2012 state teacher policy yearbook alaska nctq report

8/13/2019 2012 State Teacher Policy Yearbook Alaska NCTQ Report

1/36

NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2012 ALASKA

: 1

A d m i s s i o n i n t o P r e p a r a t i o n P r o g r a m s

E l e m e n t a r y T e a c h e r

P r e p a r a t i o n

M i d d l e S c h o o l T e a c h

e r P r e p a r a t i o n

S e c o n d a r y T e a c h e r P r

e p a r a t i o n

S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n T e a c

h e r P r e p a r a t i o n

S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g

T e a c h e r P r e p a r a t i o n P r o g r a m

A c c o u n t a b i l i t y

2012 State Teacher

Policy YearbookImproving TeacherPreparation in Alaska

S t a t e P o l i c i e s i n

N e e d o f A t t e

n t i o n


2/36

Acknowledgments

STATESState education agencies remain our most important partners in this effort, and their continued cooperation has helpedto ensure the factual accuracy of the nal product. Although this years edition did not require the extensive review thatthe comprehensive editions require, we still wanted to make sure that we captured all relevant policy changes and thatstates perspectives were represented. Every state formally received a draft of the policy updates we identied in July 2012for comment and correction; states also received a nal draft of their reports a month prior to release. All but one stateresponded to our inquiries. We thank the states for their ongoing willingness to engage in dialogue with us.

FUNDERS

The primary funders for the 2012Yearbook were:

n Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

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

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

STAFF

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

Thank you to the team at CPS Gumpert for their design of the 2012Yearbook . Thanks also to Colleen Hale and Jeff Haleat EFA Solutions for the originalYearbook design and ongoing technical support.


3/36


: 1

Improving Teacher Preparation in Alaska

The 2012 State Teacher Policy Yearbook puts a spotlight on the critical issue of teacher preparation. The2011 edition of the Yearbook provided a comprehensive review of all aspects of states teacher policies, andalthough considerable progress was noted in areas related to teacher effectiveness, the same could not besaid for teacher preparation. While many states have made advancements in teacher evaluation and tenurerequirements, teacher preparation has yet to capture states attention.Good preparation does not guarantee that teachers will ultimately be effective, but there is much more thatcan be done to help ensure that new teachers are classroom ready. This edition of theYearbook offersstates a roadmap of their teacher preparation policies, identifying priorities that need critical attention andalso identifying low-hanging fruit, policy changes that states can implement in relatively short order.

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

FYearbook

Goal Topic2012Score

1-A Admission into Preparation Programs

1-B Elementary Teacher Preparation

1-C Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction

1-D Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics

1-E Middle School Teacher Preparation

1-F Secondary Teacher Preparation

1-G Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science

1-H Secondary Teacher Preparation in Social Studies

1-I Special Education Teacher Preparation

1-J Assessing Professional Knowledge

1-K Student Teaching

1-L Teacher Preparation Program Accountability

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


4/36

2 : NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2012ALASKA

Alaska 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 of teacher preparation authority (See Figure 20).

Alaska conrmed that there were no policy changes related to teacher preparation. Alaska also conrmed that thedescriptions in Figure 20 accurately reect state authority for teacher preparation and licensing.

2012 Policy Update for AlaskaBased on a review of state legislation, rules and regulations, NCTQ has identied the following recent policychanges in Alaska:

No policy updates were identied for Alaska in the area of teacher preparation.


5/36


: 3

NCTQ Teacher Prep ReviewPreparing teachers to be effective and success-ful in the classroom requires both the strongstate policy framework described in theYear-book and quality implementation by statesteacher preparation programs.

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

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

TheReview will be released in Spring 2013. Findout more at www.nctq.org/p/edschools.

For a sneak peek, see page 6.

COMING SOON

2012Grade

2011Grade

Delivering well- prepared teachers

Alabama B- C

ALASKA F FArizona D- D-Arkansas C CCalifornia D D

Colorado D D-Connecticut C+ C-Delaware D- D-District of Columbia D DFlorida B- B-Georgia C CHawaii D DIdaho D DIllinois D DIndiana B- C+Iowa D DKansas D+ D+

Kentucky C+ C-Louisiana C CMaine D+ DMaryland D+ D+Massachusetts C+ C+Michigan D+ D+Minnesota C+ CMississippi C CMissouri D+ D+Montana F FNebraska 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 DOhio C- D+Oklahoma C COregon D- D-Pennsylvania C CRhode Island C D+South Carolina C- C-

South Dakota D D

Tennessee B- B-Texas C+ C+Utah D DVermont C- D+Virginia C- C-Washington D+ D+West Virginia C- C-Wisconsin D+ DWyoming F FAverage State Grade D+ D

Figure 1


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 withCommon 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 of

effectiveness as measured by student learning. Require summative clinical experience for all prospective teachers

that 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 sufficientknowledge of the subjects taught.

