time
for previous teaching experience? 1 West virginia’s Cautionary Tale
Education and individual retirement planning advice
30 is a critical aspect of any state’s pension plan, as evi-
denced by the tribulations of West Virginia’s teacher
pension system. In 1991, facing financial troubles,
California
West Virginia closed its defined benefit Teachers’
Retirement System (TRS) to new members and
opened the Teachers’ Defined Contribution plan (TDC).
However, after widespread dissatisfaction with TDC
6 14 account balances, it was closed to new members in
2005, and TRS was reopened. In 2008, the state leg-
islature gave TDC participants a one-time option to
no limited Unlimited
switch their account balances from TDC to TRS in
purchase purchase purchase order to receive retirement payments according to the
permitted2 permitted permitted3 defined benefit formula. Over 78 percent of teachers
elected to transfer.
1 Alaska only offers a defined contribution plan; purchase of
time does not apply. While these events may appear to argue against
2 Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Tennessee. states’ offering defined contribution plans, West
3 Arizona, California, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Virginia’s experience should be viewed as a caution-
Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Utah and Wisconsin.
ary tale of the need for proper investment educa-
tion. The implementation of the defined contribution
plan was not handled well. In fact, some teachers
believe they were so poorly advised that they have
Figure 111
filed suit against the investment firm managing the
Do states permit teachers to purchase time plan. About three-fourths of teachers invested sole-
for leaves of absence? 1 ly in low-yield, low-risk annuities that performed
California only slightly better than some savings accounts. For
example, the Associated Press found that from May
18 13 2005 to May 2008, these annuities provided only their
guaranteed 4.5 percent annual return. Over this same
19 time period, the S&P 500 had an average rate of return
of over 7 percent per year.
Defined contribution plans provide teachers flexibil-
ity in their retirement savings, but such plans are not
no limited Unlimited without risk. States have a responsibility to educate
purchase purchase purchase teachers on their financial options and how to invest at
permitted2 permitted permitted3
different stages in life.
1 Alaska only offers a defined contribution plan; purchase of
time does not apply.
2 Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine,
Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia
and Wisconsin.
3 Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,
South Carolina and Utah.
area 4: retaining Effective Teachers
Goal i – Pension neutrality
The state should ensure that pension systems are neutral, uniformly increasing
pension wealth with each additional year of work.
goal components
Figure 112
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring on Pension Neutrality states’ rating for the goal.)
1. The formula that determines pension benefits
1 best Practice State
should be neutral to the number of years worked.
Alaska
It should not have a multiplier that increases
1 State Meets Goal with years of service or longevity bonuses.
Minnesota
2. The formula for determining benefits should
7 States nearly Meet Goal preserve incentives for teachers to continue
Maine, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, working until conventional retirement ages.
Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin Eligibility for retirement benefits should be
based on age and not years of service.
29 States Partly Meet Goal
Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, rationale
Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, See appendix for detailed rationale.
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, n It is unfair to all teachers when pension wealth
North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, does not accumulate in a uniform way.
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, West Virginia n Pension systems affect when teachers decide
to retire as they look to maximize their pension
1 State Meets a Small Part of Goal wealth.
Pennsylvania
SuPPorting reSearch
12 States Do not Meet Goal Research citations to support this goal are available
Arizona, california, Connecticut, at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
District of Columbia, Iowa, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri,
New York, Rhode Island, Wyoming
122 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 4: Goal i California analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS early retirement with reduced benefits is dependent on
California’s pension system is based on a benefit years of service. For example, a teacher with 30 years
formula that is not neutral, meaning that each year of of service may retire with reduced benefits at age 50,
work does not accrue pension wealth in a uniform way while other vested teachers with fewer than 30 years
until members reach Social Security retirement age. of service may not retire early with reduced benefits
To qualify as neutral, a pension formula must not until age 55.
only utilize a constant benefit multiplier to determine
retired teachers’ benefits, but it must also rely on an Supporting research
eligibility calendar based on age, rather than years of http://www.calstrs.com/Help/forms_publications/
service. In most defined benefit plans, pension wealth printed/2007MBRHB/MH_Entire.pdf
peaks for teachers the year they become eligible for
retirement, and then it declines every year they work
beyond eligibility. Plans that base retirement on years recoMMendation
of service create unnecessary peaks, and plans that California does not meet this goal. The state should not
allow a low retirement age create incentives to retire only utilize a constant benefit multiplier by ending its
early. Therefore, plans that base retirement on an age practice of multiplier increases based on years of ser-
in line with Social Security are likely to create the most vice, but it should also consider increasing its retirement
uniform accrual of wealth. age to align with Social Security and no longer basing
California’s pension policy contains many provisions eligibility for early retirement on years of service. These
that benefit older and more experienced teachers. changes would result in a pension plan that treats all
The state’s plan does not utilize a constant benefit teachers more equitably, regardless of where they are
multiplier; instead, its multiplier increases with years of in their careers.
service and age. The plan’s multiplier is 2 percent at age
60, increasing thereafter to a maximum of 2.4 percent.
Teachers increase their benefit by .033 for each quarter california reSPonSe to analySiS
of a year they teach beyond age 60, reaching the California was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that
maximum at age 63. However, teachers with at least 30 enhanced our analysis.
years of service may add an additional 0.2 percent up to The state asserted that a constant benefit multiplier
the maximum of 2.4 percent (reaching their maximum would not support NCTQ’s position that pensions “should
at 61 and half years) and also receive a monthly preserve incentives for teachers to continue working until
longevity bonus of $200 for 30 years, $300 for 31 years conventional retirement ages” and argued that a constant
and $400 for 32 or more years of service (these bonuses benefit multiplier is actually an incentive for younger
only apply to teachers who earn 30 years of service by teachers to retire earlier. California agreed with NCTQ’s
January 1, 2011). Additionally, teachers who retire with analysis that there are certain features within the CalSTRS
25 or more years of service are entitled to have their plan design that are based on years of service and there-
benefits calculated based on their final year’s salary, fore do not necessarily encourage teachers to work until
rather than averaging the last three years as retirees “conventional” retirement age, but the state disagreed
with less experience must do. Also, while all teachers with the conclusion that the increasing pension multiplier
are eligible for unreduced retirement at the same time, falls into this category. By increasing with age, the multi-
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 123
California
plier actually serves to delay the point at which the total NCTQ acknowledges that California’s increasing
value of the pension peaks until the multiplier reaches its multiplier may act as a retention tool to some teachers,
maximum. In fact, if a teacher’s benefit is only based on but it is not implemented to create uniform accrual of
years of service, one teacher who retires at age 55 would pension wealth or to treat all teachers fairly. The current
receive a benefit that would be equal to another teacher’s system of allowing teachers to increase their multiplier
with the same number of years of service who retires at is similar mathematically to setting a constant multiplier
age 65. Because the first teacher would be receiving the of 2.4 at age 63 with reductions taken for retiring prior
same benefit as the second teacher for an additional 10 to age 63. However, pension literature consistently
years, the value of the first teacher’s benefits, despite describes the multiplier as 2 percent at age 60, and then
identical career patterns, would be substantially higher, describes options to decrease or increase the multiplier,
which is hardly a reflection of a pension system that is including both age and years of service.
“fair to all teachers.” NCTQ recommends that California set its retirement
California added that the CalSTRS Board has been deal- age in line with Social Security, use that age as its
ing with this very issue and is currently in the midst of a multiplier maximum and present it that way in
discussion regarding the merits of age-based incentives retirement literature. The multiplier could then decrease
as opposed to service-based incentives. The age-based by an actuarial value if a member retires before Social
incentives that have been discussed include equal flat- Security age. This system would create benefits
dollar increases in the allowance for teachers who work comparable to California’s current practice of increasing
until ages 63, 64 and 65 and increasing the retirement age the multiplier with age but would be promoted
at which the multiplier reaches its maximum from age differently and use an actuarial reduction rather than
63 to age 65. Although neither of these age-based incen- set increases. Staying until conventional retirement age
tives is economically feasible at the moment, the basic would now be an expectation, rather than a way to earn
multiplier, by increasing with age as opposed to years of a bonus. This system would also prevent California from
service, effectively serves to encourage teachers to work allowing those with certain years of service to reach the
until increasingly older ages consistent with Goal 4-I. Ac- maximum multiplier faster.
cordingly, while the state found the recommendation
that California increase its retirement age for teachers
consistent with this goal, it found the recommendation
that California utilize a constant multiplier that does not Figure 113
take age into consideration to be entirely inconsistent. Does pension wealth in California
accumulate uniformly for all teachers?
laSt Word benefit formula is determined by a
NCTQ is in complete agreement with California that multiplier that does not change based no
on years of service
“if a teacher’s benefit is only based on years of service
that despite identical career patterns [the value of one retirement eligibility is based on age,
retiree] would be substantially higher.” not years of service1 yeS2
1 This only refers to determining retirement eligibility, not retirement benefits
2 Does not apply to early retirement eligibility, which is based on years
of service.
124 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 114
duce ay r ed te at a
ntil the tims paid
ng
65 e of
d be eceiv achi
unre ge 22 m o start t age th
How much do states pay
t
eme from enefi
nefi e
at a cher wh iremen
for each teacher that
retir teacher nt in b
age
ts
examples of Best Practice
retires with unreduced
tea iest ret
per al amou
nt u
benefits at an early age?1
earl
alaska offers a defined contribution pension plan
tot
that is neutral, with pension wealth accumulating in
alaska2 – – an equal way for all teachers for each year of work.
Minnesota3 $0 65
Minnesota offers a defined benefit plan with a formula
Washington $0 65
multiplier that does not change relative to years of ser-
Maine $258,357 62
California $310,028 62 vice and does not allow unreduced benefits for retirees
indiana $317,728 55 below age 65.
new hampshire $321,326 60
kansas $337,385 60
oregon $361,536 58
Figure 115
Wisconsin $416,007 57
rhode island $430,013 59 What kind of multiplier do states use to
texas $443,421 60 calculate retirement benefits?1
South Dakota $449,151 55
Michigan $468,590 52
tennessee $499,973 52 35
new york $517,816 55
connecticut $520,009 57
Vermont $520,655 52
new Jersey $525,117 55
Virginia $531,068 52
iowa $551,428 55 California
idaho $551,743 56
north Dakota $551,743 56
oklahoma $551,743 56 15
Florida $557,112 52
Maryland $562,308 52
north carolina $568,555 52
illinois $572,010 57 changes constant
South carolina $577,142 50 based on
years of
hawaii $577,687 55 service2
nebraska $577,687 55
West Virginia $577,687 55 Figure 116
Delaware $577,927 52 1 Alaska has a defined contribution plan, which does not have a
benefit multiplier.
D.c. $585,737 52
2 Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa,
Massachusetts4 $594,296 57 Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire,
Montana $600,768 47 New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and Wyoming.
