2012 state teacher policy yearbook alabama nctq report

7/27/2019 2012 State Teacher Policy Yearbook Alabama NCTQ Report

1/36

NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2012 ALABAMA

: 1

Admissioninto

PreparationPrograms

ElementaryTeac

herPreparation

SecondaryTeac

herPreparation

SpecialEducation

TeacherPrepara

tion

StudentTeaching

TeacherPrepara

tionProgram

Accountability

2012 State Teacher

Policy YearbookImproving TeacherPreparation in Alabama

StatePoliciesin

NeedofA

ttention


2/36

Acknowledgments

STATES

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

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

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

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

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

responded to our inquiries. We thank the states or their ongoing willingness to engage in dialogue with us.

FUNDERS

The primary unders or the 2012 Yearbook were:

nBill and Melinda Gates Foundation

nThe Joyce Foundation

nCarnegie Corporation o New York nThe Walton Family Foundation

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

STAFF

Sandi Jacobs, Project Director

Sarah Brody, Project Assistant

Kathryn M. Doherty,Special Contributor

Kelli Lakis, Lead Researcher

Stephanie T. Maltz, Researcher

Thank you to the team at CPS Gumpert or their design o the 2012 Yearbook. Thanks also to Colleen Hale and Je Hale

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


3/36


: 1

Improving Teacher Preparation inAlabama

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

requirements, teacher preparation has yet to capture states attention.

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

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

B-

YearbookGoal Topic

2012Score

1-A Admission into Preparation Programs

1-B Elementary Teacher Preparation

1-C Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction

1-D Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics

1-E Middle School Teacher Preparation

1-F Secondary Teacher Preparation

1-G Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science

1-H Secondary Teacher Preparation in Social Studies

1-I Special Education Teacher Preparation

1-J Assessing Professional Knowledge

1-K Student Teaching

1-L Teacher Preparation Program Accountability

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


4/36

2 : NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2012ALABAMA

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

Alabama was helpul in providing NCTQ with additional inormation about policy changes related to teacherpreparation. The state also noted that as o September 1, 2012, all applicants or initial certication in early child-hood and/or elementary education must attain a passing score on the Praxis II Teaching Reading assessment,which addresses the ve components o the science o reading. Further, all preparation programs are required toaddress these components. (These requirements were outlined in the 2011 Yearbook.)

Alabama added that it continues to require that all teachers, including secondary teachers, pass a content testwhen adding subject-area endorsements to an existing license. The state also recently adopted three new PraxisII tests or special education teachers in addition to the requirement that they also pass the subject-matter testsrequired o general elementary education teachers as well as the reading test.

Alabama was also helpul in providing NCTQ with additional inormation about state authority or teacher prepa-ration and licensing.

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

changes in Alabama:

Elementary Teacher Preparation

Eective September 1, 2012, Alabama requires that all elementary teachers, as a condition o licensure, pass the

Praxis II Elementary Education: Multiple Subjects test, which reports subscores in each subject area.

http://www.alsde.edu/Home/Executive/BoardResolutions.aspx?view=1911

Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics

The states newly adopted Praxis II Multiple Subjects test also contains a separately scored math subsection.


Admission into Preparation Programs

Alabama now requires aspiring teachers to pass a three-part basic skills test as a criterion or admission intoteacher preparation programs. http://www.alsde.edu/Home/Executive/BoardResolutions.aspx?view=1911

Assessing Proessional Knowledge

Alabama now requires all teachers to pass a Praxis II pedagogy test as a condition o licensure.