5. Dont lower the bar forspecial education teachers.

Do away with K-12 special education teacher licenses. Require special education teachers to pass a subject-matter test

for licensure that is no less rigorous than what is required ofgeneral education candidates.

6. Hold teacher preparationprograms 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 each

category of data.

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

Teacher Preparation Policy Checklist for States


7/36


: 5

Critical Issues for State Teacher Preparation Policy

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

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

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

South Korea admit prospective teacher candidates from the top 10 percent of the col-lege-going population. While a bar that high is a long way from 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 half of the college-goingpopulation in terms of 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.

At present, Alaska does not require prospective teachers to pass a test of academicprociency as a criterion for admission to teacher preparation programs. Rather, thebasic skills assessment requirement is delayed until teacher candidates are ready to apply for licensure.

NEXT STEPS FOR ALASKA: n Require that teacher preparation programs screen candidates for academic prociencyprior to admission.Teacher preparation programs that do not screen candidates invest considerable resources in individualswho may not be able to successfully complete the program and pass licensing tests. Candidates in needof additional support should complete remediation before entering the program to avoid the possibilityof an unsuccessful investment of signicant public tax dollars. Alaska should require candidates to passa test of academic prociency that assesses reading, mathematics and writing prior to program admis-sion. Importantly, candidates should be permitted to submit comparable scores on such rigorous testsas the SAT/ACT/GRE.

n Require that programs use a common admissions test normed to the generalcollege-bound population.Alaska should require programs to use an assessment that demonstrates that candidates are academi-cally competitive with all peers, regardless of their intended profession. Requiring a common test normedto the general college population would allow for the selection of applicants in the top half of their classwhile also facilitating program comparison.

Alabama , ALASKA, Arizona,Arkansas, California, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, Districtof Columbia, Florida, Georgia,Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, KansKentucky, Louisiana, Maine, MaryMassachusetts, Michigan, MinnesoMississippi, Missouri, Montana,

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

Illinois

Texas

49

1

1


8/36


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

In addition to ensuring that programs require ameasure of academic performance for admis-sion, Alaska might also want to consider requiringcontent testing prior to program admission asopposed to at the point of program completion.Program candidates are likely to have complet-ed coursework that covers related test contentin the prerequisite classes required for programadmission. Thus, it would be sensible to havecandidates take content tests while this knowl-edge is fresh rather than wait two years to fulllthe requirement, and candidates lacking suf-cient expertise would be able to remedy decitsprior to entering formal preparation.

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

C O L L E G E -

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

A D M I S S I O N T O P R E P P R O G R A M

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

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

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

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

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

o r a f t e r

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

r e p p r o g r a m

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

Do states appropriatelytest teacher candidates'academic proficiency?

1 23 18 9

1

AlabamaALASKAArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndiana

IowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska

NevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth Carolina

South DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

Figure 2

SNEAK PEEK: Teacher Prep Review

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

Are Alaskasundergraduate teacherpreparation programs in the Review sufciently selective?

are not sufciently selective.100%

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


9/36


: 7

Critical Attention: Elementary Teacher Preparation

Alaska does not ensure that new elementary teachers areready to teach to the Common Core Standards.

To be effective, elementary teacher candidates need liberal arts coursework rel-evant to the PK-6 classroom, and they should also be required to pass a rigorouscontent testas a condition of licensurethat ensures appropriate subject-mat-ter knowledge.

Alaska has not adopted the Common Core State Standards as most states havedone, but it must still ensure that its students have the knowledge and skills theywill need for college readiness and global competitiveness. And Alaska, like all

states, must ensure that its teachers are prepared to teach to these high standards.Although a standards-based approach is advantageous in that it grants greaterexibility to teacher preparation programs regarding program design, absent arigorous test, this approach is difcult to monitor or enforce. Further, alignment ofpreparation program instruction with student learning standards should be aug-mented with a broader and deeper content perspective than what will actually betaught in the elementary classroom.