Mississippi $621,861 47
Georgia $624,786 52
Utah $624,786 52
alabama $625,747 47
Pennsylvania $650,011 57
Wyoming $655,506 54 Figure 114
1 All calculations are based on a teacher who starts teaching at age 22,
arkansas $681,789 50 earns a starting salary of $35,000 that increases 3 percent per year, and
ohio5 $687,265 52 retires at the age when he or she is first eligible for unreduced benefits.
The calculations use states’ current benefit formulas and do not include
arizona $694,622 51 cost of living increases. The final average salary was calculated as the
colorado $722,108 55 average of the highest three years of salary, even though a few states
may vary from that standard. Age 65 was used as the point of comparison
new Mexico $730,686 47 for standard retirement age because it is the miminum eligibility age for
louisiana $780,983 52 unreduced Social Security benefits.
Missouri $780,983 52 2 Does not apply to Alaska’s defined contribution plan.
kentucky $791,679 49 3 Minnesota provides unreduced retirement benefits at the age of full
Social Security benefits or age 66, whichever comes first.
nevada $834,090 52 4 Massachusetts’s formula has many options for retirement. A teacher
with 35 years of experience at age 57 would reach the maximum benefit.
5 Applies only to Ohio’s defined benefit plan.
area 5: Exiting ineffective Teachers
Goal a – licensure loopholes
The state should close loopholes that allow teachers who have not met licensure
requirements to continue teaching.
goal components
Figure 116
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring on Closing Licensure
Loopholes
1. Under no circumstances should a state award
a standard license to a teacher who has not 3 best Practice States
Colorado, Mississippi, New Jersey
passed all required licensing tests.
6 States Meet Goal
2. If a state finds it necessary to confer condi- Arizona, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico,
tional or provisional licenses under limited and South Carolina, Virginia
exceptional circumstances to teachers who have
not passed the required tests, the state should 9 States nearly Meet Goal
ensure that requirements are met within one Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut,
year. District of Columbia, Georgia, Massachusetts,
North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia
rationale
2 States Partly Meet Goal
See appendix for detailed rationale. Iowa, Wyoming
n Teachers who have not passed licensing tests
may place students at risk.
3 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Michigan, Vermont, Wisconsin
SuPPorting reSearch
28 States Do not Meet Goal
Research citations to support this goal are
Alaska, california, Delaware, Florida,
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New York, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Washington
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 127
California
area 5: Goal a California analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California allows individuals who have not yet met in- California does not meet this goal. The state should en-
ternship program subject-matter competency require- sure that all teachers pass all required licensure tests
ments to teach on either a Provisional Internship Permit before they enter the classroom. Exceptions place stu-
(PIP) or a Short-Term Staff Permit (STSP). The PIP is only dents at risk of having teachers who lack sufficient or
available at the request of an employment agency to appropriate subject-matter knowledge. Issuing the PIP
fill an immediate staffing need. Those serving on a PIP or the STSP only infrequently does not make its use ap-
must take all prerequisite exams in the first year. If the propriate. If, under limited and exceptional circumstanc-
exams are not passed, the candidate has one additional es, such conditional or provisional licenses are deemed
year to pass them. To continue to teach, the candidate necessary, the state should allow only one additional
must pass all exams and be admitted to either an in- year for teachers to meet testing requirements.
ternship or a student-teacher-based credential program
at the end of two years. The STSP is only available at
the request of an employment agency to fill an acute california reSPonSe to analySiS
staffing need. This permit expires at the end of the em- California was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that
ploying agency’s school year and cannot be issued for enhanced our analysis.
more than one year. It is not renewable and is available
to an individual only once in a lifetime.
Supporting research
State of California Provisional Internship Permit
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl856.pdf
California Code of Regulations, Section 80021.1
State of California Short-Term Staff Permit
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl858.pdf
128 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 118
How long can new
teachers practice without
nspe ore
examples of Best Practice
d)
passing licensing tests?
(or u ars or m
cifie
ars
ar
ral
1 ye
2 ye
efer
colorado, Mississippi and new jersey require that all
o
o
3 ye
no d
Up t
Up t
new teachers must pass all required subject-matter
alabama
tests as a condition of initial licensure. alaska
arizona
arkansas
Figure 117 California
colorado
Do states still award emergency licenses?1
connecticut
no emergency or Delaware
provisional licenses2 renewable emergency District of columbia
or provisional licenses3 Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
9 16 illinois
indiana
iowa1
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
24 Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
California nonrenewable Missouri
emergency or Montana2
provisional licenses
nebraska2
nevada3
1 Not applicable to Montana or Nebraska, which do not require
subject-matter testing. new hampshire
2 Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, new Jersey
South Carolina, Virginia new Mexico
3 Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, new york
Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Figure 118 West Virginia
1 Iowa only requires subject-matter testing for elementary teachers.
Wisconsin
2 Montana and Nebraska do not currently require licensing tests.
Wyoming4
3 Nevada has no deferral as of 2010.
4 Wyoming only requires subject-matter testing for elementary and 9 11 8 21
social studies teachers.
area 5: Exiting ineffective Teachers
Goal b – Unsatisfactory evaluations
The state should articulate consequences for teachers with unsatisfactory
evaluations, including specifying that teachers with multiple unsatisfactory
evaluations are eligible for dismissal.
goal components
Figure 119
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring on Consequences for states’ rating for the goal.)
Unsatisfactory Evaluations
1. The state should require that all teachers who
have received a single unsatisfactory evaluation
2 best Practice States
be placed on an improvement plan -- whether
Illinois, Oklahoma
or not they have tenure.
6 States Meet Goal
Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, 2. The state should require that all teachers who
New Mexico, Washington receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evalua-
tions or two unsatisfactory evaluations within
6 States nearly Meet Goal five years be formally eligible for dismissal --
Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina, whether or not they have tenure.
South Carolina, Texas
13 States Partly Meet Goal rationale
Alabama, Arkansas, california,
Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, See appendix for detailed rationale.
Missouri, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, n Negative evaluations should have meaningful
Utah, West Virginia consequences.
Employment status should not determine the
1 State Meets a Small Part of Goal
n
Arizona consequences of a negative evaluation.
SuPPorting reSearch
23 States Do not Meet Goal
District of Columbia, Idaho, Indiana, Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
130 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
area 5: Goal b California analysis
State Partly Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
California requires local districts to make specific rec- California meets this goal in part. The state is com-
ommendations for areas of improvement and provide mended for requiring that all teachers who receive an
assistance in those areas to teachers who receive un- unsatisfactory evaluation, regardless of whether they
satisfactory evaluations. The state also permits districts have tenure, be placed on an improvement plan. How-
to require such teachers to participate in improvement ever, the state should extend its policy to make teach-
programs related to teaching methods or instruction. In ers who receive two consecutive, unsatisfactory evalua-
addition, if a district participates in the Peer Assistance tions or have two unsatisfactory evaluations within five
and Review Program for Teachers, the district must pro- years formally eligible for dismissal.
vide peer assistance to teachers with unsatisfactory
evaluations.
After an unsatisfactory evaluation, a permanent em- california reSPonSe to analySiS
ployee is reviewed annually until he or she receives a California recognized the factual accuracy of our
satisfactory evaluation. The state gives no limit to the analysis.
number of times a teacher can be re-evaluated and
does not mandate eligibility for dismissal for teachers
who do not improve.
Supporting research
California Code 44664(3)
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 131
California
Figure 120
ings
nces
ting
ry ra a
ctor r
y rat
tisfa l afte
What are the consequences
facto fter
eque
satis lan a
unsa issa
for teachers who receive
cons
iple dism
le un nt p
unsatisfactory evaluations? examples of Best Practice
lated
singproveme
multible for
rticu
illinois and oklahoma both require that teachers
no a
elig
im
who receive unsatisfactory evaluations be placed on
alabama
alaska
improvement plans. Teachers in Illinois are then
arizona evaluated three times during a 90-day remediation
arkansas period and are eligible for dismissal if performance
California remains unsatisfactory. Oklahoma’s improvement plan
colorado may not exceed two months, and if performance does
connecticut not improve during that time, teachers are eligible for
Delaware dismissal.
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia Figure 121
hawaii1
idaho Do states specify that all teachers with
illinois
multiple unsatisfactory evaluations are eligible
for dismissal?
indiana
iowa
California
kansas
kentucky2 40
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota 11
Mississippi3
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
nevada
yes1 no
new hampshire
new Jersey 1 Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana,
new Mexico New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington
new york
north carolina4
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina5
South Dakota
tennessee
texas Figure 120
1 Any teacher with an unsatisfactory evaluation is immediately dismissed.
Utah
2 Kentucky does require multiple observations the year following an
Vermont unsatisfactory evaluation.
Virginia6 3 Improvement plans are only used for teachers in identified “Priority
Washington Schools.” Those same teachers are also eligible for dismissal for multiple
unsatisfactory evaluations.
West Virginia
4 Only teachers in low performing schools can be dismissed after just one
Wisconsin negative rating.
Wyoming 5 Only teachers on annual contracts are eligible for dismissal after
unsatisfactory evaluations.
25 13 22 6 Only probationary teachers can be dismissed following an unsatisfactory
evaluation.
area 5: Exiting ineffective Teachers
Goal c – Dismissal for Poor Performance
The state should ensure that the process for terminating ineffective teachers is
expedient and fair to all parties.
goal components
Figure 122
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Dismissal for Poor
Performance
1. A teacher who is terminated for poor perfor-
mance should have an opportunity to appeal. In
0 best Practice States
the interest of both the teacher and the school
district, the state should ensure this appeal 0 States Meet Goal
occurs within a reasonable time frame.
0 States nearly Meet Goal
2. The state should distinguish the process and
accompanying due process rights for teachers 3 States Partly Meet Goal
dismissed for classroom ineffectiveness from Florida, New Hampshire, Wisconsin
the process and accompanying due process
rights for teachers dismissed or facing license
4 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
District of Columbia, Louisiana, New York,
revocation for felony or morality violations or
North Dakota
dereliction of duties.
44 States Do not Meet Goal
rationale Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
california, Colorado, Connecticut,
See appendix for detailed rationale. Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
n States need to be explicit that teacher ineffec- Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
tiveness is grounds for dismissal. Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
n Due process must be efficient and expedited. Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,
n Decisions about teachers should be made by North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
those with educational expertise. Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
SuPPorting reSearch
Vermont, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia,
Research citations to support this goal are Wyoming
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 133
California
area 5: Goal c California analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
In California, tenured teachers who are terminated for California does not meet this goal. Although the state
poor performance may appeal multiple times. After should provide tenured teachers an opportunity to
receiving written notice of dismissal, the teacher may appeal district decisions to terminate their contracts,
request a hearing with the Commission on Professional multiple appeals should not be permitted, and such an
Competence, which must take place within 60 days. appeal should not be made in a court of law but before
Teachers may then file an additional appeal with “a a panel of educators. It is in the best interest of both the
court of competent jurisdiction.” The time frame of this teacher and the district that a conclusion be reached in
appeal is not addressed by the state. a reasonable time frame. Prolonged appeals tax limited
Regrettably, the state also does not distinguish its due resources and may dissuade districts from attempting
process rights for teachers dismissed for ineffective per- to terminate ineffective teachers.
formance from those facing license revocation for dere- The state should also distinguish the process for dis-
liction of duty or felony and/or morality violations. The missing ineffective teachers from dismissal or license
process is the same regardless of the grounds for can- revocation for dereliction of duty or felony and/or
cellation, which include immoral or unprofessional con- morality violations. While teachers should have due
duct; commission, aiding or advocating the commission process for any termination, it is important to differ-
of acts of criminal syndicalism; dishonesty; unsatisfac- entiate between poor performance and issues with far-
tory performance; evident unfitness for service; physical reaching consequences that could permanently impact
or mental condition unfitting him or her to instruct or a teacher’s right to practice.
associate with children; persistent violation of or refusal
to obey the school laws; conviction of a felony; knowing
membership in the Communist Party; and alcoholism california reSPonSe to analySiS
or other drug abuse that makes the employee unfit to California recognized the factual accuracy of our
instruct or associate with children. analysis.
