Stpy11 Northdakota Report

8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 1/162

North Dakota

O V E

RALL G R A D

E

D



Acknowldgmns

StAteS

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

to ensure the actual accuracy o the nal product. Every state ormally received a drat o the Yearbook in July 2011

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. While states do not always agree with the recommendations, their willingness to acknowledge

the imperections o their teacher policies is an important rst step toward reorm.

We also thank the many state pension boards that reviewed our drats and responded to our inquiries.

FuNDerS

The primary unders or the 2011 Yearbook were:

n Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation n Gleason Family Foundationn Carnegie Corporation o New York n The Joyce Foundation

n George Gund Foundation

The National Council on Teacher Quality does not accept any direct unding rom the ederal government.

StAFF

Sandi Jacobs, Project Director

Sarah Brody, Project Assistant

Kathryn M. Doherty, Special Contributor

Kelli Michele, Lead Researcher

Meagan Staere Comb, Trisha M. Madden and Stephanie T. Maltz, Researchers

Thank you to the team at CPS Gumpert or their design o the 2011 Yearbook. Thanks also to Colleen Hale and Je Hale

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



NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 NORTH DAKOTA

: 1

Executive Summary

Area Grades 2011 2009

Area 1 Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D D

Area 2 Expanding the Teaching Pool F F

Area 3 Identiying Eective Teachers D+ D-

Area 4 Retaining Eective Teachers D D

Area 5 Exiting Ineective Teachers D- D+

Highlights from recent progress in North Dakota include: ■ State data system with the capacity to provide evidence o teacher eectiveness

For ve years running, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) has tracked states’ teacher poli-cies, preparing a detailed and thorough compendium o teacher policy in the United States on topicsrelated to teacher preparation, licensure, evaluation, career advancement, tenure, compensation, pen-sions and dismissal.

The 2011 State Teacher Policy Yearbook includes NCTQ’s biennial, ull review o the state laws, rulesand regulations that govern the teaching proession. This year’s report measures state progress againsta set o 36 policy goals ocused on helping states put in place a comprehensive ramework in support opreparing, retaining and rewarding eective teachers. For the rst time, the Yearbook includes a progressrating or states on goals that have been measured over time. An overall progress ranking is also included,showing how states compare to each other in moving orward on their teacher policies.

North Dakota at a Glance

Overall 2011 Yearbook Grade: Dov 2009 y Gd: D-

Overall Progress

Progressranking

among states

Amount ofprogress

compared toother states

Low

34th



2 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 NORTH DAKOTA

How s North Dakota Farn?

Area 2 Expanding the Pool of Teachers F

Area 1 Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D

Policy Strengths

■ All new teachers must pass a pedagogy test.

Policy Strengths

Policy Weaknesses

■ Teacher candidates are not required to pass a test oacademic prociency as a criterion or admission to

teacher preparation programs.

■ Elementary teachers are not adequately prepared

to teach the rigorous content associated with the

Common Core Standards.

■ Teacher preparation programs are not required toaddress the science o reading, and candidates are not

required to pass a test to ensure knowledge.■ Neither teacher preparation program nor licensure test

requirements ensure that new elementary teachers are

adequately prepared to teach mathematics.

■ Middle school teachers are allowed to teach on a K-8generalist license.

■ Although most secondary teachers must pass a

content test to teach a core subject area, some

secondary science and social studies teachers are not

required to pass content tests or each discipline theyintend to teach.

■ The state oers a K-12 special education certication.

■ There are no requirements to ensure that student

teachers are placed with cooperating teachers who

were selected based on evidence o eectiveness.

■ The teacher preparation program approval process

does not hold programs accountable or the quality othe teachers they produce.

Policy Weaknesses ■ There are no alternate routes to certication.

■ Although out-o-state teachers are appropriately

required to meet the state’s testing requirements,

there are additional obstacles that do not supportlicensure reciprocity.




: 3

How s North Dakota Farn?

Area 5 Exiting Ineffective Teachers D-

Area 3 Identifying Effective Teachers D+

Policy Strengths

■

The state data system has the capacity to provideevidence o teacher eectiveness.

■ All teachers must be evaluated annually.

Area 4 Retaining Effective Teachers D

Policy Strengths ■ Districts are given ull authority or how teachers are

paid, although they are not discouraged rom basing

salary schedules solely on years o experience and

advanced degrees.

Policy Strengths

■ The state has taken steps to ensure that licensure

testing requirements are met by all teachers within

one year.

Policy Weaknesses

■ Objective evidence o student learning is not the

preponderant criterion o teacher evaluations.

■ Tenure decisions are not connected to evidence o

teacher eectiveness.

■ Licensure advancement and renewal are not based on

teacher eectiveness.

■ No school-level data are reported that can help

support the equitable distribution o teacher talent.

Policy Weaknesses

■ All new teachers do not receive mentoring or other

induction support.

■ Proessional development is not aligned with ndings

rom teachers’ evaluations.

■ The state does not support perormance pay or

additional compensation or relevant prior workexperience, working in high-need schools or teaching

in shortage subject areas.

■ Teachers are only oered a dened benet pension

plan, and pension policies are not portable, fexible or

air to all teachers.

■ The pension system is underunded and requiresexcessive contributions.

■ Retirement benets are determined by a ormula thatis not neutral, meaning that pension wealth does not

accumulate uniormly or each year a teacher works.

Policy Weaknesses

■ There is no assurance that teachers who receive

unsatisactory evaluations will be placed on structured

improvement plans or that they will be eligible or

dismissal i they ail to improve.

■ Ineective classroom perormance is not grounds ordismissal, and tenured teachers who are dismissed

have multiple opportunities to appeal.

■ Perormance is not considered in determining which

teachers to lay o during reductions in orce.




North Dakota Goal Summary

Area 1: Delivering Well Prepared Teachers

1-a: admssn nt ptn pgms

1-b: emnt Tc ptn

1-C: Tc ptn n rdnginstuctn

1-D: Tc ptn n Mtmtcs

1-e: Mdd Sc Tc ptn

1-F: Scnd Tc ptn

1-G: Scnd Tc ptn nScnc

1-h: Scnd Tc ptn nSc Studs

1-i: Sc eductn Tc ptn

1-J: assssng pfssn knwdg

1-k: Studnt Tcng

1-l: Tc ptn pgmaccuntt

Area 2: Expanding the Pool of Teachers

2-a: atnt rut egt

2-b: atnt rut ptn

2-C: atnt rut Usg nd pvds

2-D: pt Tm Tcng lcnss

2-e: lcnsu rcct

Area 3: Identifying Effective Teachers

3-a: Stt Dt Sstms

3-b: evutn f effctvnss

3-C: Fqunc f evutns

3-D: Tnu

3-e: lcnsu advncmnt

3-F: equt Dstutn

Area 4: Retaining Effective Teachers

4-a: inductn

4-b: pfssn Dvmnt

4-C: p Scs

4-D: Cmnstn f p Wexnc

4-e: Dffnt p

4-F: pfmnc p

4-G: pnsn Fxt

4-h: pnsn Sustnt

4-i: pnsn Nutt

Area 5: Exiting Ineffective Teachers

5-a: lcnsu ls

5-b: Unstsfct evutns

5-C: Dsmss f p pfmnc

5-D: rductns n Fc

Goal Breakdown

Bst Prat 0

Fu Mts 4

Nar Mts 1

Parta Mts 8

On Mts a Sma Part 3

Dos Not Mt 20

Progress on Goals Since 2009

3 1 25 7




: 5

About the Yearbook

The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) has long argued that no educational improvement strategies

states take on are likely to have a greater impact than policies that seek to maximize teacher eectiveness. In this

th edition o the State Teacher Policy Yearbook, NCTQ provides a detailed examination o state laws, rules and

regulations that govern the teaching proession, covering the ull breadth o policies including teacher preparation,

licensure, evaluation, career advancement, tenure, compensation, pensions and dismissal.

The Yearbook is a 52-volume compendium o customized state reports or the 50 states and the District o

Columbia, as well as a national summary overview, measuring state progress against a set o 36 specic policy

goals. All o the reports are available rom NCTQ’s website at www.nctq.org/stpy.

The 36 Yearbook goals are ocused on helping states put in place a comprehensive policy ramework in support o

preparing, retaining and rewarding eective teachers. The goals were developed based on input and ongoing eed-

back rom state ocials, practitioners, policy groups and other education organizations, as well as rom NCTQ’s

own nationally respected advisory board. These goals meet ve criteria or an eective reorm ramework:

1. They are supported by a strong rationale, grounded in the best research available. The rationale and

research citations supporting each goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.