Unfortunately, Alaska does not ensure that elementary teachers are adequatelyprepared to teach a broad range of elementary content. The state does not requirea rigorous subject-matter test that reports subscores in all areas; in fact, its currentpolicy requires only a general content test after teachers have been in the classroom for three years. Further,

Alaskas coursework requirements lack the specicity necessary to guarantee relevancy to the elementaryclassroom. In addition, the state does not ensure that teachers will be adequately prepared in the science ofreading instruction, another key element of the Common Core State Standards.

NEXT STEPS FOR ALASKA: n Require elementary teacher candidates to pass a subject-matter test designed to ensuresufcient content knowledge of all subjects.Alaska should require a rigorous content test as a condition of certication and separate, meaning-ful passing scores for each area on the test. Use of a composite passing score offers no assurance ofadequate knowledge in each subject area. A candidate may achieve a passing score and still be seriouslydecient in a particular subject area.

n

Require teacher preparation programs to provide mathematics content specically geared tothe needs of elementary teachers and require candidates to pass a rigorous math assessment.Although national standards for teachers adopted by Alaska require some knowledge in key areas ofmathematics, the state should require teacher preparation programs to provide mathematics contentspecically geared to the needs of elementary teachers. This includes specic coursework in foundations,algebra and geometry, with some statistics. Alaska should also require a rigorous assessment that reportsa separate subscore for and evaluates mathematics knowledge beyond an elementary school level andchallenges candidates understanding of underlying mathematics concepts.

44

1

6

ALASKA, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,Delaware, District of 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, California, Connecticut,Indiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire

Massachusetts


10/36


11/36


: 9

No3

2YES1 Inadequate

Test2

11

38

Do states measure new elementary teachersknowledge of math?

Figure 4

Do states ensure thatelementary teachersknow core content?

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

T E S T W I T H

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

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

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

e s t w i t h

s e p a r a t e

p a s s i n

g s c o r e f o r

s o m e s u b j e

c t s

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

e s t w i t h

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

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

9 9 29 4

1

2

2

2

3

5

4



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

Figure 5

ALASKA

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

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

3. Montana, Nebraska

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

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

1. Testing is not required for initial licensure.

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

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

4. North Carolina has adopted a task forcerecommendation to require the Massachusetts Test ofGeneral Curriculum. Rules have yet to be promulgated,including whether the test will be required for initiallicensure. Current rules require such tests for professionallicensure only.

5. Oregon allows alternative assessment for candidateswho fail twice.


12/36


ALABAMAAlaska

ArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode Island

South CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

FINEARTS

A r t H i s t

o r y

M u s i c

SCIENCE

C h e m i s t r

y

P h y s i c s

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

c i e n c e

E a r t h S c i e n

c e

B i o l o g

y / L i f e S c i e n

c e

SOCIAL STUDIES

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

o r y I

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

o r y I I

A m e r i c a n G

o v e r n m e n t

W o r l d H i s t

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

W o r l d H i s t

o r y ( M

o d e r n )

W o r l d H i s t

o r y

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

G e o g r a p h y

ENGLISH

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

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

e r a t u r

e

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

C o m p o s i t i o

n

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

Do states expectelementary teachersto have in-depthknowledge ofcore content?

Subject mentioned Subject covered in depth

Figure 6

AlabamaALASKA

ArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode Island

South CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming


13/36


: 11

Figure 8

Teacher licensing structure in Alaska

Massachusetts

AlabamaALASKAArkansas

IdahoIowa

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 tests 1?

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

SINGLE SUBJECT (8-12)

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

EARLY CHILDHOOD (PRE K-3)

MIDDLE SCHOOL (6-8)

ELEMENTARY DEVELOPMENTAL (K-8)

SINGLE SUBJECT (6-8)EARLY CHILDHOOD

SPEC. ED.(BIRTH - AGE 5)

SPECIAL EDUCATION (K-12)

1 Based on the most recent technical data that could be obtained; data not available for Arizona, California, 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 for 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 for which technical data are not yet available;analysis is based on previously required test.