Supporting research
California Education Code 44932, 44934, 44944
134 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Figure 124
Do states distinguish due
g
ess essin
process for dismissal for
examples of Best Practice
proc addr
classroom ineffectiveness
due policy
from felony or morality
Unfortunately, no state has an exemplary policy that violations?
no
yes
no
NCTQ can highlight as “best practice” in this area. Only
alabama
florida, new hampshire and Wisconsin ensure that
alaska
their processes for terminating ineffective teachers
arizona
should be concluded within a reasonable time frame. arkansas
Regrettably, even these states do not distinguish due California
process rights for teachers dismissed for ineffective per- colorado
formance from those facing license revocation for der- connecticut
eliction of duties, or felony and/or morality violations. Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Figure 123 Georgia
hawaii
Do states allow multiple appeals of teacher idaho
dismissals? illinois
indiana
California
iowa
kansas
kentucky
38 louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
8 Missouri
5 Montana
nebraska
nevada
yes no1 no new hampshire
(or unclear) new Jersey
policy
addressing new Mexico
appeals2 new york
1 District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, Wisconsin north carolina
2 Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, Utah north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1 47 3
aPPEnDiX
appendix focus exclusively on astronomy and fail to give a teacher can-
didate an understanding of the basic concepts of physics. Too
few states’ requirements distinguish between the value gained
area 1: goal a from a survey course in American history, such as “From Colonial
Times to the Civil War,” and an American history course such as
Admission into Preparation Programs “Woody Guthrie and Folk Narrative in the Great Depression.”
rationale In addition to the common-sense notion that teachers ought
The most appropriate time for assessing basic skills is to know the subjects they teach, research supports the benefits
at program entry. to be gained by teachers being broadly educated. Teachers who
are more literate--who possess richer vocabularies--are more
Basic skills tests were not intended to be licensing tests, but
likely to be effective. In fact, of all the measurable attributes of
rather to be used at the point of admission into a teacher prepa-
a teacher, teacher literacy correlates most consistently with stu-
ration program. These tests generally assess middle school-level
dent achievement gains. Some states still require that elemen-
skills, and states should use them as a minimal screening mecha-
tary teacher candidates major in elementary education, with no
nism to ensure that teacher preparation programs do not admit
expectation that they be broadly educated. Others have regula-
anyone who is not prepared to do college-level work. Admitting
tory language that effectively requires the completion of educa-
prospective teachers who have not passed these tests may re-
tion coursework instead of liberal arts coursework by mandat-
sult in programs devoting limited time to basic skill remediation
ing only teaching methods courses in subject areas without also
rather than preparation for the classroom.
requiring content-based coursework in the areas themselves.
Screening candidates at program entry protects the
an academic concentration enhances content knowl-
public’s investment.
edge and ensures that prospective elementary teach-
Teacher preparation programs that do not screen candidates, ers take higher level academic coursework.
particularly programs at public institutions that are heavily sub-
Few states require prospective elementary teachers to major
sidized by the state, invest considerable taxpayer dollars in the
or minor in an academic subject area. Consequently, in most
preparation of individuals who may not be able to successfully
states these teachers can meet subject-matter requirements
complete the program and pass the licensing tests required to
without taking any advanced-level coursework. At minimum,
become a teacher. Candidates needing additional support should
states should require a concentration in an academic area. In
complete remediation prior to program entry, avoiding the pos-
addition to deepening subject-matter knowledge in a particu-
sibility of an unsuccessful investment of significant public tax
lar area, building this concentration into elementary education
dollars.
programs ensures that prospective teachers complete academic
coursework on par with peers earning bachelor’s degrees in other
area 1: goal B areas.
Elementary Teacher Preparation A concentration also provides a fallback for education majors
whose programs deem them unready for the classroom. In most
rationale education programs, virtually all coursework is completed before
The state should ensure that its teacher preparation candidates begin student teaching. The stakes are high once stu-
programs provide elementary teachers with a broad dent teaching begins: if a candidate cannot pass, he or she can-
liberal arts education. not meet requirements for a major or graduate. This may create a
perverse incentive for programs to set low standards for student
Many states’ policies fail to ensure that elementary teacher can-
teaching and/or pass candidates whose clinical experience is un-
didates will complete coursework in topics relevant to common
satisfactory. If they were required to have at least an academic
topics in elementary grades, specifically topics found in states’
concentration, candidates who failed student teaching could still
elementary learning standards. Even when states specify liberal
complete a degree with minimal additional coursework.
arts coursework requirements, the regulatory language can be
quite broad, alluding only minimally to conceptual approaches
Standards-based programs can work when verified by
such as “quantitative reasoning” or “historical understanding.”
testing.
Another common but inadequate approach that states take is
to specify broad curricular areas like “humanities” or “physical Many states no longer prescribe specific courses or credit hours
sciences.” A humanities course could be a general overview of as a condition for teacher candidates to qualify for a license. In-
world literature--an excellent course for a prospective elemen- stead, they require teacher candidates to complete an approved
tary teacher--but it could also be “Introduction to Film Theory.” program that meets state-specific standards or standards set
Likewise, a physical science course could be an overview of rel- forth by accrediting bodies--the National Council for Accredita-
evant topics in physics, chemistry, and astronomy, or it could tion of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Association for Child-
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 137
California
aPPEnDiX
hood Education International (ACEI)--and leave it at that. The Subject-area coursework should be taught by arts and
advantage of this “standards-based” approach is that it grants sciences faculty.
greater flexibility to teacher preparation programs regarding pro-
Most states do not explicitly require that subject-matter course-
gram design.
work be taught by academics in the field, that is, faculty from
However, a significant disadvantage is that the standards-based a university’s college of arts and sciences. While an education
approach is far more difficult to monitor or enforce. While some professor who specializes in science education, for instance, is
programs respond well to the flexibility, others do not. Though well suited to teach effective methodologies in science instruc-
the ACEI/NCATE standards may be beneficial, they are too gen- tion, a scholar in science should provide the foundation work in
eral for states to rely on in their efforts to ensure adequate sub- the subject itself.
ject-matter training. For example, ACEI’s standard for social stud-
States cannot leave these decisions entirely to teacher prepara-
ies requires that elementary teacher candidates be “able to use
tion programs because sending teacher candidates to the college
knowledge, skills and dispositions from social studies to organize
of arts and sciences to complete coursework can run counter to
and provide integrated instruction in grades K-6 for the study
programs’ financial interests.
of major themes, concepts, and modes of inquiry drawn from
academic fields that address: (1) culture; (2) time, continuity, and
Teacher candidates need to be able to “test out” of
change; (3) people, places, and environment; (4) individual devel-
coursework requirements.
opment and identity; (5) individuals, groups, and institutions; (6)
power, governance, and authority; (7) production, distribution, Many elementary teacher candidates will have acquired the
and consumption; (8) science, technology, and society; (9) global knowledge needed to teach elementary grades in their high
connections; and (10) civic ideals and practices.” These broad school coursework and other experiences. Someone who earned
concepts do very little to articulate the actual knowledge that a score of 3 or higher on an Advanced Placement (AP) exam in
elementary teacher candidates should possess. American history does not need to take a general survey course
Standards are important but essentially meaningless absent rig- in college but should be eligible to take a more advanced Ameri-
orous tests to ensure that teacher candidates have met them. can history course focused on a particular topic. States need to
Most states that have chosen the standards-based approach have some process that allows teacher candidates to test out of
have not implemented such tests. In their absence, verifying survey requirements.
that teacher preparation programs are teaching to the standards A legitimate test-out option would require individual subject-
requires an exhaustive review process of matching every stan- matter tests or at least minimum subscores on a general test.
dard with something taught in a course. This approach is neither Good policy would also accept equivalent scores from AP and
practical nor efficient. Tests of broad subject matter are also not SAT II tests.
the solution, given that it is possible to pass without necessarily
demonstrating knowledge in each subject area. For instance, on
many tests of teacher content knowledge, a passing score is pos- area 1: goal c
sible while answering every mathematics question incorrectly. Teacher Preparation in Reading
mere alignment with student learning standards is not
Instruction
sufficient. rationale
Another growing trend in state policy is to require teacher prep- reading science has identified five components of
aration programs to align their instruction with the state’s stu- effective instruction.
dent learning standards. In many states, this alignment exercise Teaching children to read is the most important task teachers
is the only factor considered in deciding the content to be de- undertake. Over the past 60 years, scientists from many fields
livered to elementary teacher candidates. Alignment of teacher have worked to determine how people learn to read and why
preparation with student learning standards is an important step some struggle. This science of reading has led to breakthroughs
but by no means the only one. For example, a program should that can dramatically reduce the number of children destined to
prepare teachers in more than just the content that the state become functionally illiterate or barely literate adults. By rou-
expects of its fourth graders. Also critical is moving past align- tinely applying in the classroom the lessons learned from the
ment and deciding the broader set of knowledge a teacher needs scientific findings, most reading failure can be avoided. Estimates
to have to be able to effectively teach fourth grade. The teacher’s indicate that the current failure rate of 20 to 30 percent could be
perspective must be both broader and deeper than what he or reduced to 2 to 10 percent.
she will actually teach.