5/36


: 3

COMING SOON

2012Grade

2011Grade

Delivering well-prepared teachers

ALABAMA B- C

Alaska F F

Arizona D- D-

Arkansas C C

California D D

Colorado D D-Connecticut C+ C-

Delaware D- D-

District of Columbia D D

Florida B- B-

Georgia C C

Hawaii D D

Idaho D D

Illinois D D

Indiana B- C+

Iowa D D

Kansas D+ D+

Kentucky C+ C-Louisiana C C

Maine D+ D

Maryland D+ D+

Massachusetts C+ C+

Michigan D+ D+

Minnesota C+ C

Mississippi C C

Missouri D+ D+

Montana F F

Nebraska D- D-

Nevada D- D-

New Hampshire C-D

New Jersey C- D+

New Mexico D+ D+

New York C- D+

North Carolina D- D-

North Dakota D D

Ohio C- D+

Oklahoma C C

Oregon D- D-

Pennsylvania C C

Rhode Island C D+

South Carolina C- C-

South Dakota DD

Tennessee B- B-

Texas C+ C+

Utah D D

Vermont C- D+

Virginia C- C-

Washington D+ D+

West Virginia C- C-

Wisconsin D+ D

Wyoming F F

Average State Grade D+ D

Figure 1

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

How are Alabamas programs doing? NCTQwill soon answer that question with our orth-coming review o the nations higher educa-tion-based teacher preparation programs thatproduce 99 percent o traditionally-prepared

teachers. The Review will nd the programsthat are doing the best job preparing tomor-rows educators, those that need to improveand those that need to be radically restructured.

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

For a sneak peek, see page 6.


6/36


1. Raise admission standards.

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

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

2.Align teacher preparation with

Common Core State Standards.

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

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

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

3. Improve clinical preparation.

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

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

4.Raise licensing standards.

Eliminate K-8 generalist licenses.

Require subject-matter testing for middle school teacher candidates.

Require subject-matter testing for secondary teacher candidates.

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

knowledge of the subjects taught.

5.Dont lower the bar or

special education teachers.

Do away with K-12 special education teacher licenses.

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

6.Hold teacher preparation

programs accountable.

Collect data that connect student achievement gains toteacher preparation programs.

Gather other meaningful data that reflect program performance.

Establish the minimum standard of performance for eachcategory of data.

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

Teacher Preparation Policy Checklist or States


7/36


: 5

Critical Issues or State Teacher Preparation Policy

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

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

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

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

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

Alabama now requires prospective teachers to pass each section o the AECTP basicskills tests (Reading or Inormation, Applied Mathematics and Writing) as a criterionor admission to teacher preparation programs. Although the state sets the minimum score or this test, it is

normed just to the prospective teacher population. In addition, the states current 2.5 GPA requirement is toolow to be considered a rigorous bar or program admission.

NEXT STEPS FOR ALABAMA:

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

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

n

Increase the GPA requirement.Requiring only a 2.5 GPA sets a very low bar or the academic perormance o the states prospectiveteachers. Alabama should consider using a higher GPA requirement or program admission in combina-tion with a test o academic prociency. A sliding scale o GPA and test scores would allow fexibility orcandidates in demonstrating academic ability. When using such multiple measures, a sliding scale thatstill ensures minimum standards would allow students to earn program admission through a higher GPAand a lower test score, or vice-versa.

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

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

Illinois

Texas

49

1

1


8/36


n Consider requiring that candidates passsubject-matter tests as a condition oadmissions into teacher programs.

In addition to ensuring that programs require ameasure o academic perormance or admission,Alabama might also want to consider requiringcontent testing prior to program admission asopposed to at the point o program completion.Teacher candidates are likely to have completedcoursework that covers related subject-mattercontent in the prerequisite classes required orprogram admission. Thus, it would be sensibleto have candidates take content tests while thisknowledge is resh rather than wait two yearsto ulll the requirement, and candidates lack-

ing sucient expertise would be able to remedydecits prior to entering ormal preparation.

TESTN

ORM

EDTO

COLLEG

E-

BOUNDPO

PULATI

ONPRIORTO

ADMISSIONTO

PREP

PROGRA

M

Testnorm

edonly

tote

ache

r

candid

atesbefo

readmis

sion

toprep

program

Testnorm

edonly

tote

ache

r

candid

atesdu

ringor

after

completio

nofprep

program

Note

strequire

d

Do states appropriately

test teacher candidates'academic proficiency?

1 23 18 9

1

ALABAMA

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South DakotaTennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 2

SNEAK PEEK:Teacher Prep Review

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

Are Alabamas undergraduate teacherpreparation programs in the Reviewsufficiently selective?

are not suciently selective.64%

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


9/36


: 7

Critical Attention: Elementary Teacher Preparation

Alabama could do more to ensure that newelementary teachers are ready to teach to theCommon Core Standards.

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

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

And Alabama, like all states, must ensure that its teachers are prepared to teachto these high standards.