14/36


Critical Attention: Middle School Teacher Preparation

Alaska does not ensure that new middle school teacherswill be prepared to teach appropriate grade-level content

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

Too many states, including Alaska, fail to distinguish the knowledgeand skills needed by middle school teachers from those needed by an

elementary teacher. Whether teaching a single subject in a depart-mentalized setting or teaching multiple subjects in a self-containedclassroom, middle school teachers must be able to teach signicantlymore advanced content than what elementary teachers are expectedto teach.

Regrettably, Alaska allows middle school teachers to teach on a K-8generalist license, and although the state offers a middle grades certi-cation, it does not require that teachers have such a license.

Alaska also does not explicitly require a major or minor in the subjectareas that prospective middle school teachers plan to teach, and can-didates are not required to pass a subject-matter test to attain licensure.

NEXT STEPS FOR ALASKA: n Eliminate the generalist license.

Teachers with a K-8 license are less likely to be adequately prepared to teach core academic areas at themiddle school level because their preparation requirements are not specic to the middle or secondarylevels. By requiring specic middle grades certication, Alaska will help ensure that students in thosegrades have teachers who are appropriately prepared to teach grade-level content, which is different andmore advanced than what elementary teachers teach.

n Require content testing in all core areas.As a condition of initial licensure, all candidates teaching middle grades in Alaska should have to pass a

subject-matter test in every core academic area they intend to teach. n Encourage middle school teachers licensed to teach multiple subjects to earn two subject-matter minors.This would allow candidates to gain sufcient knowledge to pass state licensing tests and be highlyqualied in both subjects, and it would increase schools stafng exibility. However, middle school can-didates in Alaska who intend to teach a single subject should earn a major in that area.

3

25

23

ALASKA, Arizona, California,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 ofColumbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey,Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia,West Virginia


15/36


16/36


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

o , t e s t d o

e s n o t

r e p o r t s u b s

c o r e s f o r

a l l c o r e s u b j

e c t s

N o , K - 8 l i c

e n s e r e q u i r e

s

o n l y

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

N o , t e s t i n

g o f a l l

s u b j

e c t s

n o t r

e q u i r e d

25 4 15 7

1

2

4

5

6

7

3





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

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

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

4. It is unclear how new legislation will affecttesting requirements for middle schoolcandidates.

5. Maryland allows elementary teachers to teachin departmentalized middle schools if not lessthan 50 percent of 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 for middle-level endorsementmay either complete a major or pass a contenttest. Oregon allows alternative assessment forcandidates who fail twice.

Figure 10


17/36


: 15

Critical Attention: Secondary Teacher Preparation

Alaska does not ensure that new secondary teachers willbe prepared to teach appropriate grade-level content.

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

Yet not all states ensure that secondary teachers have sufcient content knowledgein the subjects they are licensed to teach. And nearly all stateseven those thatdo generally require content testing for secondary teachersallow some scienceand/or social studies teachers to teach with broad licenses that have signicantloopholes.

Most high school science courses are specialized, and the teachers of these subjectsare not interchangeable. Nonetheless, most states allow teachers to obtain generalscience or combination licenses across multiple science disciplines, and, in mostcases, these teachers need only pass a general knowledge science exam that doesnot ensure subject-specic content knowledge. This means that a teacher witha background in biology could be fully certied to teach advanced chemistry orphysics having passed only a general science testand perhaps answering most of the chemistry or physicsquestions incorrectly.

Just as with broad eld science, most states offer a general social studies license at the secondary level. Forthis certication, teachers can have a background in a wide variety of elds, ranging from history and politicalscience to anthropology and psychology. Under such a license a teacher who majored in psychology couldteach history to high school students having passed only a general knowledge test and answering mostandperhaps allhistory questions incorrectly.

Alaska does not require content tests for secondary teachers as a condition of initial licensure; such tests areonly mandated once candidates apply for the professional license, usually after three years. In addition, thestate offers endorsements in both general science and general social studies. Teachers with these licenses arenot required to pass individual content tests for each discipline they are permitted to teach.

NEXT STEPS FOR ALASKA: n Require subject-matter testing for secondary teacher candidates.

As a condition of licensure, Alaska should require its secondary teacher candidates to pass a content testin each subject area they plan to teach to ensure that they possess adequate subject-matter knowledgeand are prepared to teach grade-level content.