Scientific research has shown that there are five essential com-
ponents of effective reading instruction: explicit and systematic
instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary
and comprehension. While elementary teachers need to be well
138 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
aPPEnDiX
versed in these components, even secondary teachers need at Most states’ policies do not require preparation in mathematics
least some knowledge of this process, particularly if they work in of appropriate breadth and depth and specific to the needs of
high-poverty schools. the elementary teacher. NCTQ’s report “No Common Denomi-
Many states’ policies still do not reflect the strong research con- nator: The Preparation of Elementary Teachers in Mathematics
sensus in reading instruction that has emerged over the last few by America’s Education Schools” found that only 13 percent of
decades. Many teacher preparation programs, still caught up in teacher preparation programs in a national sample were provid-
the reading wars, resist teaching scientifically based reading in- ing high quality preparation in mathematics. Whether through
struction. NCTQ’s report “What Education Schools Aren’t Teach- standards or coursework requirements, states must ensure that
ing about Reading and What Elementary Teachers Aren’t Learn- their preparation programs graduate only teacher candidates
ing” found that only 15 percent of teacher preparation programs who are well prepared to teach mathematics.
in a national sample were providing even minimal exposure to
the science of reading. Whether through standards or course- most state tests offer no assurance that teachers are
work requirements, states must ensure that their preparation prepared to teach mathematics.
programs graduate only teacher candidates who know how to Only Massachusetts has developed a rigorous assessment for
teach children to reads. elementary teachers entirely and solely focused on mathemat-
ics. Other states rely on subject-matter tests that include some
most current reading tests do not offer assurance that items (or even a whole section) on mathematics instruction.
teachers know the science of reading. However, since subject-specific passing scores are not required,
A few states, such as Massachusetts and Virginia, have developed one need not know much mathematics in order to pass. In fact,
strong, stand-alone assessments entirely focused on the science one might answer every mathematics question incorrectly and
of reading. Other states rely on either pedagogy tests or content still pass. States need to ensure that it is not possible to pass
tests that include items on reading instruction. However, since a licensure test that purportedly covers mathematics without
reading instruction is addressed only in one small part of most of knowing the critical material.
these tests, it is often not necessary to know the science of read-
ing to pass. States need to make sure that a teacher candidate
cannot pass a test that purportedly covers reading instruction area 1: goal e
without knowing the critical material. Middle School Teacher Preparation
rationale
area 1: goal d States must differentiate middle school teacher prep-
aration from that of elementary teachers.
Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
Middle school grades are critical years of schooling. It is in these
rationale
years that far too many students fall through the cracks. How-
required math coursework should be tailored in both ever, requirements for the preparation and licensure of middle
design and delivery to the unique needs of the ele- school teachers are among the weakest state policies. Too many
mentary teacher. states fail to distinguish the knowledge and skills needed by
Aspiring elementary teachers must begin to acquire a deep middle school teachers from those needed by an elementary
conceptual knowledge of the mathematics that they will teach, teacher. Whether teaching a single subject in a departmentalized
moving well beyond mere procedural understanding. Their train- setting or teaching multiple subjects in a self-contained setting,
ing should focus on the critical areas of numbers and operations; middle school teachers must be able to teach significantly more
algebra; geometry and measurement; and, to a lesser degree, advanced content than elementary teachers do. The notion that
data analysis and probability. someone should be identically prepared to teach first grade or
eighth grade mathematics seems ridiculous, but states that li-
To ensure that elementary teachers are well trained to teach the
cense teachers on a K-8 generalist certificate essentially endorse
essential subject of mathematics, states must require teacher
this idea.
preparation programs to cover these four areas in coursework
that it specially designed for prospective elementary teachers.
approved programs should prepare middle school
Leading mathematicians and math educators have found that
teacher candidates to be qualified to teach two sub-
elementary teachers are not well served by courses designed
ject areas.
for a general audience and that methods courses also do not
provide sufficient preparation. According to Dr. Roger Howe, a Since No Child Left Behind requires most aspiring middle school
mathematician at Yale University: “Future teachers do not need teachers to have a major or pass a test in each teaching field, the
so much to learn more mathematics, as to reshape what they law would appear to preclude them from teaching more than
already know.” one subject. However, middle school teacher candidates could
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 139
California
aPPEnDiX
instead earn two subject-area minors, gaining sufficient knowl- Under IDEA, states can award “highly qualified teacher” status to
edge to pass state licensing tests and be highly qualified in both new secondary special education teachers who:
subjects. This policy would increase schools’ staffing flexibility,
especially since teachers seem to show little interest in taking n■ have a major or have passed a subject-matter test in
tests to earn highly qualified teaching status in a second subject one of three content areas: language arts, mathematics,
once they are in the classroom. Research offers little evidence or science (without explanation, the law excludes social
that middle school teachers with a major will be more effec- studies); and
tive than middle school teachers with a minor, and in fact most n■ complete a single HOUSSE route for multiple subjects in
middle schools do not require this credential of teachers. all other subjects that they are likely to teach during their
first two years of teaching.
States need to provide more-specific guidance on this issue. They
area 1: goal f
should require secondary special education teachers to have
Special Education Teacher Preparation broad coursework in multiple subjects and to become highly
rationale qualified in two core academic areas. This will make teachers
more flexible and thus better able to serve schools and students.
all teachers, including special education teach-
States can use a combination of testing and coursework to meet
ers, teach content and therefore need relevant
this goal.
coursework.
Special education teacher candidates who will teach elemen- Secondary special education teachers need to gradu-
tary grades should complete roughly the same core of liberal ate highly qualified in two subject areas.
arts coursework as regular elementary teacher candidates (See
Given that these teachers will be expected to complete a
Goal 1-B). They will need the same knowledge in the classroom.
HOUSSE route in all remaining subject areas during their first
Moreover, from a practical perspective, it is incumbent on teach-
two years of teaching, it makes sense for them to complete
er preparation programs to produce special education teachers
undergraduate training in two related areas, probably either
who are highly qualified in the areas they will teach.
math and science or English and social studies. That way, the
While special educators should be valued for their critical role HOUSSE route can focus on related subject areas and candidates
in working with students with disabilities and special needs, the can focus on related fields, rather than studying up on English,
state identifies them not as “special education assistants” but history, and mathematics, for example, in their first two years of
as “special education teachers,” presumably because it expects teaching.
them to provide instruction. Inclusion models, where special
education students receive instruction from a general education a customized HouSSE route is needed to meet the
teacher paired with a special education teacher to provide in- needs of new special education teachers to earn high-
structional support, do not mitigate the need for special educa- ly qualified status.
tion teachers to know content. Providing instruction to children
who have special needs requires both knowledge of effective Special education teachers face unique pressures, as they must
learning strategies and of the subject matter at hand. Failure to be competent in both the subject areas they teach and in the
ensure that teachers are well trained in content areas deprives strategies for teaching children with a variety of special needs.
special education students of the opportunity to reach their aca- The 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities
demic potential. Education Act recognized these pressures in its proviso allow-
ing new secondary special education teachers to use states’
HQT requirements place unique challenges on second- HOUSSE routes to become “highly qualified,” a route normally
ary special education teachers. reserved for veteran teachers.
Whether or not states have discontinued the HOUSSE route
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the 2004 reauthorization of
for veteran teachers, it is this traditional route that most states
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) present
make available for secondary special education teachers. How-
conflicting expectations for the subject-matter preparation of
ever, several problems are common among traditional HOUSSE
new secondary special education teachers. Although the latter,
routes that make them inappropriate for new secondary special
which was passed after NCLB, offers greater flexibility and is
education teachers. First, most state plans are weak on teacher
more realistic than what NCLB suggests, it may not adequately
content preparation even though the intent of the law was for
address teachers’ subject-matter knowledge. States can provide
HOUSSE to address weak subject-matter knowledge. Second, for
some middle ground, while meeting the requirements of both
teachers to achieve highly qualified status, states highly value
laws.
experience, which, of course, a new teacher does not have. Third,
state requirements tend to be inordinately complicated, making
140 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
aPPEnDiX
it hard on a new teacher to know how to navigate the system to area 1: goal h
earn the required credential.
Teacher Preparation Program
Providing a HOUSSE option to special education teachers was
originally seen as a way to streamline the process of achieving Accountability
HQT status for teachers who instruct in multiple subject areas rationale
each day. While it is certainly important that a secondary special
States need to hold programs accountable for the
education teacher has a basic competency in subjects ranging
quality of their graduates.
from mathematics to world history, it is unreasonable to expect
him or her to hold multiple college degrees or pass four or five The state should examine a number of factors when measur-
different content examinations to be deemed highly qualified. ing the performance of and approving teacher preparation pro-
States can help new secondary special education teachers be- grams. The quality of both the subject-matter preparation and
come highly qualified in multiple subjects by encouraging them professional sequence is crucial. However, in addition to consid-
to pursue professional development and coursework that focus- eration of program content, NCTQ recommends measures that
es on state student learning standards. Having available adapted can provide the state and the public with meaningful, readily
subject-matter tests would also add much-needed flexibility. understandable indicators of how well programs are doing in
what is most important: preparing teachers to be successful in
Structured properly, HOUSSE would offer an efficient means by
the classroom.
which a teacher could gain a broad overview of a specific area
of content knowledge. One clear option would be for a state to Average scores on basic skills tests of individuals admitted to
identify focused, content-driven university courses that would programs can help the state know, “Are programs appropriate-
give teachers a survey of the information necessary to teach a ly screening applicants?” Pass rate data on licensing tests can
given subject. A single world history course could provide a suffi- help inform states, “Are programs delivering essential academic
cient basis in social studies; a single quantitative reasoning course and professional knowledge?” Classroom performance data and
could give a broad review of mathematical concepts. While not evaluation ratings can help the state determine, “Are programs
providing expertise, such classes could provide the proficiency producing effective classroom teachers?”
needed for a teacher to obtain highly qualified teacher status in Collecting effective pass rate data on state licensing tests is es-
the subject. pecially important. At a minimum, the state should ensure that
programs are reporting pass rates for individuals entering stu-
dent teaching, not program completers, because the former is
area 1: goal g now required under the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Edu-
Assessing Professional Knowledge cation Act. It is also a method that will not mask the number of
individuals the program was unable to properly prepare.
rationale
a good pedagogy test puts teeth in states’ profession-
al standards. area 1: goal i
In order to ensure that the state is licensing only teachers who State Authority for Program Approval
meet its expectations, all standards must be testable. The state’s rationale
specifying standards that cannot be assessed in a practical and
States should not cede oversight authority over their
cost-effective manner has no value. Examples of knowledge that
teacher preparation programs to accreditors.
can be tested include the basic elements of good instruction,
how to communicate effectively with children, how to use class The recent growth in the popularity of national accreditation has
time efficiently, effective questioning techniques, establishing led some states to adopt policies that blur the line between the
smooth classroom routines, the importance of feedback, en- public process of state program approval and the private process
gaging parents, the best methods for teaching reading as well of national accreditation. The factors considered for accreditation
as other subjects, appropriate use of technology, knowledge of are broader and more formative in nature than the factors that
testing, and the fundamentals of addressing individual learning should be considered by the state when approving programs. The
challenges. state’s primary interest is--or should be--narrower, more sharply
States use too many tests to measure new teachers’ professional focused on only those aspects of teacher preparation that direct-
knowledge that utterly fail to do so, either because the passing ly relate to teacher effectiveness and those measures that can be
score is set so low that anyone--even those who have not had quantified (see Goals 1-H). While both the state and the accred-
professional preparation--can pass or because one can discern iting body share the same ultimate goal--quality teachers--the
the “right” answer on an item simply by the way it is written. questions that each asks differ.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 141
California
aPPEnDiX
Furthermore, although there may be a growing consensus as area 2: goal a
to what teachers should know and be able to do--a consensus
that could eventually strengthen the accreditation movement- Alternate Route Eligibility
-no solid evidence exists that shows that nationally accredited rationale
teacher preparation programs produce better teachers than un- alternate route teachers need the advantage of a
accredited programs. strong academic background.