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

Commendably, Alabama now requires elementary teachers to pass the Praxis IIMultiple Subjects assessment, which reports subscores or all our core contentareas, including math. In addition, the state also requires the newly developed Praxis II Teaching Readingtest. However, the states coursework requirements lack the specicity to guarantee relevancy to the elemen-

tary classroom.


n Ensure that the new content test sufciently measures knowledge in all subjects.

Alabama is on the right track by requiring a content test or elementary teacher candidates that reportssubscores or all our core content areas. However, the state should monitor this new assessment toguarantee that it is appropriately aligned with the Common Core Standards. Alabama should also set thepassing score or each subtest so that it is meaningul and refects a high level o perormance.

n Ensure that teacher preparation programs deliver a comprehensive program o study in broadliberal arts coursework.

Alabama should either articulate a more specic set o standards or establish comprehensive courseworkrequirements or elementary teacher candidates that align with the Common Core Standards to ensurethat candidates will complete coursework relevant to the common topics in elementary grades. An ade-quate curriculum is likely to require approximately 36 credit hours in the core subject areas o English,science, social studies and ne arts. Although elementary teacher candidates in Alabama must complete12 credit hours each in English, science and social science, the states coursework requirements lack thespecicity necessary to guarantee relevancy to the elementary classroom. The states teacher standardslack mention o important subject areas.

44

1

6

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,Delaware, District o Columbia,Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,New Jersey, New Mexico,New York, North Carolina,North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,Wisconsin, Wyoming

ALABAMA, Caliornia, Connecticut,Indiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire

Massachusetts


10/36


Do states measure new teachers knowledge

of the science of reading?

ALABAMA

Figure 3n Require teacher preparation programs toprovide mathematics content specifcallygeared to the needs o elementary teachers.

Although Alabamas teaching standards requiresome knowledge in key areas o mathematics,the state should require teacher preparation pro-grams to provide mathematics content speci-cally geared to the needs o elementary teachers.This includes specic coursework in oundations,algebra and geometry, with some statistics.

n Monitor new reading assessment to ensureadequacy and rigor.

Although it is commendable that Alabama nowrequires elementary teacher candidates to dem-

onstrate knowledge o reading instruction, thetest selected by the state is actually intendedor reading specialists and accordingly spans theentire K-12 spectrum. The state should monitorthis assessment to make sure it really is rigor-ous and an appropriate measure o teachersknowledge o and skill in scientically based ear-ly reading instruction. The track record o Praxisassessments in this regard is mixed at best, andthe K-12 span might make it possible or candi-dates to achieve the passing score without su-cient knowledge and skills or the elementary

classroom.

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

In addition to enhancing content knowledge,this requirement would ensure that prospectiveteachers in Alabama take higher-level academiccoursework. This requirement also provides animportant saeguard in the event that candidatesare unable to successully complete clinical prac-tice requirements. With an academic concentra-

tion (or better still a major or minor), candidateswho are not ready or the classroom and do notpass student teaching can still be on track tocomplete a degree.

YES1 No3InadequateTest2

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

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

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

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

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

Minnesotas website.

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

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

108

33


11/36


: 9

No3

2

YES1 InadequateTest2

11

38

ALABAMA

Do states measure new elementary teachers

knowledge of math?

Figure 4

Do states ensure that

elementary teachers

know core content?

ELEM

ENTARY

CONTENT

TESTWITH

SEPARA

TEPA

SSIN

G

SCORE

FOREA

CHSUBJECT

Elem

enta

rycont

entte

stwith

separate

passin

gscorefo

r

som

esubj

ects

Elem

enta

rycont

entte

stwith

com

posite

score

Note

stre

quir

ed

9 9 29 4

1

2

2

2

3

5

4

ALABAMA

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 5

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

2. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado, Delaware, Districto Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada,New Mexico, New York4, North Carolina5, North Dakota, Ohio,Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,Wyoming

3. Montana, Nebraska

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

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

1. Testing is not required or initial licensure.

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

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

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

5. Oregon allows alternative assessment or candidateswho ail twice.


12/36


ALABAMA

Alaska

ArizonaArkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South CarolinaSouth Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

FINE

ARTS

ArtH

istory

Music

SCIENCE

Chemist

ry

Physics

GeneralPh

ysica

lScienc

e

EarthScie

nce

Biology/Lif

eScie

nce

SOCIAL STUDIES

Americ

anHist

oryI

Americ

anHist

oryII

Americ

anGovernm

ent

WorldHist

ory(A

ncie

nt)

WorldHist

ory(M

odern)

WorldHist

ory

(Non

-Weste

rn)

Geography

ENGLISH

America

nLit

eratur

e

World/B

ritish

Literatur

e

Writin

g/Gramm

ar/

Com

positio

n

Child

ren'sLite

ratu

reDo states expect

elementary teachersto have in-depth

knowledge of

core content?