ALASKA, Arizona, California,Colorado, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska,New Hampshire, North Carolina,Oregon, Washington, Wyoming

Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut,Delaware, District of 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 affect contenttest requirements for secondary teachers.

Y E S

N o

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

3

L o o p h o l e

i n s

c i e n c e

28

L o o p h o l e

i n s o c i a l

s t u d i

e s

34 12


Iowa1

KansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska



Figure 11

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

By allowing a general science certicationand only requiring a general knowledge sci-ence examAlaska is not ensuring that thesesecondary teachers possess adequate subject-specic content knowledge. The states requiredassessment combines all subject areas (e.g.,biology, chemistry, physics) and does not reportseparate scores for each subject area.

n Require secondary social studies teachers topass a content test for each discipline theyare licensed to teach.

By allowing a general social studies certica-tionand only requiring a general knowledgesocial studies examAlaska 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 for each subject area.


19/36


: 17

Critical Attention: Special Education Teacher Preparation

Alaska does not ensure that new special educationteachers will know the subject matter that they will berequired to teach.

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

The challenge of ensuring that teachers are prepared to teach to these new stan-dards is even more pronounced for special education teachers, who typically havehad to meet an even lower bar for content preparation than general educators. Andcertication rules for special education teachers that do not differentiate betweenteaching at the elementary and secondary levels only exacerbate the problem.

Allowing a generic K-12 special education certication makes it virtually impos-sible and certainly impractical for states to ensure that these teachers know all thesubject matter they are expected to teach; this issue is just as valid in terms ofpedagogical knowledge.

While a K-12 special education license may be appropriate for low-incidencespecial education students, such as those with severe cognitive disabilities, it isdeeply problematic for the overwhelming majority of high-incidence special education students who areexpected to learn grade-level content.

Regrettably, Alaska only offers a generic K-12 special education certication, in addition to one specicallygeared to early childhood.

NEXT STEPS FOR ALASKA: n Eliminate licenses for special education that do not differentiate between the preparationof elementary teachers and that of secondary teachers.Alaskas current model does little to protect some of its most vulnerable students. Failure to ensurethat special education teachers are well trained in specic content areas deprives their students ofthe opportunity to reach their academic potential. Alaska should limit high-incidence special educa-tion certications to elementary or secondary grades.

n Provide a broad liberal arts program of study to elementary special education candidatesand require that they pass the same content test as general education teachers as acondition of licensure.Alaska should ensure that special education teacher candidates who will teach elementary gradespossess knowledge of the subject matter at hand. Not only should the state require core-subjectcoursework relevant to the elementary classroom, but it should also require that these candidatespass the same subject-matter test required of all elementary teachers as a condition of licensure.

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

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

35

0

16


20/36


D O E S

N O T O F F E R

A

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

O f f e

r s K - 1 2

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

c

c e r t i f i c

a t i o n ( s )

O f f e

r s o n l y

a K - 1 2

c e r t i f i c

a t i o n

Do states distinguishbetween elementaryand secondary specialeducation teachers?

16 10 25

1

1





Figure 12

n Ensure that secondary special educationteachers possess adequate contentknowledge.

Secondary special education teachers are fre-quently generalists who teach many core subject areas. While it may be unreasonable toexpect secondary special education teachers tomeet the same requirements for each subjectthey teach as other teachers who teach onlyone subject, Alaskas current policy of requir-ing no subject-matter testing is unacceptableand will not help special education studentsto meet rigorous learning standards. To pro-vide a middle ground, Alaska should considera customized HOUSSE route for new second-ary special education teachers and look to theexibility offered by the Individuals with Dis-abilities Education Act (IDEA), which allows fora combination of 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 for an elementaryspecial education license

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

Required for a K-12special education license Colorado, Idaho

Secondary Subject-Matter Test(s)

Tests in all core subjectsrequired for secondaryspecial education license

None

Test in at least one subjectrequired for secondary specialeducation license

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, New Jersey,New York 4, Oregon1, Pennsylvania2,Rhode Island, West Virginia3

Required for a K-12

special education licenseNone

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

2. In Pennsylvania, a candidate who opts for 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 certication as a reading specialist are similarlyexempted from the content test.

4. New York requires a multi-subject content test specically 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

Alaska does not ensure that teacher preparation programswill provide teacher candidates with a high-qualitysummative clinical experience.