States may choose to endorse the standards of national ac-
The intent of alternate route programs is to provide a route for
crediting bodies, but these bodies’ standards should not be seen
those who already have strong subject-matter knowledge to en-
as adequate substitutes for state program approval standards.
ter the profession, allowing them to focus on gaining the profes-
Unfortunately, some states have allowed programs to substitute
sional skills needed for the classroom. This intent is based on the
national accreditation for state program approval. A few states
fact that academic caliber has been shown to be a strong predic-
have gone further and required that all teacher preparation pro-
tor of classroom success. Programs that admit candidates with a
grams at public universities attain NCATE accreditation. A few
weak grasp of both subject matter and professional knowledge
more have required that all in-state programs, public and private,
can put the new teacher in an impossible position, where he or
attain national accreditation. These policies are inappropriate,
she is much more likely to experience failure and perpetuate high
since they require that public funds and institutional resources
attrition rates.
be spent meeting the standards of a private organization that
has yet to be recognized as the undisputed guarantor of mini-
academic requirements for admission to alternate
mum quality in its field.
routes should exceed the requirements for traditional
programs.
area 1: goal j Assessing a teacher candidate’s college GPA and/or aptitude
scores can provide useful and reliable measures of academic cali-
Balancing Professional Coursework
ber, provided that the state does not set the floor too low. A 2.5
rationale minimum GPA is the common choice of many alternate route
most states have programs that demand excessive programs but may be too low. It is about the same as what most
requirements. teacher preparation programs require of traditional candidates.
Some programs address this problem by looking for at least a
NCTQ’s research shows that most states have teacher prepara-
2.75 in the last 60 hours of college, as indicative of a candidate’s
tion programs where teacher candidates are required to com-
growing seriousness of purpose. GPA measures are especially
plete more than 60 credit hours of professional coursework.
useful for assessing elementary teacher qualifications, since el-
These are excessive requirements that leave little room for elec-
ementary teaching demands a broader body of knowledge that
tives and often leave insufficient room for adequate subject-
can be harder to define in terms of specific tests or coursework.
matter preparation. Though there is no research data to confirm
this, it seems likely that such excessive requirements would dis-
multiple ways for assessing subject-matter compe-
courage talented individuals from pursuing teacher preparation
tency are needed to accommodate nontraditional
and public school teaching.
candidates.
States need to monitor programs’ total professional Rigid coursework requirements can dissuade talented, qualified
coursework requirements. individuals who lack precisely the “right” courses from pursuing
a career in teaching. States can maintain high standards by using
Although some states specify a reasonable amount of mini-
appropriate tests to allow individuals to prove their subject-mat-
mum professional coursework that new teachers must complete,
ter knowledge. For instance, an engineer who wishes to teach
teacher preparation programs often require far more. Requiring
physics should face no coursework obstacles as long as he or she
teachers to complete a minimum amount of coursework does
can prove sufficient knowledge of physics on a test. A good test
nothing to ensure that approved programs will limit themselves
with a sufficiently high passing score is certainly as reliable as
to those minimums. It is also not necessarily the case that pro-
courses listed on a transcript, if not more so.
grams should be limited to those minimums.
142 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
aPPEnDiX
area 2: goal B Some states claim the limitations they place on the use of their
alternate routes impose quality control. However, states control
Alternate Route Preparation who is admitted and who is licensed. With appropriate standards
rationale for admission (see Goal 2-A) and program accountability (see
The program must provide practical, meaningful Goal 2-D), quality can be safeguarded without casting alternate
preparation that is sensitive to a new teacher’s stress routes as routes of last resort or branding alternate route teach-
level. ers “second-class citizens.”
Too many states have policies requiring alternate route programs
to “back-load” large amounts of traditional education course- area 2: goal d
work, thereby preventing the emergence of real alternatives to Alternate Route Program Accountability
traditional preparation. This issue is especially important given
the large proportion of alternate route teachers who complete rationale
this coursework while teaching. Alternate route teachers often alternate route programs should show they consis-
have to deal with the stresses of beginning to teach while also tently produce effective teachers.
completing required coursework in the evenings and on week- All data that are collected on alternate route programs should
ends. States need to be careful to require participants only to focus on the central question of whether they produce effective
meet standards or complete coursework that is practical and im- teachers. Although many components are involved in a good al-
mediately helpful to a new teacher. ternate route program, the output of productive teachers is the
only true indicator of success. The indicators NCTQ recommends
induction support is especially important for alter- capture a comprehensive vision of teacher effectiveness.
nate route teachers.
Alternate route programs need to be held as accountable for
their results as traditional programs are. While the training and
Most new teachers--regardless of their preparation--find
time associated with alternate route programs differ substan-
themselves overwhelmed upon taking responsibility for their
tially from those of traditional programs, the outputs of student
own classrooms. This is especially true for alternate route learning and teacher effectiveness should be held to an identical
teachers, who may have had considerably less classroom ex- standard.
posure or pedagogy training than traditionally prepared teach-
ers. While alternate route programs will ideally have provided
at least a brief student teaching experience, not all programs area 2: goal e
can incorporate it into their models. States must ensure that Licensure Reciprocity
alternate route programs do not leave new teachers to “sink
rationale
or swim” on their own when they begin teaching.
using transcripts to judge teacher competency pro-
vides little value.
area 2: goal c In an attempt to ensure that teachers have the appropriate pro-
Alternate Route Usage and Providers fessional and subject-matter knowledge base when granting cer-
tification, states often review a teacher’s college transcript, no
rationale matter how many years earlier a bachelor’s degree was earned. A
alternate routes should be structured to do more than state certification specialist reviews the college transcript, look-
just address shortages; they should provide an alter- ing for course titles that appear to match state requirements.
native pipeline for talented individuals to enter the If the right matches are not found, a teacher may be required
profession. to complete additional coursework before receiving standard
licensure. This practice holds true even for experienced teach-
Many states have structured their alternate routes as a stream-
ers who are trying to transfer from another state, regardless of
lined means to certify teachers in shortage subjects, grades or
experience or success level. The application of these often-
geographic areas. While alternate routes are an important mech-
complex state rules results in unnecessary obstacles to hiring
anism for addressing shortages, they also serve the wider-reach-
talented and experienced teachers. Little evidence indicates
ing and more consequential purpose of providing an alternative
that reviewing a person’s undergraduate coursework improves
pathway for talented individuals to enter the profession. A true
the quality of the teaching force or ensures that teachers have
alternate route creates a new pipeline of potential teachers by
adequate knowledge.
certifying those with valuable knowledge and skills who did not
prepare to teach as undergraduates and are disinclined to fulfill
the requirements of a new degree.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 143
California
aPPEnDiX
Testing requirements should be upheld, not waived. characteristics. In the area of teacher quality, value-added mod-
While many states impose burdensome coursework require- els offer a fairer and potentially more meaningful way to evalu-
ments, they often fail to impose minimum standards on licensure ate a teacher’s effectiveness than other methods schools use.
tests. Instead, they offer waivers to veteran teachers transferring For example, at one time a school might have known only that
from other states, thereby failing to impose minimal standards its fifth-grade teacher, Mrs. Jones, consistently had students
of professional and subject-matter knowledge. In upholding li- who did not score at grade level on standardized assessments
censure standards for out-of-state teachers, the state should be of reading. With value-added analysis, the school can learn that
flexible in its processes but vigilant in its verification of adequate Mrs. Jones’ students were reading on a third-grade level when
knowledge. Too many states have policies and practices that re- they entered her class, and that they were above a fourth-grade
verse these priorities, focusing diligently on comparison of tran- performance level at the end of the school year. While not yet
scripts to state documents while demonstrating little oversight reaching appropriate grade level, Mrs. Jones’ students had made
of teachers’ knowledge. If a state can verify that a teacher has more than a year’s progress in her class. Because of value-added
taught successfully and has the required subject-matter and pro- data, the school can see that she is an effective teacher.
fessional knowledge, its only concern should be ensuring that he The school could not have seen this effectiveness without a data
or she is familiar with the state’s student learning standards. system that connects student and teacher data. Furthermore,
multiple years of data are necessary to enable meaningful deter-
Signing on to the naSDTEC interstate agreement minations of teacher effectiveness. Value-added analysis requires
at least signals a state’s willingness to consider both student and teacher identifiers and the ability to match
portability. test records over time.
Many states have signed onto the Interstate Agreement spon-
sored by the National Association of State Directors of Teacher There are a number of responsible uses for value-add-
Education and Certification (NASDTEC), an organization con- ed analysis.
cerned with facilitating licensure reciprocity. However, the NAS- assessing individual Teachers: With three years of good data,
DTEC Interstate Agreement does not guarantee full transfer of value-added analysis can identify the strongest and weakest
certification and endorsement. Despite having signed the agree- teachers; however, it is not as useful at distinguishing differences
ment, many states still require veteran teachers to complete among teachers in the middle range of performance. This is why
additional coursework to attain full licensure. Neverthelesss by value-added analysis should be used only to provide part of the
signing this agreement, states are taking a good first step toward evidence of teacher effectiveness.
achieving nationwide portability.
School Performance: Value-added analysis can accurately assess
States licensing out-of-state teachers should not the learning gains and losses made in a single school with less
differentiate between experienced teachers prepared risk of measurement error. The U.S. Department of Education is
in alternate routes and those prepared in traditional working with states to pilot something akin to value-added anal-
programs. ysis, known as “student growth” models, to determine schools’
It is understandable that states are wary of accepting alternate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Student growth models are not
route teachers from other states, since programs vary widely in as effective as value-added models at controlling for factors
quality. However, the same wide variety in quality can be found other than the quality of the teacher. However, these models are
in traditional programs. If a teacher comes from another state still valuable for providing a measure of academic improvement
with a standard license and can pass the state’s licensure tests, for the school overall, leaving open their potential use for de-
whether the preparation was traditional or alternative should be termining school-wide bonuses. A good value-added model is a
irrelevant. subset of a student growth model; it can more precisely separate
out nonschool effects on learning, making it possible to better
distinguish a specific teacher’s impact.
area 3: goal a
applicability to all Teachers: Many critics of value-added mod-
State Data Systems els dismiss them because they can only be used for teachers in
rationale tested subjects. While some subjects do not lend themselves to
value-added analysis connects student data to teach- a value-added model, more teachers may be eligible than may
er data to measure achievement and performance. be immediately obvious. For example, student reading scores are
affected by the quality of social studies and science instruction,
Value-added models are an important tool for measuring student
not just language arts instruction. Reading comprehension is di-
achievement and school effectiveness. These models measure in-
rectly connected to student learning of broad subject matter,
dividual students’ learning gains, controlling for students’ previ-
including history, geography and science.
ous knowledge. They can also control for students’ background
144 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
aPPEnDiX
High School: A value-added model is theoretically most useful a. observation
at the high school level, where teachers are typically assigned 1. Ratings should be based on multiple observations by multiple
many more students, making annual results more reliable. Data persons, usually the principal and senior faculty, within the same
from an elementary class size of 20 to 30 students can produce year to produce a more accurate rating than is possible with a
relatively unstable results for a single year. A high school teacher, single observation. Teacher observers should be trained to use a
however, will be assigned on average 120 students, which would valid and reliable observation protocol (meaning that it has been
yield a much more stable, reliable indicator of actual teacher tested to ensure that the results are trustworthy and useful).
performance. Use at the high school level would require states to The observers should assign degrees of proficiency to observed
adopt reliable pre- and post-tests in core subject areas. behaviors.