Subject mentioned Subject covered in depth

Figure 6

ALABAMA

Alaska

ArizonaArkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South CarolinaSouth Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming


13/36


: 11

Figure 8

Teacher licensing structure in Alabama

Massachusetts

ALABAMAAlaska

ArkansasIdahoIowa

MarylandNew Jersey

OhioSouth Dakota

TennesseeVirginia

West Virginia

ColoradoConnecticut

DelawareDistrict of Columbia

HawaiiIndianaKansas

KentuckyLouisiana

MaineMississippiMissouri

New HampshireNorth DakotaRhode Island

South CarolinaTexasUtah

VermontWisconsinWyoming

Oklahoma Pennsylvania

Figure 7

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

State setspassing scoreat the mean

(average score ofall test takers)

State sets score wellbelow mean

(one standard deviation~16th percentile)

State sets score farbelow mean

(two standard deviations~2nd percentile)

50th Percentile

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

EARLY CHILDHOOD (PRE K-3)

ELEMENTARY (K-6)

MIDDLE LEVEL (4-8)SINGLE SUBJECT (4-8)

SECONDARY (6-12)

SINGLE SUBJECT (6-12)

COLLABORATIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION (K-6)

EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL ED (BIRTH-AGE 8) COLLABORATIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION (6-12)

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


14/36


Critical Attention: Middle School Teacher Preparation

Alabama is on track to ensure that new middle schoolteachers will be prepared to teach appropriategrade-level content.

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

Too many states ail to distinguish the knowledge and skills needed bymiddle school teachers rom those needed by an elementary teacher.

Whether teaching a single subject in a departmentalized setting orteaching multiple subjects in a sel-contained classroom, middleschool teachers must be able to teach signicantly more advancedcontent than what elementary teachers are expected to teach.

Commendably, Alabama does not oer a K-8 generalist license, andall new middle school teachers are required to pass a Praxis II single-subject content test to attain licensure.

3

25

23

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

Maryland, Massachusetts, New York

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


15/36


: 13

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

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

3. With the exception o mathematics.

4. Oregon oers 3-8 license.

5. Wisconsin oers 1-8 license.

K-8LICEN

SEN

OT

OFFERED

K-8

license

off

ered

for

self

-contain

edc

lassro

om

s

K-8

license

off

ered

Do states distinguish middlegrade preparation fromelementary preparation?

32 5 14

3

4

5

1

2

Figure 9

ALABAMA

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming


16/36


Do middle school teachers

have to pass an appropriate

content test in every core

subject they are licensed

to teach?YE

S No,te

stdo

esnot

report

subs

core

sfo

r

allc

oresubj

ects

No,K

-8lic

ensere

quir

es

only

elem

enta

ryte

st

No,te

stin

gof

alls

ubje

cts

notre

quir

ed

25 4 15 7

1

2

4

5

6

7

3

ALABAMA

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 10


17/36


: 15

Critical Attention: Secondary Teacher Preparation

Alabama could do more to ensure that newsecondary teachers will be prepared to teachappropriate grade-level content.

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

a rigorous test ensures that teacher candidates are sufciently and appropriately

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

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

been covered.

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

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

do generally require content testing or secondary teachersallow some science

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

loopholes.

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

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

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

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

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

background in biology could be ully certifed to teach advanced chemistry or phys-

ics having passed only a general science testand perhaps answering most o the chemistry or physics ques-

tions incorrectly.

Just as with broad feld science, most states oer a general social studies license at the secondary level. For

this certifcation, teachers can have a background in a wide variety o felds, ranging rom history and political

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

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

perhaps allhistory questions incorrectly.

Commendably, Alabama requires that its secondary teacher candidates pass a Praxis II content test to teach

any core secondary subjects. However, the state oers both a comprehensive teaching license with a special-

ization in general science and a general social studies license. Teachers with these licenses are not required to

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

NEXT STEPS FOR ALABAMA:n Require secondary science teachers to pass a content test or each discipline they arelicensed to teach.