The importance of clinical practice in teacher preparation has become a majorarea of focus. Student teaching is the nal clinical experience of teacher prepara-tion, and teacher candidates have only one chance to experience the best possibleplacement. Student teaching will shape candidates own performance as teachersand help determine the type of 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 of the student teaching experience is the classroom teacherwho serves as the teacher candidates mentor, or cooperating teacher. Only strongteachers with evidence of their effectiveness, as assessed by objective measures ofstudent learning and the teachers principals, should be able to serve as cooperat-ing teachers. Yet placement is much more likely to be the luck of the draw. NCTQsrecent study Student Teaching in the United States found that three out of fourteacher preparation programs fail to require that cooperating teachers must beeffective instructors.

Alaska not only fails to articulate any requirements for cooperating teachers, butthe state also lacks any specic requirements for student teaching.

NEXT STEPS FOR ALASKA: n Ensure that cooperating teachers have demonstrated evidence of effectiveness as measured bystudent learning.In addition to the ability to mentor an adult, cooperating teachers in Alaska should also be carefullyscreened for their capacity to further student achievement. Research indicates that the only aspect of astudent teaching arrangement that has been shown to have an impact on student achievement is thepositive effect of selection of the cooperating teacher by the preparation program, rather than by thestudent teacher or school district staff.

n Require teacher candidates to spend at least 10 weeks student teaching.Alaska should require a summative clinical experience for all prospective teachers. Student teachingshould be a full-time commitment, as requiring coursework and student teaching simultaneously does adisservice to both. Alignment with a school calendar for at least 10 weeks ensures both adequate class-room experience and exposure to a variety of ancillary professional activities.

Alabama,ALASKA, Arizona,Arkansas, California, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, District ofColumbia, 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 forless than 12 weeks if determinedto be procient.

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

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

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

F U L L T I M

E S T U D E N T

T E A C H I N G

L A S T S A T

L E A S T 1

0 W E E K S

Do states requirethe elements of a high-quality studentteaching experience?

283

2

AlabamaALASKAArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndiana 1




Figure 14


24/36


Critical Attention: Teacher Preparation Program Accountability

Alaska does not hold its teacher preparation programsaccountable for the effectiveness of the teachersthey produce.

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

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

Alaska neither monitors how well programs are preparing teachers to be successfulby means of collecting program-specic, objective data that reect program performance, nor has it estab-lished minimum performance standards that can be used for accountability purposes. Further, the state doesnot provide the public with meaningful, readily understandable indicators of how well programs are doing.

NEXT STEPS FOR ALASKA: n Collect data that connect student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs.

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

n Collect other meaningful, program-level data that reect program performance.Although measures of student growth are an important indicator of program effectiveness, they can-not be the sole measure of program quality for several reasons, including the fact that many programsmay have graduates whose students do not take standardized tests. The accountability system musttherefore include other objective measures that show how well programs are preparing teachers for theclassroom, such as:

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

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

Florida, Louisiana

37

2

12


25/36


: 23

ALASKA

Do states use studentachievement data to hold

teacher preparation programs accountable?

Figure 15Evaluation results from the rst and/or sec-ond year of teaching;

Satisfaction ratings by school principals andteacher supervisors of programs studentteachers, using a standardized form to permitprogram comparison;

Average raw scores of teacher candidates onlicensing tests, including academic procien-cy, subject matter and professional knowl-edge tests;

Number of times, on average, it takes teach-er candidates to pass licensing tests; and

Five-year retention rates of graduates in theteaching profession.

n Establish minimum standards of performance.Merely collecting the types of data describedabove is insufcient for accountability purposes.The next and perhaps more critical step is for thestate to establish precise minimum standards forteacher preparation program performance foreach category of data. Programs should then beheld accountable for meeting these standards, andthere should be consequences for failing to do so,including loss of program approval.

n Publish an annual report card on thestates website.Alaska should produce an annual report card thatshows all the data the state collects on individualteacher preparation programs, which should bepublished on the states website at the programlevel for the sake of public transparency. Datashould be presented in a manner that clearly con-veys whether programs have met performancestandards.