Pilots: States can directly and indirectly encourage districts to 2. The primary observation component should be the quality of
implement value-added analysis. By piloting value-added analy- instruction, as measured by student time on task, student grasp
sis in districts or schools, the states can directly encourage devel- or mastery of the lesson objective and efficient use of class
opment of this valuable tool for eventual statewide use. Other time.
programs, such as state-sponsored pay-for-performance pro- 3. Other factors often considered in the course of an observation
grams that base bonuses, in part, on teachers’ ability to produce can provide useful information, including:
student academic gains, can indirectly encourage experimenta- n■ questioning techniques and other methods for
tion with value-added analysis.
engaging class;
n■ differentiation of instruction;
Evaluating Teacher-Preparation Programs: Another innovative
use for value-added analysis is its inclusion in the evaluation of n■ continual student checks for understanding throughout
teacher preparation programs. Value-added analysis that mea- lesson;
sures the effectiveness of program graduates can provide valu- n■ appropriate lesson structure and pacing;
able information that can be used to hold poor teacher prepara- n■ appropriate grouping structures;
tion programs accountable, as well as identify strong programs n■ reinforcement of student effort; and
that can be models for best practices. n■ classroom management and use of effective classroom
routines.
area 3: goal B Other elements commonly found on many instruments, such as
“makes appropriate and effective use of technology” and”ties
Evaluation of Effectiveness lesson into previous and future learning experiences” may seem
rationale important but can be difficult to document reliably in an ob-
Teachers should be judged primarily by their impact servation. Having too many elements can distract the observer
on students. from the central question: “Are students learning?”
While many factors should be considered in formally evaluating B. objective measures of Student learning
a teacher, nothing is more important than effectiveness in the Apart from the observation, the evaluation instrument
classroom. Unfortunately, districts use many evaluation instru-
should provide evidence of work performance. Many districts
ments, some mandated by states, that are structured so that
use portfolios, which create a lot of work for the teacher and
teachers can earn a satisfactory rating without any evidence that
they are sufficiently advancing student learning in the classroom.
may be unreliable indicators of effectiveness. Good and less-
It is often enough that teachers just appear to be trying, not cumbersome alternatives to the standard portfolio exist, for
necessarily succeeding. example:
n■ The value that a teacher adds, as measured by stan-
Many evaluation instruments give as much weight, or more, to dardized test scores;
factors that lack any direct correlation with student performance, n■ Periodic standardized diagnostic assessments;
for example, taking professional development courses, assuming n■ Benchmark assessments that show student growth;
extra duties such as sponsoring a club or mentoring, and getting n■ Artifacts of student work connected to specific student
along well with colleagues. Some instruments hesitate to hold learning standards that are randomly selected for
teachers accountable for student progress. Teacher evaluation review by the principal or senior faculty and scored
instruments should include factors that combine both human using rubrics and descriptors;
judgment and objective measures of student learning. n■ Examples of typical assignments, assessed for their
A teacher evaluation instrument that focuses on student learn- quality and rigor; and
ing could include the following components: n■ Periodic checks on progress with the curriculum (e.g.,
progress on textbook) coupled with evidence of student
mastery of the curriculum from quizzes, tests, and exams.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 145
California
aPPEnDiX
area 3: goal c area 3: goal d
Frequency of Evaluations Tenure
rationale rationale
annual evaluations are standard practice in most Tenure should be a significant and consequential mile-
professional jobs. stone in a teacher’s career.
Most states do not mandate annual evaluations of teachers who The decision to give teachers tenure (or permanent status) is
have reached permanent or tenured status. The lack of regular usually made automatically, with little thought, deliberation or
evaluations is unique to the teaching profession and does little consideration of actual evidence. State policy should reflect the
to advance the notion that teachers are professionals. fact that initial certification is temporary and probationary, and
Further, teacher evaluations are too often treated as mere for- that tenure is intended to be a significant reward for teachers
malities, rather than as important tools for rewarding good who have consistently shown effectiveness and commitment.
teachers, helping average teachers improve, and holding weak Tenure and advanced certification are not rights implied by the
teachers accountable for poor performance. State policy should conferring of an initial teaching certificate. No other profession,
reflect the importance of evaluations so that teachers and prin- including higher education, offers practitioners tenure after only
cipals alike take their consequences seriously (see Goal 5-B). a few years of working in the field.
To make tenure meaningful, states should require a clear process,
Evaluations are especially important for new such as a hearing, for districts to use when considering whether a
teachers. teacher advances from probationary to permanent status. Such
Individuals new to a profession frequently have reduced respon- process would ensure that the local district reviews the teacher’s
sibilities coupled with increased oversight. As competencies are performance before making a determination. This also protects
demonstrated, new responsibilities are added and supervision the teacher’s rights, as he or she knows of the process and has an
decreases. Such is seldom the case for new teachers, who gener- opportunity to participate.
ally have the same classroom responsibilities as veteran teach- States should also ensure that evidence of effectiveness is the
ers, including responsibility for the academic progress of their preponderant (but not the only) criterion for making tenure de-
students, but may receive limited feedback on their performance. cisions. Most states confer tenure at a point that is too early
In the absence of good metrics for determining who will be an for the collection of sufficient and adequate data that reflect
effective teacher before he or she begins to teach, it is critical teacher performance. Ideally, states would accumulate such data
that schools and districts closely monitor the performance of for five years. This robust data set would prevent effective teach-
new teachers. ers from being unfairly denied tenure based on too little data
States should require that districts formally evaluate new teach- and ineffective teachers from being granted tenure.
ers at least twice annually. A formal evaluation results in a rating
that becomes part of the teacher’s record. Evaluations should
area 3: goal e
not be treated as formalities; they are an important tool for
identifying teachers’ strengths and areas that need improve- Licensure Advancement
ment. Although the goal should always be to provide feedback rationale
and support that will help teachers address weaknesses, evalua-
The reason for probationary licensure should be to
tions also serve an important purpose in holding weak teachers
determine teacher effectiveness.
accountable for continued poor performance.
Most states grant new teachers a probationary license that must
The state should specifically require that districts evaluate new
later be converted to an advanced or professional license. A pro-
teachers early in the school year. This policy would help ensure
bationary period is sound policy as it provides an opportunity
that new teachers get the support they need early and that
to determine whether individuals merit professional licensure.
supervisors know from the beginning of the school year which
However, very few states require any determination of teacher
new teachers (and which students) may be at risk. Requiring at
performance or effectiveness in deciding whether a teacher will
least one additional evaluation provides important data about
advance from the probationary license. Instead, states generally
the teacher’s ability to improve. Data from evaluations from the
require probationary teachers to fulfill a set of requirements to
teacher’s early years of teaching can then be used as part of the
receive advanced certification. Thus, ending the probationary pe-
performance-based evidence to make a decision about tenure.
riod is based on whether a checklist has been completed, rather
than on teacher performance and effectiveness.
146 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
aPPEnDiX
most state requirements for achieving permanent gency credentials; average selectivity of teachers’ undergraduate
certification have not been shown to impact teacher colleges; and the percentage of new teachers. These factors are
effectiveness. complicated, so the state should install a system that translates
Unfortunately, not only do most states fail to connect advanced them into something more easily understood, such as a color-
certification to actual evidence of teacher effectiveness, but coded matrix indicating a high or low score for a school.
the requirements teachers must most often meet are not even
States need to report data at the level of the individ-
related to teacher effectiveness. The most common requirement
ual school.
for permanent licensure is completion of additional coursework,
often resulting in a master’s degree. Requiring teachers to obtain Only by achieving greater stability in the staffing of individual
additional training in their teaching area would be meaning- schools can districts achieve the nation’s goal of more equi-
ful; however, the requirements are usually vague, allowing the table distribution of teacher quality. A strong reporting system
teacher to fulfill coursework requirements from long menus that reflecting the index described above, as well as data on teacher
include areas having no connection or use to the teacher in the attrition, teacher absenteeism and teacher credentials can lend
classroom. The research evidence on requiring a master’s degree much-needed transparency to those factors that contribute to
is quite conclusive: these degrees have not been shown to make staffing instability and inequity.
teachers more effective. This is likely due in no small part to the The lack of such data feeds a misconception that all high-pover-
fact that teachers generally do not attain master’s degrees in ty schools are similarly unable to retain staff because of their so-
their subject areas. According to the National Center for Educa- cioeconomic and racial status. If collected and disaggregated to
tional Statistics, fewer than one-fourth of secondary teachers’ the level of the individual school, however, such data could shift
master’s degrees are in their subject area, and only 7 percent the focus of districts and states toward the quality of leadership
of elementary teachers’ master’s degrees are in an academic at the school level and away from the notion that instability
subject. and inequity are unavoidable consequences of poverty and race.
In addition to their dubious value, these requirements may also Variations in staff stability are huge among schools with similar
serve as a disincentive to teacher retention. Talented probation- numbers of poor and/or minority children. School culture, largely
ary teachers may be unwilling to invest time and resources in determined by school leadership, contributes greatly to teach-
more education coursework. Further, they may well pursue er morale, which in turn affects teacher success and student
advanced degrees that facilitate leaving teaching. achievement. By revealing these variations among schools facing
the same challenges, school leadership can be held accountable-
-and rewarded when successful.
area 3: goal f Within-district comparisons are crucial in order to control for as
Equitable Distribution many elements specific to a district as possible, such as a collec-
rationale tive bargaining agreement (or the district’s personnel policies)
and the amount of resources.
Distribution data should show more than just teach-
ers’ years of experience and highly qualified status.