2. They oer practical rather than pie-in-the-sky solutions or improving teacher quality.

3. They take on the teaching proession’s most pressing needs, including making the proession more

responsive to the current labor market.

4. They are, or the most part, relatively cost neutral.

5. They respect the legitimate constraints that some states ace so that the goals can work in all 50 states.

The need to ensure that all children have eective teachers has captured the attention o the public and policy-

makers across the country like never beore. The Yearbook oers state school chies, school boards, legislatures

and the many advocates who press hard or reorm a concrete set o recommendations as they work to maximize

teacher quality or their students.




How to Read the Yearbook

NCTQ rates state teacher policy in several ways.

For each o the 36 individual teacher policy goals, states receive two ratings. The rst rating indicates whether, or

to what extent, a state has met the goal. NCTQ uses these amiliar graphics to indicate the extent to which each

goal has been met:

A new eature o this year’s Yearbook is a progress rating or each goal NCTQ has measured over time. These ratings

are intended to give states a meaningul sense o the changes in teacher policy since the 2009 Yearbook was

published. Using the symbols below, NCTQ determines whether each state has advanced on the goal, i the state

policy has remained unchanged, or i the state has actually lost ground on that topic.

Some goals are marked with this symbol , which indicates that the bar has been raised or this goal since the

2009 Yearbook. With many states making considerable progress in advancing teacher eectiveness policy, NCTQ

raised the standards or some goals where the bar had been quite low. As this may have a negative impact on some

states’ scores, those goals are always marked with the above symbol.

States receive grades in the ve goal areas under which the 36 goals are organized: 1) delivering well prepared

teachers; 2) expanding the pool o teachers; 3) identiying eective teachers; 4) retaining eective teachers and

5) exiting ineective teachers. States also receive an overall grade that summarizes state perormance across the

ve goal areas, giving an overall perspective on how states measure up against NCTQ benchmarks. New this year,

states also receive an overall progress ranking, indicating how much progress each state has made compared to

other states.

As always, the Yearbook provides a detailed narrative accounting o the policy strengths and weaknesses in each

policy area or each state and or the nation as a whole. Best practices are highlighted. The reports are also chockull o reader-riendly charts and tables that provide a national perspective on each goal and serve as a quick reerence

on how states perorm relative to one another, goal by goal.

Another new eature this year makes it easier to distinguish strong policies rom weaker ones on our charts and

tables. The policies NCTQ considers strong practices or the ideal policy positions or states are capitalized. This

provides a quick thumbnail or readers to size up state policies against the policy option that aligns with NCTQ

benchmarks or meeting each policy goal. For example, on the chart below, “BEFORE ADMISSION TO PREP PROGRAM”

is capitalized, as that is the optimal timing or testing teacher candidates’ academic prociency.

2021

10

BEFORE ADMISSIONTO PREP PROGRAM

During or aftercompletion of

prep program

Basic skills testnot required




: 7

Goals

AReA 1: DeliveRiNg Well PRePAReD TeAcHeRS PAge 9

1-A: Admission into Preparation Programs

The state should require undergraduate teacher preparation programs to admit only candidates with good

academic records.

1-B: Elementary Teacher Preparation

The state should ensure that its teacher preparation programs provide elementary teachers with a broad liberal

arts education, the necessary oundation or teaching to the Common Core Standards.1-C: Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction

The state should ensure that new elementary teachers know the science o reading instruction.

1-D: Teacher Preparation in Mathematics

The state should ensure that new elementary teachers have sucient knowledge o the mathematics content

taught in elementary grades.

1-E: Middle School Teacher Preparation

The state should ensure that middle school teachers are suciently prepared to teach appropriate grade-level content.

1-F: Secondary Teacher Preparation

The state should ensure that secondary teachers are suciently prepared to teach appropriate grade-level content.

1-G: Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science

The state should ensure that science teachers know all the subject matter they are licensed to teach.

1-H: Secondary Teacher Preparation in Social Studies

The state should ensure that social studies teachers know all the subject matter they are licensed to teach.

1-I: Special Education Teacher Preparation

The state should ensure that special education teachers know the subject matter they will be required to teach.

1-J: Assessing Proessional Knowledge

The state should use a licensing test to veriy that all new teachers meet its proessional standards.

1-K: Student Teaching

The state should ensure that teacher preparation programs provide teacher candidates with a high-quality

clinical experience.

1-L: Teacher Preparation Program Accountability The state’s approval process or teacher preparation programs should hold programs accountable or the quality

o the teachers they produce.

AReA 2: exPANDiNg THe POOl OF TeAcHeRS PAge 57

2-A: Alternate Route Eligibility

The state should require alternate route programs to exceed the admission requirements o traditional preparation

programs while also being fexible to the needs o nontraditional candidates.

2-B: Alternate Route Preparation

The state should ensure that its alternate routes provide streamlined preparation that is relevant to the immediate

needs o new teachers.

2-C: Alternate Route Usage and Providers

The state should provide an alternate route that is ree rom regulatory obstacles that limit its usage and providers.

2-D: Part Time Teaching Licenses

The state should oer a license with minimal requirements that allows content experts to teach part time.

2-E: Licensure Reciprocity

The state should help to make licenses ully portable among states, with appropriate saeguards.




Goals

AReA 3: iDeNTiFyiNg eFFecTive TeAcHeRS PAge 77

3-A: State Data Systems

The state should have a data system that contributes some o the evidence needed to assess teacher eectiveness.

3-B: Evaluation o Eectiveness

The state should require instructional eectiveness to be the preponderant criterion o any teacher evaluation.

3-C: Frequency o Evaluations

The state should require annual evaluations o all teachers.

3-D: Tenure

The state should require that tenure decisions are based on evidence o teacher eectiveness.

3-E: Licensure Advancement

The state should base licensure advancement on evidence o teacher eectiveness.

3-F: Equitable Distribution

The state should publicly report districts’ distribution o teacher talent among schools to identiy inequities in

schools serving disadvantaged children.

AReA 4: ReTAiNiNg eFFecTive TeAcHeRS PAge 101

4-A: Induction

The state should require eective induction or all new teachers, with special emphasis on teachers in high-need schools.4-B: Proessional Development

The state should require proessional development to be based on needs identied through teacher evaluations.

4-C: Pay Scales

The state should give local districts authority over pay scales.

4-D: Compensation or Prior Work Experience

The state should encourage districts to provide compensation or related prior subject-area work experience.

4-E: Dierential Pay

The state should support dierential pay or eective teaching in shortage and high-need areas.

4-F: Perormance Pay

The state should support perormance pay but in a manner that recognizes its appropriate uses and limitations.

4-G: Pension Flexibility

The state should ensure that pension systems are portable, fexible and air to all teachers.

4-H: Pension Sustainability

The state should ensure that excessive resources are not committed to unding teachers’ pension systems.

4-I: Pension Neutrality

The state should ensure that pension systems are neutral, uniormly increasing pension wealth with each additional

year o work.

AReA 5: exiTiNg iNeFFecTive TeAcHeRS PAge 145

5-A: Licensure Loopholes

The state should close loopholes that allow teachers who have not met licensure requirements to continue teaching.

5-B: Unsatisactory Evaluations

The state should articulate consequences or teachers with unsatisactory evaluations, including speciying that

teachers with multiple unsatisactory evaluations should be eligible or dismissal.

5-C: Dismissal or Poor Perormance

The state should articulate that ineective classroom perormance is grounds or dismissal and ensure that the

process or terminating ineective teachers is expedient and air to all parties.

5-D: Reductions in Force

The state should require that its school districts consider classroom perormance as a actor in determining which

teachers are laid o when a reduction in orce is necessary.





10 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota

aNalySiSNorth Dakota does not require aspiring teachers to pass a test o academic prociency as a criterion

or admission to teacher preparation programs, instead delaying its basic skills assessment until teachercandidates are ready to apply or licensure.

Suppng rscNorth Dakota Education Standards and Practice Boardhttp://www.nd.gov/espb/progapproval/

reCommeNDatioN

■ requie teace candidates t pass a test academic pciency tat assesses eadin,witin and matematics sis as a citein admissin t teace pepaatinpams.

Teacher preparation programs that do not screen candidates end up investing considerable resourc-

es in individuals who may not be able to successully complete the program and pass licensing tests.Candidates needing additional support should complete remediation prior to program entry, avoid-ing the possibility o an unsuccessul investment o signicant public tax dollars.