n Maintain full authority over teacherpreparation program approval.Alaska has blurred the line between the public

process of state program approval and the pri-vate process of national accreditation. In fact, theNCATE website lists the state as requiring nation-al accreditation even though such a requirementis not articulated in Alaskas regulations. Alaskashould ensure that it is the state that considersthe evidence of program performance and makesthe decision about whether programs should con-tinue to be authorized to prepare 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 of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts,New York, Rhode Island

3. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, 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


Figure 16

TEACHER PRODUCTION INALASKA States have long established requirements for teacher prepa-ration and licensure and have lately turned their attentiontoward accountability systems for preparation programs. Butone topic that has received little attention from states is theissue of teacher production. From the number of teachers whograduate from preparation programs each year, only a subset

are certied and only some of those certied are actuallyhired in the state; the relationship between these numbers hasimportant implications for related policymaking.

States are rightly focused on areas of chronic teacher short-ages, such as secondary mathematics and science, but littleconsideration is given to areas of consistent oversupply,particularly the overproduction in most states of elemen-tary teachers. While it is certainly desirable to produce a bigenough pool to give districts choice in hiring, the substantialoversupply in some teaching areas is not good for the profes-sion. Limited resources are squandered on individuals who willnot go on to teach, most critically the scarce supply of stu-dent teaching placements with effective cooperating teachers.Admissions criteria, licensure requirements and programaccountability standards may be unnecessarily depressed ifthe dots are not connected from graduation to certication toactual employment in a district.

Marylands Teacher Stafng Report provides a model forother states. Published biennially, the report has been trackingstafng trends in the state for almost three decades. Whileits primary purpose is to determine teacher shortage areas,it also identies areas of surplus. By collecting hiring datafrom districts, Maryland has a rich set of data that can informpolicy decisions.

The latest edition of the Teacher Stafng Report can be

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

Alaska teacher production data: NCTQ was unable to ndany published data on teacher production in Alaska that con-nects program completion, certication and hiring statistics.

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 of adopting new reporting requirements.

Do states hold teacher preparation programsaccountable?

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

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

C O L L E C T E D

M I N I M U M

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

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

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

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

33 5 15

1 2

2

2

1

1

1

4

4

1

4

2

AlabamaALASKAArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColorado 3

ConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndiana 5

IowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaine 1

MarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska

Nevada1

New Hampshire 6

New Jersey 1

New MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhio 1

OklahomaOregonPennsylvania 1

Rhode Island 1

South Carolina 1

South DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginia 1

WashingtonWest Virginia 1

WisconsinWyoming

Figure 16


27/36


: 25

1. National accreditation can be substituted for state approval.

There are some areas where a small adjustment wouldresult in signicantly stronger policy. Here are someissues that represent low-hanging fruit, policies thatcan be addressed in relatively short order.

n To ensure adequate subject-area knowledge,Alaska should as a condition of initial licen-sure require secondary teachers who obtaincertication in general science or generalsocial studies to pass individual content tests (or a composite test that reports individual sub-

scores) for each discipline they will be licensed toteach, as noted in the secondary criticalattention section.

n Alaska shouldrequire all elementary specialeducation teacher candidates to pass thesame content test as general elementaryeducation candidates. Further, the state shouldrequire that candidates pass this assessment asa condition of initial licensure. Special educationstudents, like all students, are expected to meetthe general college- and career-ready standards.The state puts special education students at adisadvantage in meeting these expectations iftheir teachers are held to lower requirements forcontent knowledge.

n As a rst step toward using an assessment foradmission to a teacher preparation program thatcompares candidates to the general college-goingpopulation, Alaska shouldallow teacher can-didates to submit ACT/SAT/GRE scores thatdemonstrate academic prociency.

What is the relationshipbetween state programapproval and nationalaccreditation?

N a t i o n a l a

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

r e q u i r e d f o r

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

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

a n d s t a t

e a p p r o v a l

31 12

S T A T E H A S I T S

O W N

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

8

1

1

1

1





Figure 17


28/36


29/36


30/36


Critically, Alaska should also require alternate route candidates to pass a subject-matter test as a con-dition of program admission because having subject-matter knowledge prior to beginning teaching isfundamental to the very idea of alternate routes to certication. Furthermore, AKT2 candidates should

be allowed to pass a subject-matter test in lieu of having a degree in an endorsable content area. Thestates current rigid degree requirement is likely to dissuade talented individuals who already have therequisite knowledge and skills from pursuing a career in teaching.