The first step in addressing the distribution of teachers is bring- area 4: goal a
ing transparency to the issue. States generally report little more Induction
than what is required by No Child Left Behind, which highlights
years of experience and HQT status. However, while teaching ex- rationale
perience matters, the benefits of experience are largely accumu- Too many new teachers are left to “sink or swim” when
lated within the first few years of teaching. School districts that they begin teaching.
try to equalize experience among all schools are overestimating Most new teachers are overwhelmed and undersupported at the
its impact. There is no reason why a school with many teach- outset of their teaching careers. Although differences in prepara-
ers with only three or five years’ experience cannot outperform tion programs and routes to the classroom do affect readiness,
a school with teachers who have an average of more than ten even teachers from the most rigorous programs need support
years’ experience. once they take on the myriad responsibilities of a teacher of re-
For this reason, states need to report data that are more infor- cord. A survival-of-the-fittest mentality prevails in many schools;
mative about a school’s teachers. States can accomplish this by figuring out how to successfully negotiate unfamiliar curricula,
using an index for quantifying important teacher credentials discipline and management issues, and labyrinthine school and
found to correlate with student achievement. A good example of district procedures is considered a rite of passage. However, new
a strong index is the academic capital index developed by the Illi- teacher frustrations are not limited to low performers. Many tal-
nois Education Research Council, incorporating teachers’ average ented new teachers become disillusioned early by the lack of
SAT or ACT scores; the percentage of teachers failing basic skills support they receive, and it may be the most talented who will
licensure test at least once; the percentage of teachers on emer- more likely explore other career options.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 147
California
aPPEnDiX
vague requirements simply to provide mentoring are that is primarily based on experience and degree status, even
insufficient. when they would like to have other options.
Although many states recognize the need to provide mentoring It should also be noted that the minimums set by many states--
to new teachers, state policies merely indicating that mentoring whether a minimum starting salary or a complete schedule--are
should occur will not ensure that districts provide new teachers woefully out-of-date, not having been updated for 20 years or
with quality mentoring experiences. While allowing flexibility for more in some cases. The starting salary in Louisiana, for example,
districts to develop and implement programs in line with local has been just over $12,000 since 1987; the Massachusetts mini-
priorities and resources, states also should articulate the mini- mum of $18,000 dates to 1988. Rather than maintain policies
mum requirements for these programs in terms of the frequency lacking meaningful guidance to districts or assurance to teach-
and duration of mentoring and the qualifications of those serv- ers, states should remove these regulations and send a clear
ing as mentors. message to districts that they can decide how to compensate
their teachers.
new teachers in high-needs schools particularly need
quality mentoring.
area 4: goal c
Retaining effective teachers in high-needs schools is especially
challenging. States should ensure that districts place special
Retention Pay
emphasis on mentoring programs in these schools, particularly rationale
when limited resources may prevent the district from providing Connecting additional compensation to the awarding
mentoring to all new teachers. of tenure would add to its significance and improve
teacher retention.
area 4: goal B Starting salaries for teachers have risen significantly in many
Pay Scales states over the last decade. While this may help attract prom-
ising candidates, the small pay increases that generally follow,
rationale particularly in the first few years of teaching, may deter reten-
Compensation reform can be accomplished within the tion. Most state and district salary schedules provide only small
context of local control. percentage increases in the early years, with the percentage in-
Teacher pay is, and should be, largely a local issue. Districts should creases widening later. Longevity bonuses are also common. A
not face state-imposed regulatory obstacles that prevent them better strategy would be to connect a significant pay increase to
from paying their teachers as they see fit; different communi- the awarding of tenure, but only if tenure is based on a determi-
ties have different resources, needs and priorities. States should nation of effectiveness.
remove any barriers to districts’ autonomy in deciding the terms A tenure-connected pay increase, whether a significant salary
for teacher compensation packages. increase or a single lump-sum payment, would serve two im-
The state can ensure that all teachers are treated fairly by de- portant and complementary purposes. First, connecting this pay-
termining a minimum starting salary for all teachers. However, ment to a meaningful process for awarding tenure to effective
a state-mandated salary schedule that locks in pay increases or teachers would enhance public understanding that tenure is not
requires uniform pay deprives districts of the ability to be flex- awarded automatically to just anyone. In addition, it would pro-
ible and responsive to supply-and-demand problems that may vide an important retention strategy, as teachers at the begin-
occur. ning of their careers would know that they will receive additional
compensation at the conclusion of their probationary periods if
There is an important difference between a state’s their effectiveness is demonstrated.
setting the minimum teacher salary and setting a sal-
ary schedule. area 4: goal d
What is the difference between establishing a minimum starting Compensation for Prior Work Experience
salary and a salary schedule? Maine, for example, set a minimum
rationale
starting salary of $30,000 for its teachers in 2007-2008. No dis-
trict may pay less. In contrast, Washington, like many states, has Districts should be allowed to pay new teachers
established a salary schedule that lays out what the minimum with relevant work experience more than other new
salary must be at every level. A teacher who has been teach- teachers.
ing for four years and has a master’s degree may not be paid State and district salary structures frequently fail to recognize
less than $40,998. One who has taught for four years and does that new teacher hires are not necessarily new to the workforce.
not have a master’s degree may not be paid less than $34,464. Some new teachers bring with them deep work experience that
While most districts exceed the state minimum, setting the sal- is directly related to the subject matter they will teach. For ex-
ary schedule forces districts to adhere to a compensation system ample, the hiring of a new high school chemistry teacher with
148 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
aPPEnDiX
20 years experience as a chemical engineer would most certainly States should set guidelines for districts to ensure
be a great boon to any district. Yet most salary structures would that plans are fair and sound.
place this individual at the same point on the schedule as a new Performance pay plans are not easy to implement well. There
teacher straight out of college. Compensating these teachers are numerous examples of both state and district initiatives
commensurate with their experience is an important retention that have been undone by poor planning and administration.
(as well as recruitment) strategy, particularly when other, non- The methodology that allows for the measurement of teach-
teaching opportunities in these fields are likely to be more finan- ers’ contributions to student achievement is still developing, and
cially lucrative. any performance pay program must recognize its limitations (see
As discussed in Goal 4-B, specifics of teacher pay should largely Goal 3-A for more on the appropriate uses of this methodology).
be left to local decision making. However, states should use pol- There are also inherent issues of fairness that should be consid-
icy mechanisms to inform districts that it is not only permissible ered when different types of data must be used to assess the
but also necessary to compensate new teachers with related performance of different kinds of teachers.
prior work experience appropriately. States can play an important role in supporting performance pay
by setting guidelines (whether for a state-level program or for
districts’ own initiatives) that recognize the challenges in imple-
area 4: goal e menting a program well. Because this is an area in which there
Differential Pay is still much to learn about best practice, states should consider
rationale piloting local initiatives as a way to expand the use of and knowl-
edge base around performance pay.
States should take the lead in addressing chronic
shortages and needs.
As discussed in Goal 4-B, states should ensure that state-level area 4: goal g
policies (such as a uniform salary schedule) do not interfere with
districts’ flexibility in compensating teachers in ways that best
Pension Sustainability
meet their individual needs and resources. However, when it rationale
comes to addressing chronic shortages, states should do more many states’ pension systems are based on promises
than simply get out of the way. They should provide direct sup- they cannot afford to keep.
port for differential pay for effective teaching in shortage subject Teacher salaries are just one part of the compensation package
areas and high-needs schools. Attracting effective and qualified that teachers receive. Virtually all teachers are also entitled to a
teachers to high-needs schools or filling vacancies in hard-to- pension, which, upon vesting, provides compensation for the rest
staff subjects are problems that are frequently beyond a district’s of their lives after retirement. In an era when retirement benefits
ability to solve. States that provide direct support for differential have been shrinking across industries and professions, teachers’
pay in these areas are taking an important step in promoting generous pensions remain fixed. In fact, nearly all states continue
the equitable distribution of quality teachers. Short of providing to provide teachers with a defined-benefit pension system, an
direct support, states can also use policy levers to indicate to dis- expensive and inflexible model that neither reflects the realities
tricts that differential pay is not only permissible but necessary. of the modern workforce nor provides equitable benefits to all
teachers.
area 4: goal f Under defined benefit systems, states have made an obligation
to fund fixed benefits for teachers at retirement. However, the
Performance Pay financial health and sustainability of many states’ systems are
rationale questionable at best. Some systems carry high levels of unfund-
Performance pay is an important retention strategy. ed liabilities, with no strategy to pay these liabilities down in a
reasonable period, as defined by standard accounting practices.
Performance pay provides an opportunity to reward those teach-
Without reform, these systems are a house of cards, vulnerable
ers who consistently achieve positive results from their students.
to collapse as funding cannot keep up with promised benefits.
The traditional salary schedule used by districts pays all teach-
And it is taxpayers who will have to pay if it all tumbles down.
ers with the same inputs (i.e., experience and degree status) the
same amount regardless of outcomes. Not only is following a Pension plans disadvantage teachers early in their ca-
mandated schedule inconsistent with most other professions, it reers by overcommitting employer resources to retire-
may also deter high-achieving teachers from staying in the field, ment benefits.
because it offers no opportunity for financial reward for success.
The contribution of employers to their workers’ retirement ben-
efits is a valuable benefit, important to ensuring that individu-
als have sufficient retirement savings. Compensation resources,
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 149
California
aPPEnDiX
however, are not unlimited, and they must fund both current sal- own contributions plus contributions from the employer specifi-
aries and future retirement benefits. Mandated employer contri- cally on the individual employee’s behalf. This is fundamentally
butions to many states’ teacher pension systems are extremely more equitable than defined benefit plans, which are generally
high, leaving districts with little flexibility to be more innovative structured to require new teachers to fund the benefits of retir-
with their compensation strategies. This is further exacerbated ees. Moreover, defined contribution plans are inherently portable
for states in which teachers also participate in Social Security, and give employees flexibility and control over their retirement
requiring the district to pay even more toward teacher retire- savings. It must also be noted that defined benefit plans can be
ment. While retirement savings in addition to Social Security are portable and fair, if structured as cash balance plans or plans that
necessary, states are mandating contributions to two inflexible permit the withdrawal of employer contributions.
plans, rather than permitting options for teachers or their em-
ploying districts. area 4: goal i
This approach to compensation disadvantages teachers early Pension Neutrality
in their careers, as the commitment of resources to retirement
rationale
benefits almost certainly depresses salaries and prevents incen-
tives. Lower mandatory employer contribution rates (in states it is unfair to all teachers when pension wealth does
where they are too high; in some states they are shamefully low) not accumulate in a uniform way.
would free up compensation resources to implement the kinds In addition to the ways defined benefit pension systems disad-
of strategies suggested elsewhere in the Yearbook. In addition, vantage teachers described in Goal 4-H, the way pension wealth
some states require high employee contributions; the impact accumulates in some systems further compounds the inequity.
this has on teachers’ paychecks may impact retention, especially All pension systems use a multiplier to calculate the benefits an
early in teachers’ careers. individual is entitled to receive based on salary levels and years
of service. For example, a pension system may have a multiplier
of 2.0. In such case, pension benefits are determined by multi-
area 4: goal h plying average final annual salary by years of service and then
Pension Flexibility multiplying the product by 2.0. Thus, someone working fewer
rationale years with a lower final salary would appropriately receive less
in benefits than someone with more years of service and/or a
anachronistic features of teacher pension plans higher final salary. However, the multiplier in many pension sys-
disadvantage teachers early in their careers. tems is not fixed; it increases as years of service increase. When
Nearly all states continue to provide teachers with a defined a higher multiplier is used, teachers receive even more generous
benefit pension system, an expensive and inflexible model that benefits.