■ requie pepaatin pams t use a cmmn test nmed t te enea cee-bundppuatin.

The basic skills tests in use in most states largely assess middle school-level skills. To improve theselectivity o teacher candidates—a common characteristic in countries whose students consis-tently outperorm ours in international comparisons—North Dakota should require an assessmentthat demonstrates that candidates are academically competitive with all peers, regardless o theirintended proession. Requiring a common test normed to the general college population wouldallow or the selection o applicants in the top hal o their class, as well as acilitate program com-parison.

■ Exempt candidates wit cmpaabe SAT ACT sces.

North Dakota should waive the basic skills test requirement or candidates whose SAT or ACT scoresdemonstrate that they are in the top hal o their class.

North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.

a 1: G a Nt Data anss

Stt Ds Nt Mt G b rsd ts G pgss Snc 2009



NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota

: 11

examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe

Although there are a number o states that require

teacher candidates to pass a basic skills test as a cri-

terion or admission to a preparation program, Texas

is the only state that requires a test o academic pro-

ciency normed to the general college bound population

rather than just to prospective teachers. In addition, the

state’s minimum scores or admission appear to be

relatively selective when compared to other tests used

across the country.

yeS1 N2 N tstqud3

1. Strong Practice: Texas

2. Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Caliornia, Connecticut, Delaware,District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

3. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Ohio,South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

1

40

10

Fgu 2

Do states require a test o academic profciency that is normed to the general

college-going population?

1. Strong Practice: Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,

Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina,Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia, Wisconsin

2. Alabama, Alaska, Caliornia, Delaware, District o Columbia, Maine,Maryland, Massachussets, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,Pennsylvania, Vermont


Fgu 3

When do states test teacher candidates’ basic skills?

2021

10

BEFORE ADMISSIONTO PREP PROGRAM1

During or aftercompletion ofprep program2

Basic skills testnot required3

NorThDAkoTA

NorThDAkoTA




Figure 4

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 appropriately test teacher candidates'academic proficiency?

1 20 20 10

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

NorTh DAkoTA

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South DakotaTennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

a paSSiNGSCore iS

reQUireD ForeaCh SUbJeCT1

an cmst

sc cn usd2

N tstqud3

1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts,Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada,New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

2. Caliornia4, District o Columbia4, Hawaii4, Indiana, Iowa, Maine4,Maryland, New Hampshire4, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, North Dakota5, Pennsylvania4, Rhode Island4,Vermont, Virginia


4. Minimum score must be met in each section.

5. Composite score can only be used i passing score is met on two

o three subtests.

25

16

10

Fgu 5

Do states measure perormance in reading,mathematics and writing?

NorTh

DAkoTA




: 13

G Cpnns

(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)

1. The state should require that its approvedteacher preparation programs deliver acomprehensive program o study in broadliberal arts coursework. An adequatecurriculum is likely to require approximately36 credit hours to ensure appropriate depthin the core subject areas o English, science,social studies and ne arts. (Mathematicspreparation or elementary teachers isdiscussed in Goal 1-D.)

2. The state should require elementary teachercandidates to pass a subject-matter testdesigned to ensure sucient contentknowledge o all subjects.

3. The state should require elementaryteacher candidates to complete a contentspecialization in an academic subject area.

In addition to enhancing content knowledge,this requirement also ensures that prospectiveteachers have taken higher level academiccoursework.

4. Arts and sciences aculty, rather thaneducation aculty, should in most cases teachliberal arts coursework to teacher candidates.

Bcgund

A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.

Aea 1: Deivein We-Pepaed Teaces

G b – emnt Tc ptnTe state sud ensue tat its teace pepaatin pams pvide eementay

teaces wit a bad ibea ats educatin, te necessay undatin teacin tte Cmmn Ce Standads.

Fgu 6

How States are Faring in Elementary Teacher Preparation

0 bst pctc Stts

0 Stts Mt G

4 Stts N Mt G

Indiana⬆, Massachusetts,Minnesota⬆, New Hampshire

8 Stts pt Mt GCalifornia, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan,

New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington

18 Stts Mt Sm pt GAlabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida,

Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri,

New Jersey, New York, NorTh DAkoTA,

Oregon, Tennessee, Utah⬆, Virginia,

West Virginia

21 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Connecticut, Delaware,

District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho,

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland , Montana,

Nebraska, Nevada , North Carolina , Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina ,

South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Pgss n s G Snc 2009:

⬆ : 3 : 44 ⬇ : 4




Stt Mts Sm pt G pgss Snc 2009

aNalySiSAlthough North Dakota has adopted the Common Core Standards, the state does not ensure that its

elementary teacher candidates are adequately prepared to teach a broad range o elementary content.North Dakota requires candidates to pass the Praxis II test “Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruc-tion and Assessment,” which, unortunately, not only combines content with a pedagogy assessment butalso does not report teacher perormance in each subject area, meaning that it is possible to pass the testand still ail some subject areas, especially given the state’s low passing score. Further, based on availableinormation on the Praxis II, there is no reason to expect that the current version would be well alignedwith the Common Core Standards.

In addition, all teacher candidates in North Dakota must complete a general studies component thatincludes “liberal arts preparation” in areas that include the humanities, ne arts, natural sciences, behav-ioral sciences and symbolic systems. Although these are reasonable general requirements, the state’slanguage is not specic enough to ensure that these courses will be relevant to the topics covered in the

PK-6 classrooms.North Dakota does not speciy additional subject-matter coursework requirements or elementaryteacher candidates. Although elementary teachers must earn an elementary education major in orderto attain licensure, the state only appears to require methodology courses in subject areas. Thereore,coursework is most likely taught by education aculty, not arts and science aculty, and may ail to pro-vide strong oundational knowledge in these subject areas.

Finally, North Dakota articulates teacher standards in a broad range o topics relevant to PK-6 teaching,including reading and language; physical, lie, earth and space science; dance, music and theater; and his-tory, geography and social science. However, there are no standards or a number o equally importantsubject areas, including basic chemistry; American and world history; American, world and children’sliterature; writing, grammar and composition; and art history.

Suppng rscNorth Dakota Administrative Code 67.1-02-02-02

Program Approval Standards ND 50015http://www.nd.gov/espb/progapproval/standards.html

Praxis IIwww.ets.org

reCommeNDatioN

■ requie a cntent test tat ensues sucient nwede in a subjects.

North Dakota should ensure that its subject-matter test or elementary teacher candidates is wellaligned with the Common Core Standards, which represent an eort to signicantly raise the stan-dards or the knowledge and skills American students will need or college readiness and globalcompetitiveness.

The state should also require separate passing scores or each content area on the test becausewithout them it is impossible to measure knowledge o individual subjects. Further, to be meaning-ul, North Dakota should ensure that these passing scores refect high levels o perormance.

a 1: G b Nt Data anss




: 15

■ Pvide bad ibea ats cusew eevant t te eementay cassm.

North Dakota should either articulate a more specic set o standards or establish more compre-

hensive coursework requirements that are specically geared to the areas o knowledge needed byPK-6 teachers. Further, the state should align its requirements or elementary teacher candidateswith the Common Core Standards to ensure that candidates will complete coursework relevant tothe common topics in elementary grades. An adequate curriculum is likely to require approximately36 credit hours in the core subject areas o English, science, social studies and ne arts.

■ requie at east an academic cncentatin.

An academic concentration, i not a ull academic major, would not only enhance North Dakotateachers’ content knowledge, but it would also ensure that prospective teachers have taken higher-level academic coursework. Further, it would provide an option or teacher candidates unable toulll student teaching or other proessional requirements to still earn a degree.

■ Ensue ats and sciences acuty teac ibea ats cusew.

Although an education proessor is best suited to teach eective methodologies in subject instruction,aculty rom the university’s college o arts and sciences should provide subject-matter oundation.

North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther inormation.





Although no state meets this goal, three states havenoteworthy policies. Massacusetts’s testing require-ments, which are based on the state’s curriculum, en-sure that elementary teachers are provided with a

broad liberal arts education. Indiana and Uta are therst two states to adopt the new Praxis II “ElementaryEducation: Multiple Subjects” content test, which re-quires candidates to pass separately scored subtests inreading/language arts, mathematics, social studies andscience.