By allowing a general science certicationand only requiring a general knowledge science examAla-bama is not ensuring that these secondary teachers possess adequate subject-specic content knowl-edge. The states required assessment combines all subject areas (e.g., biology, chemistry, physics) anddoes not report separate scores or each subject area.

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

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

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

Indiana, Minnesota, Tennessee

12

3

36


18/36


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

YES

No

Do all secondary teachers

have to pass a content

test in every subject

area they are licensed

to teach?

3

Looph

ole

in

science

28

Looph

ole

in

social

studie

s

34 12

ALABAMA

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

1

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 11

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

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


19/36


: 17

Critical Attention: Special Education Teacher Preparation

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

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

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

rigorous standards apply to special education students just as they do to other

students.

The challenge o ensuring that teachers are prepared to teach to the new Common

Core State Standards is even more pronounced or special education teachers, who

typically have had to meet an even lower bar or content preparation than general

educators. And certifcation rules or special education teachers that do not dier-

entiate between teaching at the elementary and secondary levels only exacerbate

the problem.

Allowing a generic K-12 special education certifcation makes it virtually impos-

sible and certainly impractical or states to ensure that these teachers know all the

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

pedagogical knowledge.

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

cial education students, such as those with severe cognitive disabilities, it is deeply problematic or the

overwhelming majority o high-incidence special education students who are expected to learn grade-

level content.

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

mentary special education teachers to the same subject-matter testing requirements as general elemen-

tary teachers. However, as noted in the elementary section, these standards are insufcient to ensure

that teachers will be prepared to teach to the Common Core State Standards. Further, Alabama does not

require secondary special education teachers to pass content tests as a condition o licensure, although

the state does articulate some coursework requirements or special education teachers.


n Provide a broad liberal arts program o study to elementary special education candidates.

Alabama should ensure that special education teacher candidates who will teach elementary gradespossess not only knowledge o eective learning strategies but also relevant knowledge o the sub-ject matter at hand by requiring core-subject coursework relevant to the elementary classroom. Fail-ure to ensure that teachers possess requisite content knowledge deprives special education studentso the opportunity to reach their academic potential.

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

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

35

0

16


20/36


DOES

NOT

OFF

ERA

K-12

CER

TIFI

CATI

ON

Off

ersK

-12

and

grad

e-sp

ecifi

c

certifi

cati

on(s)

Off

ersonly

aK-

12

certifi

catio

n

Do states distinguish

between elementary

and secondary special

education teachers?

16 10 25

1

1

ALABAMA

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 12

n Ensure that secondary special educationteachers possess adequate contentknowledge.

Secondary special education teachers are re-quently generalists who teach many core sub-ject areas. While it may be unreasonable toexpect secondary special education teachersto meet the same requirements or each sub-ject they teach as other teachers who teachonly one subject, Alabamas current policy orequiring no subject-matter testing is unac-ceptable and will not help special educationstudents to meet rigorous learning standards.To provide a middle ground, Alabama shouldconsider a customized HOUSSE route or new

secondary special education teachers and lookto the fexibility oered by the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA), which allowsor a combination o testing and coursework todemonstrate requisite content knowledge inthe classroom.

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


21/36


: 19

Elementary Subject-Matter Test

Required or an elementaryspecial education license

ALABAMA, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey,New York, Oregon1, Pennsylvania2, Rhode Island,Texas, West Virginia3, Wisconsin

Required or a K-12special education license

Colorado, Idaho

Secondary Subject-Matter Test(s)

Tests in all core subjectsrequired or secondaryspecial education license

None

Test in at least one subjectrequired or secondary specialeducation license

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, New Jersey,New York4, Oregon1, Pennsylvania2,Rhode Island, West Virginia3

Required or a K-12

special education license

None

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 13


22/36


Critical Attention: Student Teaching

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

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

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

Alabama commendably requires that candidates be ull-time student teachers ora ull semester in the teaching eld or which certication is sought. However,although the state articulates some important requirements or cooperating teachers, it does not address the

most essential: cooperating teachers classroom eectiveness.