neither reflects the realities of the modern workforce nor pro-
Another way that pension benefits are awarded unfairly is through
vides equitable benefits to all teachers. To achieve the maximum
the common policy of setting retirement eligibility at different
benefits from such a plan, a teacher must begin and end his or
ages and years of service. In Hawaii, for example, a teacher with
her career in the same pension system. Teachers who leave be-
30 years of service may retire at age 55, while teachers with few-
fore vesting--which is as much as 10 years in some states--are
er years of service may not retire until age 62. This means that
generally entitled to nothing more than their own contributions
a teacher who started teaching in Hawaii at age 25 would reach
plus some interest. This approach may well serve as a retention
30 years of service at age 55 and receive seven additional years
strategy for some, but on a larger scale, it fails to reflect the
of full retirement benefits beyond what a teacher that started
realities of the current workforce. At present, the United States
at age 32 and cannot retire with full benefits until age 62 would
is experiencing an explosion in school-age populations in some
receive. A fair system would set a standard retirement age for all
states, while others decline. The nation’s workforce needs to be
participants, without factoring in years of service.
able to respond to these changes. The current workforce is in-
creasingly mobile, with most entering the workforce expecting Pension systems affect when teachers decide to retire
to change jobs many times. All workers, including teachers, may as they look to maximize their pension wealth.
move to jobs in other states with no intention of changing ca-
The year teachers reach retirement eligibility by age and/or years
reers. To younger teachers in particular, a defined benefit plan
of service, their pension wealth peaks; pension wealth then de-
may seem like a meaningless part of the compensation package
clines for each year they work beyond retirement age. Plans that
and thus fail to attract young talent to the profession. A pension
allow retirement based on years of service create unnecessary
plan that cannot move across state lines and requires a long-
peaks, and plans that allow a low retirement age create an incen-
term commitment may not seem like much of a benefit at all.
tive to retire earlier in one’s career than may be necessary. For
There are alternatives. Defined contribution plans are fair to all every year teachers continue to work beyond their eligibility for
teachers, at all points in their careers. These plans are more eq- unreduced retirement benefits, they lose that year of pension
uitable because each teacher’s benefits are funded by his or her benefits, thus decreasing their overall pension wealth.
150 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
aPPEnDiX
Although their yearly pension benefits would continue to rise as While some flexibility may be necessary because licensing tests
they earn additional service credit, it would only be at a small are not always administered with the needed frequency, the
percentage per year, which would not make up for the loss of availability of provisional certificates and waivers year after year
each year of benefits. signals that even the state does not put much value on its licens-
To try to balance this incentive to retire, some states have cre- ing standards or what they represent. States accordingly need to
ated DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Plan) programs. DROP ensure that all persons given full charge of children’s learning are
programs allow participants to place their monthly pension ben- required to pass the relevant licensing tests in their first year of
efits in a private investment account while still teaching and teaching, ideally before they enter the classroom. Licensing tests
earning a salary, thus retaining those benefits. These teachers are, are an important minimum benchmark in the profession, and
in effect, earning their pension and salary at the same time, and states that allow teachers to postpone passing these tests are
often at a relatively young age. abandoning one of the basic responsibilities of licensure.
A DROP program is a band-aid on the problem; it does not fix
what is structurally wrong--retirement at an early age without
area 5: goal B
reduction of benefits. For example, the hypothetical teacher
above decides to forgo retiring at age 47 in order to wait and Unsatisfactory Evaluations
qualify for her state’s DROP program at age 55. She now has 33 rationale
years of service and has reached a pension equal to 66 percent of
negative evaluations should have meaningful
her salary. She remains in DROP for the maximum allowable five
consequences.
years. During that time, her five years of lost pension benefits
Teacher evaluations are too often treated as mere formalities,
plus her five years of mandatory employee pension contribution
rather than as important tools for rewarding good teachers, help-
have been deposited in a private investment account. Upon retir-
ing average teachers to improve and holding weak teachers ac-
ing at age 60, she would receive the total of that private account
countable for poor performance. State policy should reflect the
plus a lifetime pension benefit annually of 66 percent of her final
importance of evaluations so that teachers and principals alike
salary. With the lump-sum payment of her DROP account and
take their consequences seriously. Accordingly, states should ar-
monthly pension benefit, she will receive 100 percent of her final
ticulate the consequences of negative evaluations. First, teachers
average salary for at least 10 years, and, depending on the state,
that receive a negative evaluation should be placed on improve-
she may also receive Social Security benefits. This generous guar-
ment plans. These plans should focus on performance areas that
anteed payout would be hard to find in any other profession.
directly connect to student learning and should list noted defi-
DROP programs do create an incentive for some teachers to re-
ciencies, define specific action steps necessary to address these
main past their eligible retirement, but at a high cost. DROP pro-
deficiencies and describe how progress will be measured. While
grams mean that districts still must find the funds to pay pen-
teachers that receive negative evaluations should receive sup-
sion benefits to teachers at a relatively young age when those
port and additional training, opportunities to improve should
dollars could be more effectively spent.
not be unlimited. States should articulate policies wherein two
negative evaluations within five years are sufficient justification
for dismissal.
area 5: goal a
Licensure Loopholes Employment status should not determine the conse-
rationale quences of a negative evaluation.
Teachers who have not passed licensing tests may Differentiating consequences of a negative evaluation based on
place students at risk. whether a teacher has probationary or nonprobationary status
puts the interests of adults before those of students. Ideally,
While states may need a regulatory basis for filling classroom
weaknesses and deficiencies would be identified and corrected
positions with a few people who do not hold full teaching cre-
during the probationary period: if the deficiencies were found
dentials, many of the regulations permitting this put the instruc-
to be insurmountable, the teacher would not be awarded per-
tional needs of children at risk, often year after year. For example,
manent status. However, in the absence of meaningful tenure
schools can make liberal use of provisional certificates or waiv-
processes based on teacher effectiveness, limiting significant
ers provided by the state if they fill classroom positions with
consequences to the probationary period is insufficient. Any
instructors who have completed a teacher preparation program
teacher who receives a negative evaluation, regardless of em-
but have not passed their state licensing tests. These allowances
ployment status, should be placed on an improvement plan, and
are permitted for up to three years in some states. The unfor-
any teacher who receives multiple negative evaluations, regard-
tunate consequence is that students’ needs are neglected in an
less of employment status, should be eligible for dismissal.
effort to extend personal consideration to adults who cannot
meet minimal state standards.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 151
California
aPPEnDiX
area 5: goal c
Dismissal for Poor Performance
rationale
States need to be explicit that teacher ineffectiveness
is grounds for dismissal.
Most states have laws on their books that address teacher dis-
missal; however, these laws are much more likely to consider
criminal and moral violations than performance. When perfor-
mance is included, it is usually in a euphemistic term such as
“incompetency,” “inefficiency” or “incapacity.” These terms are
ambiguous at best and may be interpreted as concerning der-
eliction of duty rather than ineffectiveness. Without laws that
clearly state that teacher ineffectiveness is grounds for dismissal,
districts may feel they lack the legal basis for terminating consis-
tently poor performers.
Due process must be efficient and expedited.
Teachers who are dismissed for any grounds, including ineffec-
tiveness, are entitled to due process. However, process rights
that allow for multiple levels of appeal are not fair to teach-
ers, districts and especially students. All parties have a right to
have disputes settled quickly. Cases that drag on for years drain
resources from school districts and create a disincentive for dis-
tricts to attempt to terminate poor performers. Teachers are not
well served by such processes either, as they are entitled to final
resolution quickly.
Decisions about teachers should be made by those
with educational expertise.
Multiple levels of appeal almost invariably involve courts or arbi-
trators who lack educational expertise. It is not in students’ best
interest to have the evidence of teachers’ effectiveness evalu-
ated by those who are not educators. Teachers’ opportunity to
appeal should occur at the district level and involve only those
with educational expertise. This can be done in a manner that is
fair to all parties by including retired teachers or other knowl-
edgeable individuals who are not current district employees.
152 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
California
Board of Directors
Stacey Boyd, Chair Clara M. Lovett
Chief Executive Officer, The Savvy Source for Parents President Emerita, Northern Arizona University
Chester E. Finn, Jr. Barbara O’Brien
President, The Thomas B. Fordham Institute Lieutenant Governor, State of Colorado
Ira Fishman Carol G. Peck
Managing Director, NFL Players Association President and Chief Executive Officer,
Marti Watson Garlett Rodel Charitable Foundation of Arizona
Vice President, Academic Programs and Danielle Wilcox
Professional Licensure, Laureate Education, Inc. Consultant
Henry L. Johnson John Winn
Senior Advisor, B&D Consulting Chief Program Officer,
Jason Kamras National Math and Science Initiative
Director of Human Capital Strategy for Teachers, Kate Walsh
District of Columbia Public Schools President, National Council on Teacher Quality
2005 National Teacher of the Year
Donald N. Langenberg
Chancellor Emeritus, University System of Maryland
Advisory Board
• Steven J. Adamowski, Hartford Public Schools • Sir Michael Barber, McKinsey and Company • Roy E. Barnes, former Governor,
State of Georgia • Lawrence S. Braden, Saint Paul’s School, New Hampshire • Cynthia G. Brown, Center for American Progress
• Andrew Chen, EduTron • Jo Lynne DeMary, Virginia Commonwealth University • Paula S. Dominguez, Rhode Island House
of Representatives • Cheryl Ellis, Sugar Creek Charter School • Michael Feinberg, The KIPP Foundation • Eleanor S. Gaines,
Grayhawk Elementary School, Arizona • Michael Goldstein, The Match School, Massachusetts • Eric A. Hanushek,
The Hoover Institution • Joseph Hawkins, Westat • Frederick M. Hess, American Enterprise Institute • Paul T. Hill, Center
on Reinventing Public Education • E.D. Hirsch, Core Knowledge Foundation • Michael Johnston, Colorado State Senate
• Frank Keating, former Governor, State of Oklahoma • Martin J. Koldyke, Academy for Urban School Leadership
• Wendy Kopp, Teach For America • Amy Jo Leonard, Turtle Mountain Elementary School, North Dakota • Deborah M. McGriff,
NewSchools Venture Fund • Ellen Moir, New Teacher Center • Robert N. Pasternack, Maximus Inc. • Michael Podgursky,
University of Missouri-Columbia • Michelle Rhee, District of Columbia Public Schools • Stefanie Sanford, Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation • Laura Schwedes, KIPP: STAR College Prep Charter School • Daniel Willingham, University of Virginia
National Council on Teacher Quality
1420 New York Avenue, NW • Washington, DC 20005
Tel: 202-393-0020 Fax: 202-393-0095 Web: www.nctq.org
NCTQ is available to work with individual states to improve teacher policies.
For more information, please contact:
Sandi Jacobs
Vice President
sjacobs@nctq.org
202-393-0020