Massachusetts

AlabamaAlaska

District of ColumbiaIdahoMaine

MarylandMississippiNebraska

New JerseyNorTh DAkoTA

OhioRhode IslandSouth Dakota

TennesseeVirginia

West VirginiaWyoming

ColoradoConnecticut

DelawareHawaiiIndianaKansas

KentuckyLouisianaMissouri

New HampshireSouth Carolina

TexasUtah

VermontWisconsin

ArkansasIowa

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

1 Based on the most recent technical data that could be obtained; data not available orArizona, Caliornia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, NewYork, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington. Montana and Nebraska do not requirea content test. Colorado score is or Praxis II, not PLACE. Indiana, Maryland, Nevada,South Carolina and Utah now require new Praxis tests or which the technical data arenot yet available; analysis is based on previously required test.

Fgu 7

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

?

S sspssng sc n

(g sc

tst ts)

S ss sc wbw n

(n stndd dtn~16t cnt)

S ss sc bw n

(tw stndd dtns~2nd cnt)

50 Pcn




: 17

Fgu 9

What subjects does North Dakota expect elementary teachers to know?

ENglISh

SCIENCE

SoCIAl STUDIES

FINE ArTS

AmericanLiterature

Chemistry

amrcnhstory i

art hstory

World/BritishLiterature

pyscs

amrcnhstory ii

Musc

Writing/GrammarComposition

Gnr pyscScnc

amrcnGovrnmnt

Children’sLiterature

ertScnc

boogy/lfScnc

Word hstory(ancnt)

Word hstory(Modrn)

Word hstory(Non Wstrn)

Gogry

X

Stt qumnts mntn sujct

Stt qumnts c sujct n dt

Stt ds nt qu sujct

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

Fgu 8

Have states adopted the K-12 Common Core State Standards?

1. Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, Virginia

2. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District oColumbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,

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

5

46

No1 YES2

NorThDAkoTA

X

X




FIN

ART

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

Figure 10

Do states expectelementary teachersto have in-depth

knowledge of core content?

Subject mentioned Subject covered in de

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


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


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming




: 19

Fgu 11

Do states expect elementary teachers tocomplete an academic concentration?

aCaDeMiCMaJor

reQUireD1

MiNor orCoNCeNTraTioN

reQUireD2

Ntqud4

Mj mnqud, ut

t s3

1. Strong Practice: Colorado, Massachusetts, New Mexico

2. Strong Practice: Indiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma

3. Caliornia, Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri,New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, VirginiaThese states require a major, minor or concentration butthere is no assurance it will be in an academic subject area.

4. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District o Columbia,Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

3 4

33

11

NorThDAkoTA




G Cpnns


1. To ensure that teacher preparation programsadequately prepare candidates in the scienceo reading instruction, the state shouldrequire that these programs train teachersin the ve instructional components shownby scientically based reading research to beessential to teaching children to read.

2. The state should require that new elementaryteachers pass a rigorous test o readinginstruction in order to attain licensure.The design o the test should ensure thatprospective teachers cannot pass withoutknowing the science o reading instruction.

Bcgund



G C – emnt Tc ptn n rdng instuctnTe state sud ensue tat new eementay teaces nw te science eadin instuctin

Fgu 12

How States are Faring in Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction

3 bst pctc SttsConnecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia

5 Stts Mt G Alabama⬆, Minnesota⬆, Oklahoma,

Pennsylvania⬆, Tennessee

5 Stts N Mt GCalifornia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Texas

14 Stts pt Mt GArkansas, Colorado, Indiana⬆, Louisiana,

Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,

New Mexico⬆, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont,

Washington, West Virginia

2 Stts Mt Sm pt GArizona, New York

22 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Delaware, District of Columbia,

Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, North Carolina, NorTh DAkoTA,

Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,

Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming


⬆ : 5 : 46 ⬇ : 0




: 21

a 1: G C Nt Data anss

Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009

aNalySiSNorth Dakota does not require that teacher preparation programs or elementary teacher candidates

address the science o reading. The state has neither coursework requirements nor standards relatedto this critical area. North Dakota does require reading-related coursework or elementary and middleschool teacher candidates; however, this coursework does not explicitly require that teachers receivetraining in the ve essential components o reading instruction. The state also does not require teachercandidates to pass an assessment that measures knowledge o scientically based reading instructionprior to certication or at any point thereater.


reCommeNDatioN

■ Ensue tat teace pepaatin pams pepae eementay teacin candidates in te

science eadin instuctin.North Dakota should ensure that teacher preparation programs adequately prepare elementaryteacher candidates in the science o reading by requiring that these programs train candidates inthe ve instructional components o scientically based reading instruction: phonemic awareness,phonics, fuency, vocabulary and comprehension.

■ requie teace candidates t pass a ius assessment in te science eadininstuctin.

North Dakota should require a rigorous reading assessment tool to ensure that its elementaryteacher candidates are adequately prepared in the science o reading instruction beore enteringthe classroom. The assessment should clearly test knowledge and skills related to the science oreading, and i it is combined with an assessment that also tests general pedagogy or elementary

content, it should report a subscore or the science o reading specically. Elementary teachers whodo not possess the minimum knowledge in this area should not be eligible or licensure.





yeS1 N2

1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado,Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland,Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio,Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia

2. Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, District o Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois,Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina,South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming

26 25

Fgu 13

Do states require preparation or elementary teachers in the science o reading?

yeS1 indquttst2

N3

1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts,Minnesota4, New Mexico5, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania5, Tennessee,Virginia

2. Arkansas, Caliornia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri,New York, Oregon, Texas

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

4. Based on the limited inormation available about the test on thestate’s website.

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

9 10

32

Fgu 14

Do states measure new teachers’ knowledgeo the science o reading?


Eight states meet this goal by requiring that preparationprograms or elementary teacher candidates address thescience o reading and requiring that candidates passcomprehensive assessments that specically test the

ve elements o instruction: phonemic awareness, pho-nics, fuency, vocabulary and comprehension. Indepen-dent reviews o the assessments used by Cnnecticut,Massacusetts and Viinia conrm that these testsare rigorous measures o teacher candidates’ knowledgeo scientically based reading instruction.

NorThDAkoTA

NorThDAkoTA




: 23

Figure 15

Do states ensure that

elementary teachers

know the science of

reading?

F U L L Y A D D R E S S

R E A D I N G S C I E N C E

D o n o t a d d r e s s

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

A P P R O P R I A T E T E S T

I n a d e q u a t e t e s t

N o r e a d i n g t e s t

PREPARATION

REQUIREMENTS

TESTING

REQUIREMENTS

1

2

2

26 25 9 10 32

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

Wyoming1. Based on the limited inormation available about the

test on the state’s website.

2. Test is under development and not yet available orreview.




Fgu 16

How States are Faring in Teacher Preparationin Mathematics

1 bst pctc SttMassachusetts

0 Stts Mt G

1 Stt N Mts GIndiana⬆

5 Stts pt Mt GCalifornia, Florida, Minnesota⬆,

New Mexico, Utah⬆

30 Stts Mt Sm pt GAlabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, District

of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,

Illinois, Iowa⬆, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan,

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New

Hampshire, New York, NorTh DAkoTA,

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,

Wyoming

14 Stts D Nt Mt GArkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana,

Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada,

New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,

West Virginia, Wisconsin


⬆ : 4 : 47 ⬇ : 0

G Cpnns


1. The state should require teacher preparationprograms to deliver mathematics content oappropriate breadth and depth to elementaryteacher candidates. This content shouldbe specic to the needs o the elementaryteacher (i.e., oundations, algebra andgeometry with some statistics).

2. The state should require elementaryteacher candidates to pass a rigorous testo mathematics content in order to attainlicensure.

3. Such test can also be used to test out ocourse requirements and should be designedto ensure that prospective teachers cannotpass without sucient knowledge omathematics.

BcgundA detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.


G D – emnt Tc ptn n MtmtcsTe state sud ensue tat new eementay teaces ave sucient nwede

te matematics cntent taut in eementay ades.




: 25

aNalySiSNorth Dakota relies on both coursework requirements and its standards or teacher preparation pro-

grams as the basis or articulating its requirements or the mathematics content knowledge o elemen-tary teacher candidates.

The state requires all teacher candidates to complete general studies that include mathematics. How-ever, North Dakota neither species the requisite content o these classes nor that they must meet theneeds o the elementary teacher.

North Dakota has also articulated teaching standards that its approved teacher preparation programsmust use to rame instruction in elementary mathematics content. The state’s standards appropriatelyaddress content in mathematics oundations, but although they mention such areas as algebra, geom-etry and statistics, the standards lack the specicity needed to ensure that teacher preparation programsdeliver this mathematics content o appropriate breadth and depth to elementary teacher candidates.