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

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

ALABAMA, Alaska, Arizona,Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, District oColumbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,

North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, South Carolina,South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,Wisconsin, Wyoming

Florida, Indiana, Tennessee

48

3

0


23/36


: 21

1. Based on new REPA II regulations.

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

COOPERATIN

GTE

ACHER

SELE

CTED

BASED

ON

EFFE

CTIVEN

ESS

FULLTIMESTUDEN

T

TEACHIN

GLA

STSAT

LEAST10WEEKS

Do states requirethe elements of a

high-quality studentteaching experience?

283

2

ALABAMA

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana1

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 14


24/36


Critical Attention: Teacher Preparation Program Accountability

Alabama could do more to hold its teacher preparationprograms accountable or the eectiveness o the teachersthey produce.

Teacher preparation programs operate by virtue o state approval. As such, it is upto states to connect that approval to accountability measures that ensure that allapproved programs meet minimum perormance standards. Such an accountabil-ity system inorms the publicincluding prospective teachers seeking a programas well as districts hiring graduatesby shining a light on high perormers as wellas identiying those programs perorming poorly.

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

Although it does not connect student achievement gains to teacher preparationprograms, Alabama does collect some program-specic, objective data that refect program perormance,such as satisaction ratings rom schools and evaluation results or program graduates. The state has also

established minimum standards or its traditional teacher preparation program perormance or each cat-egory o data collected and reports these data on the states website. Some o the data are reported at theprogram level. But Alabama does not collect data that connects student achievement gains to teacher prepa-ration programs, nor does it set minimum standards or perormance or its alternate route programs.


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

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

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

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

Florida, Louisiana

37

2

12


25/36


: 23

ALABAMA

Do states use studentachievement data to hold

teacher preparationprograms accountable?

Figure 15n Establish minimum standards o perormanceor accountability purposes or all licensurepathways.

Alabama currently appears to apply some mea-surable criteria or conerring program approvalto its traditional programs. The state shouldalso set such standards or perormance or itsalternate route programs or each category odata collected.

n Ensure that criteria or program approvalresult in greater accountability.

Alabama has taken more steps than manystates to develop an accountability system orteacher preparation programs. The state should

ensure that its system is sucient to dieren-tiate program perormance, including amongalternate route programs, and that ollow-up actions are taken as warranted or poorlyperorming programs.

n Maintain ull authority over teacherpreparation program approval.

There appears to be considerable overlap betweenthe public process o state program approval andthe private process o national accreditation inAlabama. While it is not unreasonable that the

state may wish to coordinate these processesor institutions also seeking national accredita-tion, Alabama should ensure that it is the statethat considers the evidence o program peror-mance and makes the decision about whetherprograms should continue to be authorized toprepare teachers.

YES1 In Race to theTop plan, butnot in policy2

No3

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

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

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

8 7

36


26/36


1. Traditional preparation only.

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

3. Required, but not yet available.

4. Alternate routes only.

5. Based on new REPA II regulations.

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

Do states hold teacher

preparation programs

accountable?

OBJECTIVE

PROGRAM

-

SPECIFI

CDA

TACOLLECTED

MINIMUM

STANDA

RDSFO

R

PERF

ORM

ANCESET

DATA

PUBLICLY

AVAILABLE

ONWEB

SITE

33 5 15

1 2

2

2

1

1

1

4

4

1

4

2

ALABAMA

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado3

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana5

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine1

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada1

New Hampshire6

New Jersey1

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio1

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania1

Rhode Island1

South Carolina1


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia1

Washington

West Virginia1

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 16

TEACHER PRODUCTION IN ALABAMA

States have long established requirements or teacher prepa-

ration and licensure and have lately turned their attention

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

issue o teacher production. From the number o teachers who

graduate rom preparation programs each year, only a sub-

set are certied and only some o those certied are actuallyhired in the state; the relationship between these numbers has

important implications or related policymaking.

States are rightly ocused on areas o chronic teacher short-ages, such as secondary mathematics and science, but little

consideration is given to areas o consistent oversupply, par-

ticularly the overproduction in most states o elementary

teachers. While it is certainly desirable to produce a big enoughpool to give districts choice in hiring , the substantial oversupply

in some teaching areas is not good or the proession. Limited

resources are squandered on individuals who will not go on

to teach, most critically the scarce supply o student teach-

ing placements with eective cooperating teachers. Admissions

criteria, licensure requirements and program accountabilitystandards may be unnecessarily depressed i the dots are not

connected rom graduation to certication to actual employ-

ment in a district.