n Ensure that preparation coursework targets the immediate needs of new teachers.Alaskas requirement that candidates complete a set of courses based on Charlotte Danielsons Essentialsof Effective Teaching prior to teaching and at the same time make ten 45-60 minute-classroom obser-vations prior to being employed in a school (and while they are likely still employed in a noneducationeld) is unreasonably burdensome. While requiring some preparation prior to entering the classroom isimportant, Alaska should make sure that its requirements are manageable and appropriate for careerchangers and other nontraditional candidates and contribute to the immediate needs of new teachers.

n Eliminate restrictions on alternate route usage and providers.Alaska currently limits its AKT2 route, making it only available for candidates seeking certication atthe secondary level and stipulating that AKT2 candidates can only be employed in one of 15 partneringhigh-need school districts. Alaska should reconsider these limits, as alternate routes can help expand theteacher pipeline throughout the state, and such subject and grade-level restrictions are counterproduc-tive to this goal.

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


31/36


: 29

Do states provide realalternate pathways tocertification?

O f f e

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

o u s

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

a t n e e d s

s i g n i f i c

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

26 19

G E N U I N E O

R N E A R L Y

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

O U T E

6





Figure 18


32/36


What are the characteristicsof states alternate routes?

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

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

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

C T -

M A T T E R

K N O W L E D G E

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

O F T E S T

O U T O P T I O N S

S T R E A M L I N E D

C O U R S E W O R K

R E L E V A N T

C O U R S E W O R K

R E A S O N A B L E

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

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

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

O R I N G

B R O A D U S A G E

D I V E R S I T Y

O F P R O V I D E R S

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

AlabamaALASKAArizona

ArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth Carolina


Figure 19


33/36


: 31

1. Set high standards and provideexibility for 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 acceleratedcourse 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 for States


34/36


Figure 21

Authority for Teacher Preparation in Alaska

The Alaska StateBoard of Education holds the authorityto approve teacher

education programs.

The Alaska StateBoard of Education holds the authorityfor setting teacher

preparation programstandards and

admission criteria.

The Alaska StateBoard of Education

is the state authoritycharged with adopting

rules regardingteacher certication.

The Commissioner of Education isappointed by the Governor.

Governor of Alaska

Members of the AlaskaState Board of Education

are appointed by the Governor.

There is overlap betweenNCATE accreditation andstate approval of teacher

education programs.


35/36

Red

AUTHORITY

ADMISSION INTOPREPARATIONPROGRAMS

Require that preparation programs screen candidates priorto admission by using a common test normed to the generalcollege-bound population and limit acceptance to thosecandidates demonstrating academic ability in the top 50thpercentile.

State Board of Education

ELEMENTARYTEACHERPREPARATION

Require all elementary teacher candidates to pass a rigorouscontent test that assesses knowledge of all subjects as acondition of licensure.Require preparation programs to provide mathematics contentspecically geared to the needs of elementary teachers, andrequire candidates to pass a rigorous math assessment.

Require a rigorous assessment in the science of readinginstruction.Require a content specialization in an academic subject area.


MIDDLE SCHOOLTEACHERPREPARATION

Eliminate the generalist K-8 license.Require middle school candidates to pass a content test inevery core area they intend to teach.Encourage two subject-matter minors for candidates who arelicensed to teach multiple subjects; those who teach singlesubjects should earn a content major.


SECONDARYTEACHERPREPARATION

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

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


SPECIALEDUCATIONTEACHERPREPARATION

Eliminate the K-12 special education certicate, and requirelicenses that differentiate between preparation of elementaryand secondary teacher candidates.Require that elementary special education candidates passthe same content test as general elementary teachers as acondition of licensure.Ensure that secondary special education teachers possessadequate content knowledge.


STUDENT

TEACHING

Ensure that cooperating teachers have demonstrated evidenceof effectiveness as measured by student learning.Require at least 10 weeks of full-time student teaching.


TEACHERPREPARATIONPROGRAMACCOUNTABILITY

Collect performance data to monitor programs. Set minimum standards for program performance withconsequences for failure to meet those standards.

Publicly report performance data.


Critical Attention Summary for Alaska


36/36

1420 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005Tel: 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 information, please contact:

Sandi JacobsVice President

2012 state teacher policy yearbook alaska nctq report

Documents