North Dakota requires that all new elementary teachers pass a general subject-matter test, the Praxis II.

This commercial test lacks a specic mathematics subscore, so one can likely ail the mathematics por-tion and still pass the test. Further, while this test does cover important elementary school-level content,it barely evaluates candidates’ knowledge beyond an elementary school level, does not challenge theirunderstanding o underlying concepts and does not require candidates to apply knowledge in nonroutine,multistep procedures..


Program Approval Standards ND 50015 http://www.nd.gov/espb/progapproval/docs/11010.pd

www.ets.org/praxis

“No Common Denominator: The Preparation o Elementary Teachers in Mathematics by America’s Education Schools,”NCTQ, June 2008 http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/nctq_ttmath_ullreport.pd

reCommeNDatioN

■ requie teace pepaatin pams t pvide matematics cntent specicay eaedt te needs eementay teaces.

Although North Dakota requires knowledge in some key areas o mathematics, the state shouldrequire teacher preparation programs to provide mathematics content specically geared to theneeds o elementary teachers. This includes specic coursework in oundations, algebra and geom-etry, with some statistics.

■ requie teace candidates t pass a ius matematics assessment.

North Dakota should assess mathematics content with a rigorous assessment tool, such as the testrequired in Massachusetts, that evaluates mathematics knowledge beyond an elementary school

level and challenges candidates’ understanding o underlying mathematics concepts. Such a testcould also be used to allow candidates to test out o coursework requirements. Teacher candidateswho lack minimum mathematics knowledge should not be eligible or licensure.

North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis. The state added that it is in the process odiscussions regarding elementary teacher preparation and the Common Core Standards.


a 1: G D Nt Data anss




yeS1 N2

1. Strong Practice: Indiana, Massachusetts

2. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia,Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,

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

2

49

Fgu 17

Do states articulate appropriate mathematics preparation or elementary teachers?

yeS1 indquttst2

N3

1. Strong Practice: Massachusetts

2. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia,Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

3. Montana, Nebraska

1

48

2

Fgu 18

Do states measure new elementary teachers’ knowledge o math?


Massacusetts is the only state that ensures thatits elementary teachers have sucient knowledge omathematics content. As part o its general curriculumtest, the state utilizes a separately scored mathemat-

ics subtest that covers topics specically geared to theneeds o elementary teachers.

NorThDAkoTA

NorThDAkoTA




: 27

G Cpnns


1. The state should encourage middle schoolcandidates who intend to teach multiplesubjects to earn minors in two core academicareas rather than earn a single major. Middleschool candidates intending to teach a singlesubject area should earn a major in that area.

2. The state should not permit middle schoolteachers to teach on a generalist licensethat does not dierentiate between thepreparation o middle school teachers andthat o elementary teachers.

3. The state should require that new middleschool teachers pass a licensing test in everycore academic area they intend to teach.

Bcgund



G e – Mdd Sc Tc ptnTe state sud ensue tat midde sc teaces ae sucienty pepaed t teac

apppiate ade-eve cntent.

Fgu 19

How States are Faring in Middle SchoolTeacher Preparation

3 bst pctc SttsArkansas⬆, Georgia, Pennsylvania⬆

7 Stts Mt G Connecticut, Florida⬆, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Mississippi, New Jersey, South Carolina⬆

8 Stts N Mt GAlabama, District of Columbia, Indiana,

Kansas, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia

11 Stts pt Mt GDelaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska,

Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia

11 Stts Mt Sm pt GArizona, Michigan, Minnesota⬆, Montana,

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,

NorTh DAkoTA, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming

11 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, California, Colorado, Idaho,

Illinois, Maine, North Carolina , Oregon,

South Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin


⬆ : 5 : 45 ⬇ : 1




aNalySiSNorth Dakota oers middle-level certication (grades 5-8) or middle school teachers; candidates must

earn a “middle level major,” which includes 24 semester hours o content coursework in one contentarea. Teachers with secondary certicates are allowed to teach single subjects in middle school. Thosecandidates, too, are required to earn content-specic majors. Regrettably, North Dakota also allows mid-dle school teachers to teach on a generalist K/1-8 license.

All new middle school teachers in North Dakota are also required to pass a Praxis II subject-matter testto attain licensure. However, only secondary and middle school candidates are required to pass a single-subject Praxis II content test to attain licensure. Those seeking the elementary license are only requiredto pass the general content test or elementary education, in which subscores are not provided; thereore,there is no assurance that these middle school teachers will have sucient knowledge in each subjectthey teach.


www.ets.org/praxis

reCommeNDatioN

■ Eiminate k/1-8 eneaist icense.

North Dakota should not allow middle school teachers to teach on a generalist license that doesnot dierentiate between the preparation o middle school teachers and that o elementary teach-ers. These teachers 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 sec-ondary levels and they need not pass a subject-matter test in each subject they teach. Adoptingmiddle school teacher preparation policies or all such teachers will help ensure that students ingrades 7 and 8 have teachers who are appropriately prepared to teach grade level content, which isdierent and more advanced than what elementary teachers teach.

■ Stenten midde sc teaces’ subject-matte pepaatin.

North Dakota should also encourage middle school teachers who plan to teach multiple subjectsto earn two minors in two core academic areas, rather than a single major. Further, although NorthDakota requires middle school candidates who intend to teach a single subject to earn a major inthat area, its requirement o only 24 credit hours alls short o the standard denition o a subjectarea major.

■ requie subject-matte testin midde sc teace candidates.

North Dakota should require subject-matter testing or all middle school teacher candidates inevery core academic area they intend to teach as a condition o initial licensure.

North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther explanation.


a 1: G e Nt Data anss




: 29

Figure 20

Do states distinguish middle grade preparation from

elementary preparation?

K - 8 L I C

E N S E

N O T

O F F E R

E D

K - 8

l i c e n s e

o f f e

r e d

f o r

s e l f - c o

n t a i n

e d

c l a s s r o o m

s

K - 8 l i c e

n s e

o f f e

r e d

29 6 16

2

3

4

5

1

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

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

2. Illinois oers K-9 license.

3. With the exception o mathematics.

4. Oregon oers 3-8 license.

5. Wisconsin oers 1-8 license.


Aansas, geia and Pennsyvania ensure thatall middle school teachers are suciently preparedto teach middle school-level content. Teachers arerequired to earn at least two content-area minors.

Georgia and Pennsylvania also require passingscores on single-subject content tests, and Arkansasrequires a subject-matter assessment with separatepassing scores or each academic area.




What academic preparation

do states require for a

middle school endorsement

or license?

Figure 21

M A J O R O R M O R E

M A J O R O R T W O M I N O R S

T W O M I N O R S

L e s s t h a n a m a j o r o r " l o o s e "

r e q u i r e m e n t s

N o r e q u i r e m e n t o f c o n t e n t

m a j o r o r m i n o r

13 3 9 12 14

1

2

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

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

1. State does not explicitly require two minors, butit has equivalent requirements.

2. Pennsylvania has two options. One optionrequires a 30 credit concentration in onesubject and nearly a minor (12 credits) in threeadditional subjects; the second option is 21credits in two subject-area concentrations with12 credits in two additional subjects.




: 31

Fgu 22

How States are Faring in Secondary Teacher Preparation

2 bst pctc SttsIndiana, Tennessee

29 Stts Mt G Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,

Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas,

Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,

NorTh DAkoTA, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,

Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,


0 Stts N Mt G

8 Stts pt Mt GDistrict of Columbia, Hawaii, Louisiana,

Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada,

New Mexico

0 Stts Mt Sm pt G

12 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa,

Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,

North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island,

Wyoming


Nw G

G Cpnns


1. The state should require that secondaryteachers pass a licensing test in every subjectthey intend to teach.

2. The state should require that secondaryteachers pass a content test when adding

subject-area endorsements to an existinglicense.

Bcgund



G F – Scnd Tc ptnTe state sud ensue tat secnday teaces ae sucienty pepaed t teac

apppiate ade-eve cntent.




aNalySiSNorth Dakota requires that its secondary teacher candidates pass a Praxis II content test to teach any

core secondary subjects. Unortunately, North Dakota permits a signicant loophole to this importantpolicy by allowing both general science and general social studies licenses, without requiring subject-matter testing or each subject area within these disciplines (see Goals 1-G and 1-H).

Further, to add an additional eld to a secondary license, teachers must also pass a Praxis II content test.However, as stated above, North Dakota cannot guarantee content knowledge in each specic subjector those secondary teachers who add general science or general social studies endorsements.