Marylands Teacher Stang Report provides a model or

other states. Published biennially, the report has been track-

ing stang trends in the state or almost three decades. Whileits primary purpose is to determine teacher shortage areas, it

also identies areas o surplus. By collecting hiring data rom

districts, Maryland has a rich set o data that can inorm policy

decisions.

The latest edition o the Teacher Stang Report can be

ound at: http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/divisions/certication/progapproval/mtsr.

Alabama teacher production data: NCTQ was unable to nd

any published data on teacher production in Alabama that con-

nects program completion, certication and hiring statistics.

Alabama does report the total number o graduates recom-mended or their rst teaching certicate within each institu-

tions report card. However, only the aggregate number is pre-

sented, rather than the totals or individual endorsements, and

no connection is made to district-level hiring. Further, Alabamahas only posted report cards through 2009.


27/36


: 25

1. National accreditation can be substituted or state approval.

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

n To ensure adequate subject-area knowledge,

Alabama shouldrequire secondary teacherswho obtain certifcation in general science

or general social studies to pass individual

content tests (or a composite test thatreports individual subscores), or each disciplinethey will be licensed to teach, as noted in thesecondary critical attention section.

n As a rst step toward using an assessmentor admission to a teacher preparation pro-gram that compares candidates to the general

college-going population, Alabama shouldallow teacher candidates to submit ACT/SAT/GRE scores that demonstrate academic

profciency.

What is the relationship

between state program

approval and national

accreditation?

Natio

nala

ccreditatio

nis

require

dfo

rpro

gram

approval

Overla

pofaccredita

tion

and

stateapproval

31 12

STATEH

ASITSO

WN

APPR

OVA

LPRO

CESS

8

1

1

1

1

ALABAMA

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 17


28/36


29/36


: 27

The policies discussed in the Critical Attention section o this report primarily ocus on traditional teacherpreparation programs because such programs presently train the vast majority o new teachers. O course,there are some teachers that attain licensure outside o these traditional programs. Alternate routes to cer-tication were developed based on the idea that there should be pathways into the teaching proession ornontraditional candidates who are able to demonstrate strong subject-area knowledge and an above-averageacademic background.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

n Limits are not placed on the subjects and/or grades an alternate route teachercan teach, and alternate route providers are not restricted to colleges and universities;districts and nonprots should be permitted to oer programs as well.

Alabama oers three alternate routes: the Alternative Baccalaureate-Level Certicate (ABC) Approach, thePreliminary Certicate Approach and the the Alternative Class A Masters Degree-Level program. Alabamarequires candidates or all routes to demonstrate subject-matter knowledge and provides fexibility withtest-out options or nontraditional candidates, but only the ABC route provides or streamlined and relevantcoursework. Alabamas alternate routes would be signicantly improved i they provided an adequate prac-tice teaching opportunity or intensive mentoring and encouraged a diversity o providers (see Figure 19).


n Set rigorous admissions requirements or all alternate routes.Alabama currently requires candidates in the Preliminary Certicate route to have a minimum 3.0 GPAor admission into the program, but the state requires only a 2.5 GPA or admission into its ABC andAlternative Class A routes. Setting a GPA requirement is a worthwhile rst step toward ensuring thatcandidates are o good academic standing. As such, Alabama should consider increasing the GPA require-ment or both its ABC and Alternative Class A routes to ensure that all candidates in all programs meeta more rigorous bar. As is the case or Preliminary Certicate candidates, the standard should be higher

Alternate Routes to Certication


30/36


than what is required o traditional teacher candidates. Alternatively, the state could require one o thestandardized tests o academic prociency commonly used in higher education or graduate admissions,such as the GRE. Alabama also should eliminate its basic skills test. Such minimum competency tests are

impractical and ineective or candidates already holding a college degree.n Ensure that preparation coursework and support target the immediate needs o new teachers.

States should ensure that alternate route participants are required to meet only standards or completecoursework that is practical and immediately helpul to a new teacher. While Alabama is commendedor speciying the nature and amount o coursework to be completed by ABC candidates, the stateshould also articulate such guidelines or its other alternate routes. Alabama should also ensure that allalternate route programs are o a reasonable length, that is, they are able to be completed in no morethan two years.