Suppng rscNorth Dakota Administrative Code 67.1-02-02-02, 67.1-02-03-03

reCommeNDatioN

■ requie subject-matte testin a secnday teace candidates.

North Dakota wisely requires subject-matter tests or most secondary teachers but should addressany loopholes that undermine this policy (see Goals 1-G and 1-H). This applies to the addition oendorsements as well.

North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis but indicated there are pending regulatorychanges that may aect it. However, the state oered no additional inormation.

Stt Mts G pgss Snc 2009

a 1: G F Nt Data anss




: 33

yeS1

yeS1

ys, ut sgnfcnt n

scnc nd/sc studs2

ys, ut sgnfcnt

nscnc nd/sc studs2

N3

N3

1. Strong Practice: Indiana, Tennessee

2. Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia,Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota,Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,Wisconsin. (For more on loopholes, see Goals 1-G and 1-H.)

3. Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska,New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wyoming

1. Strong Practice: Indiana, Tennessee

2. Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. (For more on loop-holes, see Goals 1-G and 1-H.)

3. Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, District o Columbia,Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,Oregon, Rhode Island, Wyoming

2

2

37

29

12

20

Fgu 23

Fgu 24

Do all secondary teachers have to pass acontent test in every subject area or licensure?

Do all secondary teachers have to pass a contenttest in every subject area to add an endorsement?


Not only do Indiana and Tennessee require that sec-ondary teacher candidates pass a content test to teachany core secondary subjects, but these states also donot permit any signicant loopholes to this important

policy by allowing secondary general science or socialstudies licenses (see Goals 1-G and 1-H).

NorThDAkoTA

NorThDAkoTA




G Cpnns


1. The state should require secondary scienceteachers to pass a subject-matter test oeach science discipline they intend to teach.

2. The state should require middle schoolscience teachers to pass a subject-matter

test designed to ensure that prospectiveteachers cannot pass without sucientknowledge o science.

Bcgund



G G – Scnd Tc ptn n ScncTe state sud ensue tat science teaces nw a te subject matte tey ae

icensed t teac.

Fgu 25

How States are Faring in Preparation to Teach Science

1 bst pctc SttNew Jersey

7 Stts Mt G Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,

Minnesota, New Hampshire, Virginia

11 Stts N Mt GArkansas, Georgia, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,

South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia

16 Stts pt Mt GAlabama, Connecticut, Delaware,

District of Columbia, Hawaii, Louisiana,

Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico,

NorTh DAkoTA, Pennsylvania, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington

4 Stts Mt Sm pt GArizona, Idaho, Illinois, Wisconsin

12 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, California, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan,

Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon,

Rhode Island, Texas, Wyoming


Nw G




: 35

aNalySiSNorth Dakota oers a composite science endorsement or secondary teachers. Candidates are required

to pass the Praxis II “General Science” test. Teachers with this license are not limited to teaching generalscience but rather can teach any o the topical areas.

Middle school science teachers in North Dakota must earn a middle level major in science, which includes24 semester hours o content coursework. Commendably, candidates must pass the Praxis II “MiddleSchool Science” test. Regrettably, however, North Dakota also allows middle school teachers to teach ona generalist K/1-8 license i the school is classied as an elementary school (see Goal 1-E).

Suppng rscLicense Codeshttp://www.nd.gov/espb/licensure/codes.html

Praxis Testing Requirementswww.ets.org

reCommeNDatioN

■ requie secnday science teaces t pass tests cntent nwede eac sciencediscipine tey intend t teac.

States that allow general science certications—and only require a general knowledge scienceexam—are not ensuring that these secondary teachers possess adequate subject-specic con-tent knowledge. North Dakota’s required general assessment combines subject areas (e.g., biology,chemistry, physics) and does not report separate scores or each subject area. Thereore, candi-dates could answer many—perhaps all—chemistry questions, or example, incorrectly, yet still belicensed to teach chemistry to high school students.


Stt pt Mts G pgss Snc 2009

a 1: G G Nt Data anss





secondary science teachers

have adequate subject-

matter knowledge?

Figure 26

S T A T E O F F E R S G E N E R A L S C I E N

C E

O R

C O M

B I N A T I O N

S C I E N C E

L I C E N S E S W I T H

A D E Q U A T E T E S T I N G

S t a t e o f f e r s g e n e r a l s c i e n c e

o r

c o m b i n a t i o n

s c i e n c e l i c e n s e s

w i t h o u t a d e q u a t e

t e s t i n g

S T A T E O F F E R S O

N L Y

S I N G L E -

S U B J E C T S C I E N C E L I C E N

S E S W I T H

A D E Q U A T E T E S T I N

G

S t a t e o f f e r s o n l y

s i n g l e - s u b j e c t

s c i e n c e l i c e n s e s w

i t h o u t

a d e q u a t e t e s t i n g

1 39 10 1

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

KansasKentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

NorTh DAkoTA

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

yeS1 at tstngn mdd sc cns ut

nt n k-8gnst cns2

N3

1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas,Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi,Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia

2. Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin

3. Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina,Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming

24

10

17

Do states ensure that middle school teachers have adequate preparation to teach science?

Fgu 27


New Jesey does not oer certication in generascience or secondary teachers. Although the stateallows a combination physical science certicate, itensure adequate content knowledge in both chem-

istry and physics by requiring teacher candidates topass individual content tests in chemistry, physicsand general science. Further, middle school scienceteachers must pass a science-specic content test.

NorThDAkoTA




: 37

Fgu 28

How States are Faring in Preparation to Teach Social Studies

1 bst pctc SttIndiana

2 Stts Mt GGeorgia, South Dakota

2 Stts N Mt GMinnesota, Oklahoma

32 Stts pt Mt GAlabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,

District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New Mexico, NorTh DAkoTA, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah,

Vermont Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,

Wisconsin, Wyoming

1 Stt Mts Sm pt GIllinois

13 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,

Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, New York,

North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas


Nw G

G Cpnns


1. The state should require secondary socialstudies teachers to pass a subject-matter testo each social studies discipline they intendto teach.

2. The state should require middle school social

studies teachers to pass a subject-matter testdesigned to ensure that prospective teacherscannot pass without sucient knowledge osocial studies.

Bcgund



G h – Scnd Tc ptn n Sc StudsTe state sud ensue tat scia studies teaces nw a te subject matte tey

ae icensed t teac.




aNalySiSNorth Dakota oers a composite social studies endorsement or secondary teachers. Candidates are

required to pass the Praxis II “Social Studies” content test. Teachers with this license are not limited toteaching general social studies but rather can teach any o the topical areas.

Middle school social studies teachers in North Dakota must earn a middle level major in social studies,which includes 24 semester hours o content coursework. Commendably, candidates must pass the Prax-is II “Middle School Social Studies” test. Unortunately, North Dakota also allows middle school teachersto teach on a generalist K/1-8 license, i the school is classied as an elementary school (see Goal 1-E).

Suppng rscLicense Codeshttp://www.nd.gov/espb/licensure/codes.html

Praxis Testing Requirementswww.ets.org

reCommeNDatioN

■ requie secnday scia studies teaces t pass tests cntent nwede eacscia studies discipine tey intend t teac.

States that allow general social studies certications—and only require a general knowledge socialstudies exam—are not ensuring that these secondary teachers possess adequate subject-speciccontent knowledge. North Dakota’s required general assessment combines subject areas (e.g., his-tory, geography, economics) and does not report separate scores or each subject area. Thereore,candidates could answer many history questions, or example, incorrectly, yet still be licensed toteach history to high school students.

North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiS

North Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther explanation.


a 1: G h Nt Data anss




: 39

Figure 29


secondary social studies

teachers have adequate

subject-matter

knowledge? O F F E R S

G E N

E R A L S O

C I A L

S T U D I E S

L I C E N S E W I T H

A D E Q U A T E

T E S T I N G

1

O f f e r s g e n e

r a l s o c i a l s t u d i e s

l i c e n s e w i t h o

u t a d e q u a t e

t e s t i n g

47

O F F E R S

O N L Y

S I N G L E

S U B J E C T

S O C I A L

S T U D I E S

L I C E N S E S

3

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts 1

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

yeS1 at tstngn mdd sc

cns utnt n k-8

gnst cns2

N3

23

9

19

Fgu 30

Do states ensure that middle school

teachers have adequate preparation toteach social studies?

1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas,Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey,Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont,Virginia, West Virginia

2. Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Washington

3. Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New York,North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas,Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming


Not only does Indiana ensure that its secondarysocial studies teachers possess adequate contentknowledge o all subjects they intend to teach—through both coursework and content testing—

but the state’s policy also does not make it overlyburdensome or social studies teachers to teachmultiple subjects. Other notable states includegeia and Sut Data, which also do not o-er secondary general social studies certications.

Fgu 29

1. Massachusetts does not oer a general social studies license, butoers combination licenses.

NorThDAkoTA




G Cpnns


1. The state should not permit specialeducation teachers to teach on a K-12license that does not dierentiate betweenthe preparation o elementary teachers andthat o secondary teachers.

2. All elementary special education candidatesshould have a broad liberal arts program ostudy that includes study in mathematics,science, English, social studies and ne artsand should be required to pass a subject-matter test or licensure that is no lessrigorous than what is required o generaleducation candidates.

3. The state should require that teacherpreparation programs graduate secondaryspecial education teacher candidates whoare highly qualied in at least two subjects.

The state should also customize a “HOUSSE”route or new secondary special educationteachers to help them achieve highlyqualied status in all the subjects they teach.

The components or this goal havechanged since 2009. In light o stateprogress on this topic, the bar or thisgoal has been raised.

Bcgund



G i – Sc eductn Tc ptnTe state sud ensue tat specia educatin teaces nw te subject matte tey

wi be equied t teac.

Fgu 31

How States are Faring in Special EducationTeacher Preparation

0 bst pctc Stts

0 Stts Mt G

1 Stt N Mts G

Massachusetts

15 Stts pt Mt GAlabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine,

Maryland, New Jersey⬆, New York, Oregon,

Pennsylvania⬆, Rhode Island, Texas⬆,

Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin

1 Stt Mts Sm pt GKansas

34 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia,

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,

Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,

North Carolina, NorTh DAkoTA, Ohio,

Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota,

Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington,

Wyoming


⬆ : 3 : 48 ⬇ : 0




: 41

aNalySiSRegrettably, North Dakota oers a K-12 special education certication, in addition to grade-specic

options.Although North Dakota does appropriately require its elementary special education teacher candidatesto pass the same subject-matter test as general education candidates, the state does not ensure that itselementary special education teachers—who are required to meet the same preparation requirementsas all elementary candidates—are provided with a broad liberal arts program o study relevant to theelementary classroom (see Goal 1-B).

Further, North Dakota ails to require that secondary special education teacher candidates are highlyqualied in at least two subject areas, and it does not customize a HOUSSE route or new secondaryspecial education teachers to help them achieve highly qualied status in all subjects they teach.


reCommeNDatioN

■ End icensue pactices tat ai t distinuis between te sis and nwede needed tteac eementay ades and secnday ades.

It is virtually impossible and certainly impractical or North Dakota to ensure that a K-12 specialeducation teacher knows all the subject matter he or she is expected to be able to teach, especiallyconsidering state and ederal expectations that special education students should meet the samehigh standards as other students. While the broad K-12 umbrella may be appropriate or teacherso low-incidence special education students, such as those with severe cognitive disabilities, it isdeeply problematic or the overwhelming majority o high-incidence special education students,who are expected to learn grade-level content.

■ Pvide a bad ibea ats pam study t eementay specia educatin candidates.

North Dakota should ensure that special education teacher candidates who will teach elementarygrades possess not only knowledge o eective learning strategies but also knowledge o the subjectmatter at hand. Although the state commendably requires the same content test as general educa-tion teachers, it should also require core-subject coursework relevant to the elementary classroom.Failure to ensure that teachers possess requisite content knowledge deprives special educationstudents o the opportunity to reach their academic potential.


a 1: G i Nt Data anss




■ Ensue tat secnday specia educatin teace candidates aduate wit iy quaiedstatus in at east tw subjects, and custmize a hoUSSE ute s tat tey can acieve

iy quaied status in a subjects tey pan t teac.To make secondary special education teacher candidates more fexible and better able to serveschools and students, North Dakota should use a combination o coursework and testing to ensurethat they graduate with highly qualied status in two core academic areas. A customized HOUSSEroute can also help new secondary special education teacher candidates to become highly qualiedin multiple subjects by oering ecient means by which they could gain broad overviews o specicareas o content knowledge, such as content-driven university courses. Such a route is specicallypermitted in the 2004 reauthorization o the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).





: 43

Figure 32

Do states distinguish

between elementary

and secondary special

education teachers?

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

16 16 19

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

Pennsylvania1

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

yeS1 N2 N: onk-12 cns

d3

1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York,North Dakota, Oregon4, Pennsylvania5, Rhode Island, Texas,West Virginia, Wisconsin

2. Alaska, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee,Vermont, Washington, Wyoming

3. Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,District o Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Montana,Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,South Carolina, Utah, Virginia

4. Although Oregon requires testing, the state allows an “alternativeassessment” option or candidates who ail the tests twice to stillbe considered or a license.

5. In Pennsylvania, a candidate who opts or dual cer tication inelementary special education and as a reading specialist does nothave to take a content test.

17 15 19

Fgu 33

Do states require subject-matter testing or elementary special education licenses?

Fgu 32

1. Beginning January 1, 2013


Unortunately, NCTQ cannot highlight any state’spolicy in this area. Preparation o special edu-cation teachers remains a topic in critical needo states’ attention. However, it is worth not-

ing that three states—luisiana, Pennsyva-nia and Texas—will no longer issue K-12 specialeducation certications. Only grade-level spe-cic options will be available to new teachers.

NorThDAkoTA




G Cpnns


1. The state should assess new teachers’knowledge o teaching and learning bymeans o a pedagogy test aligned to thestate’s proessional standards.

Bcgund



G J – assssng pssn knwdgTe state sud use a icensin test t veiy tat a new teaces meet its

pessina standads.

Fgu 34

How States are Faring in AssessingProessional Knowledge

0 bst pctc Stts

23 Stts Mt G Arizona, Arkansas, California,

District of Columbia⬆, Florida, Illinois, Kansas,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota,

Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico,

New York, NorTh DAkoTA, Ohio, Oklahoma,

South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,

Texas, West Virginia

2 Stts N Mt GMaryland, Rhode Island

3 Stts pt Mt GIdaho, North Carolina, Utah

5 Stts Mt Sm pt GConnecticut, Indiana, Missouri,

Pennsylvania, Wyoming

18 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware,

Georgia, Hawaii , Iowa, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Montana, Nebraska,

New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon,

Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin


⬆ : 1 : 49 ⬇ : 1




: 45

aNalySiSNorth Dakota requires all new teachers to pass a popular pedagogy assessment rom the Praxis II series.

Suppng rschttp://www.ets.org/praxis/nd

reCommeNDatioN

■ Veiy tat cmmeciay avaiabe tests peday actuay ain wit state standads.

North Dakota should ensure that its selected test o proessional knowledge measures the knowl-edge and skills the state expects new teachers to have.



a 1: G J Nt Data anss




peDaGoGyTeST reQUireD

oF all NeWTeaCherS1

pdggtst qud sm nw

tcs2

N dggtst qud3

1. Strong Practice: Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, District o Columbia,Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota,Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio,Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia

2. Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina,Pennsylvania, Utah4, Wyoming

3. Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa,Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin

4. Not required until teacher advances rom a Level One to a LevelTwo license.

24

9

18

Fgu 35

Do states measure new teachers’ knowledgeo teaching and learning?


Twenty-three states meet this goal, and although NCTQhas not singled out one state’s policies or “best practice”honors, it additionally commends the nine states (Aizna,Cainia, Fida, Iinis, Minnesta, New Mexic,

New Y, oama, Texas) that utilize their own assess-ments to measure pedagogical knowledge and skills.

NorThDAkoTA




: 47

G Cpnns


1. The state should require that studentteachers only be placed with cooperatingteachers or whom there is evidence o theireectiveness as measured by consistent gainsin student learning.

2. The state should require that teachercandidates spend at least 10 weeksstudent teaching.

Bcgund



G k – Studnt TcngTe state sud ensue tat teace pepaatin pams pvide teace candidates

wit a i-quaity cinica expeience.

Fgu 36

How States are Faring in Student Teaching

0 bst pctc Stts

2 Stts Mt G Florida, Tennessee

1 Stt N Mts GKentucky

21 Stts pt Mt GAlabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii,

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi,

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

North Carolina, NorTh DAkoTA, Ohio,

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,

Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

5 Stts Mt Sm pt GIndiana, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island,

South Dakota

22 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware,

District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,

Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,

New York, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia,

Wyoming


Nw G




aNalySiSCommendably, North Dakota requires candidates to complete a “ull-time block” o student teaching,

which is construed as a ull day or 10 consecutive weeks.Although the state does outline a number o criteria in selecting cooperating teachers—such as a mini-mum o two semester hours in a student supervision course, three years o teaching experience and therecommendation o the school’s administration—it does not specically address cooperating teachers’eectiveness as measured by student learning.