In addition, Alabama should strengthen its induction experience or new alternate route teachers.Although the state requires all new teachers to work with a mentor, there are insucient guidelinesensuring that the mentoring is structured or new teacher success. Eective strategies include practice

teaching prior to teaching in the classroom, intensive mentoring with ull classroom support in the rstew weeks or months o school, a reduced teaching load and release time to allow new teachers toobserve experienced teachers during the school day.

n Eliminate restrictions on alternate route usage and providers.

While Alabamas Preliminary Certicate and Alternative Class A routes are authorized to provide teach-ers or all grades and subjects, Alabama currently has restrictions on its ABC route. Alabama shouldreconsider these limits, as alternate routes can help expand the teacher pipeline throughout the state,and such subject and grade-level restrictions are counterproductive to this goal.

Further, Alabama should specically authorize alternate route programs run by local school districts andnonprots, as well as institutions o higher education. A good diversity o providers helps all programs,both university- and non-university-based, to improve.


31/36


: 29

Do states provide real

alternate pathways to

certification?

Offeredrouteisdisingenuous

Alternateroutethatneeds

significantimprovements

26 19

GENUINEORNEARLY

GENUINEALTERNATEROUTE

6

ALABAMA

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 18


32/36


What are the characteristics

of states alternate routes?

PREREQ

UISITE

OFSTRO

NG

ACADEM

ICPERF

ORM

ANCE

VERIFI

CATI

ON

OFSUBJECT-

MATTERKN

OWLED

GE

AVAILABILITY

OFTE

ST

OUT

OPTIONS

STRE

AMLINED

COURSEW

ORK

RELEVA

NT

COURSEW

ORK

REAS

ONABLE

PROGRA

MLEN

GTH

PRACTI

CETE

ACHIN

GAND/

OR

INTENSIVE

MEN

TORIN

G

BROAD

USA

GE

DIVERSITY

OFPR

OVIDERS

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

ALABAMA

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Figure 19


33/36


: 31

1.Set high standards and provide

fexibility or meeting them.

Screen candidates based on academic ability.

Set a higher standard for entry than is set for

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

licensing test.

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

2. Provide streamlined preparation.

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

Require that the alternate route is an accelerated

course of study.

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

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

Provide intensive mentoring.

3. Remove regulatory obstacles.

Allow for a diversity of alternate route providers.

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

Alternate Route Policy Checklist or States


34/36


Figure 20

Authority for Teacher Preparation in Alabama

The State

Superintendent

of Education is

appointed by the

State Board of

Education.

Although the Code o

Alabama provides or aProessional Teachers

Standards Commission,no members were ever

appointed to the entity.Members of the Alabama

State Board o Education

are elected.

There is overlap between

NCATE accreditation and

state approval of teacher

education programs.

The Alabama StateBoard o Education

holds the authority

to approve teacher

education programs.

The Alabama StateBoard o Educationholds the authority

for setting teacher

preparation program

standards and

admission criteria.

The Alabama StateBoard o Education

is the state

authority charged

with adopting rules

regarding teacher

certification.

Governor o Alabama


35/36

Red

Yellow

Green

AUTHORITY

ADMISSION INTO

PREPARATION

PROGRAMS

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

State Board of Education

STUDENT

TEACHING

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


AUTHORITY

ELEMENTARY

TEACHER

PREPARATION

Ensure that the elementary content test suciently measuresknowledge in all subjects.

Require teacher preparation programs to provide mathematicscontent specically geared to the needs o elementaryteachers.

Monitor the reading test to ensure rigor.

Require a content specialization in an academic subject area.


SECONDARY

TEACHER

PREPARATION

Require secondary science and social studies teachers to pass a

content test or each discipline they are licensed to teach.State Board of Education

SPECIALEDUCATIONTEACHERPREPARATION

Ensure that secondary special education teachers possessadequate content knowledge.


TEACHERPREPARATIONPROGRAMACCOUNTABILITY

Collect perormance data that connect student achievementgains to teacher preparation programs.

Establish minimum standards o perormance oraccountability purposes or all licensure pathways.


AUTHORITY

MIDDLE SCHOOL

TEACHER

PREPARATION


Critical Attention Summary forAlabama


36/36

1420 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005

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

Subscribe to NCTQs blog PDQ

Follow NCTQ on Twitter and Facebook

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

Sandi Jacobs

Vice President

2012 state teacher policy yearbook alabama nctq report

Documents