Suppng rscNorth Dakota Administrative Code 67.1-02-01-01, -02

reCommeNDatioN

■ Ensue tat cpeatin teaces ave demnstated evidence eectiveness as measuedby student eanin.

Although North Dakota articulates some requirements or cooperating teachers, the state doesnot address the most essential: cooperating teachers’ classroom eectiveness. In addition to theability to mentor an adult, cooperating teachers should also be careully screened or their capac-ity to urther student achievement. Research indicates that the only aspect o a student teachingarrangement that has been shown to have an impact on student achievement is the positive eecto selection o the cooperating teacher by the preparation program, rather than the student teacheror school district sta.

■ Expicity equie tat student teacin be cmpeted cay, tus pibitin candidatesm cmpetin tis equiement abad.

Unless preparation programs can establish true satellite campuses to closely supervise studentteaching arrangements, placement in oreign or otherwise novel locales should be supplementary

to a standard student teaching arrangement. Outsourcing the arrangements or student teachingmakes it impossible to ensure the selection o the best cooperating teacher and adequate supervi-sion o the student teacher and may prevent training o the teacher on relevant state instructionalrameworks.



a 1: G k Nt Data anss




: 49


Although no state has been singled out or “best practice”honors, Fida and Tennessee require teacher candidatesto complete at least 10 weeks o ull-time student teaching,and they have taken steps toward ensuring that cooperat-

ing teachers have demonstrated evidence o eectiveness asmeasured by student learning.

Figure 37

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

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 student

teaching experience?

292

1

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

1. Candidates can student teach or less than 12 weeksi determined to be procient.




yeS1 N, ut stts t

qumnts sctn2

Nqumnts3

1. Strong Practice: Florida, Tennessee

2. Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska,New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania,Washington, Wisconsin

3. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado, Delaware, Districto Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana,Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississ ippi,Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island,

South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,West Virginia, Wyoming

2

12

37

Fgu 38

Is the selection o the cooperating teacher based on some measure o eectiveness?

1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas,Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia5,Wisconsin

2. Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Virginia, Wyomi

3. Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, Utah

4. Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, Delaware, District o Columbia, Georgia,Maryland, Montana

5. Candidates can student teach or less than 12 weeks i determined to be procient.

aT leaST10 WeekS1

lss tn10 ws2

rqudut ngt

nt scfd3

Studnttcng tn

n scfcstudnt tcng

qumnt4

29

9

49

Fgu 39

Is the summative student teachingexperience o sufcient length?

NorThDAkoTA

NorThDAkoTA




: 51

G Cpnns


1. The state should collect value-added datathat connects student achievement gains toteacher preparation programs.

2. The state should collect other meaninguldata that refects program perormance,

including some or all o the ollowing:a. Average raw scores o teacher candidateson licensing tests, including basic skills, subjectmatter and proessional knowledge tests;

b. Number o times, on average, it takes teachercandidates to pass licensing tests;

c. Satisaction ratings by school principalsand teacher supervisors o programs’ studentteachers, using a standardized orm to permitprogram comparison;

d. Evaluation results rom the frst and/orsecond year o teaching;

e. Five-year retention rates o graduates in the

teaching proession.

3. The state should establish the minimumstandard o perormance or each categoryo data. Programs should be held accountableor meeting these standards, with articulatedconsequences or ailing to do so, includingloss o program approval.

4. The state should produce and publishon its website an annual report card thatshows all the data the state collects on

individual teacher preparation programs.


Bcgund



G l – Tc ptn pgm accunttTe state’s appva pcess teace pepaatin pams sud d pams

accuntabe te quaity te teaces tey pduce.

Fgu 40

How States are Faring in Teacher PreparationProgram Accountability

1 bst pctc SttFlorida

1 Stt Mts G Louisiana

5 Stts N Mt GAlabama, Colorado⬆, Georgia⬆,

Tennessee, Texas

6 Stts pt Mt GKentucky, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina,

Rhode Island, South Carolina

16 Stts Mt Sm pt GArizona, Illinois⬆, Iowa, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,

New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,

Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia⬆

22 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Arkansas , California, Connecticut,

Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii,

Idaho, Indiana, Kansas , Maine, Minnesota,

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico,

New York, NorTh DAkoTA, Oregon , South

Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming


⬆ : 4 : 44 ⬇ : 3




aNalySiSNorth Dakota’s approval process or its teacher preparation programs does not hold programs account-

able or the quality o the teachers they produce.Most importantly, North Dakota does not collect value-added data that connect student achievementgains to teacher preparation programs.

The state also ails to collect other objective, meaningul data to measure the perormance o teach-er preparation programs, nor does it apply any transparent, measurable criteria or conerring programapproval. North Dakota collects programs’ annual summary licensure test pass rates (80 percent o pro-gram completers must pass their licensure exams). However, the 80 percent pass-rate standard, whilecommon among many states, sets the bar quite low and is not a meaningul measure o program per-ormance.

Further, in the past three years, no programs in the state have been identied as low perorming—anadditional indicator that programs lack accountability.

Finally, North Dakota’s website does not include a report card that allows the public to review and com-pare program perormance.

Suppng rscTitle II State Reports

https://title2.ed.gov

reCommeNDatioN

■ Cect data tat cnnect student acievement ains t teace pepaatin pams.

To ensure that programs are producing eective classroom teachers, North Dakota should consideracademic achievement gains o students taught by the programs’ graduates, averaged over the rst

three years o teaching. ■ gate te meaninu data tat efect pam pemance.

In addition to knowing whether programs are producing eective teachers, other objective, mean-ingul data can also indicate whether programs are appropriately screening applicants and i theyare delivering essential academic and proessional knowledge. North Dakota should gather datasuch as the ollowing: average raw scores o graduates on licensing tests, including basic skills, subject matter and proessional knowledge tests; satisaction ratings by school principals and teachersupervisors o programs’ student teachers, using a standardized orm to permit program compari-son; evaluation results rom the rst and/or second year o teaching; and ve-year retention rateso graduates in the teaching proession.

■ Estabis te minimum standad pemance eac catey data.

Programs should be held accountable or meeting these standards, with articulated consequencesor ailing to do so, including loss o program approval ater appropriate due process.


a 1: G l Nt Data anss




: 53

■ Pubis an annua ept cad n te state’s website.

To inorm the public with meaningul, readily understandable indicators o how well programs

are doing, North Dakota should present all the data it collects on individual teacher preparationprograms.





Figure 41

Do states hold teacher

preparation programs

accountable?

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

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

TRADITIONAL

PREPARATION

ALTERNATIVE

PREPARATION

2

1

1

1

25 5 14 17 2 10

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

1. Reported institutional data do notdistinguish between candidates in thetraditional and alternate route programs.

2. The posted data do not allow thepublic to review and compare programperormance because data are notdisaggregated by program provider.




: 55

yeS1 in rc t t

T n, utnt n c2

N3

1. Strong Practice: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee,Texas

2. Delaware, District o Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts,New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 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

69

36

Fgu 42

Do states use student achievement data to hold teacher preparation programs accountable?

1. For alternate route only

Fgu 43

Which states collect meaningul data?

averaGe raW SCoreS oN liCeNSiNG TeSTSAlabama, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey,

Tennessee, West Virginia

SaTiSFaCTioN raTiNGS FroM SChoolSAlabama, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland1,Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey,Tennessee, Virginia, Washington1, West Virginia

evalUaTioN reSUlTS For proGraM GraDUaTeSAlabama, Arizona, Delaware1, Florida, Illiniois, Iowa,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,Texas, Vermont

STUDeNT learNiNG GaiNSColorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas

TeaCher reTeNTioN raTeS

Arizona, Colorado, Delaware1, Missouri, New Jersey


Fida connects student achievement gains to teacherpreparation programs. The state also relies on otherobjective, meaningul data to measure the peror-mance o teacher preparation programs, and it applies

transparent, measurable criteria or conerring programapproval. Florida also posts an annual report on its website.

NorThDAkoTA




What is the relationship

between state program

approval and national

accreditation?

Figure 44

N a t i o n a l a c

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

s u b s t i t u t e d f o r s t a t e

a p p r o v a l

W h i l e n o t t e c h n i c a l l y r e q

u i r e d ,

t h e a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s i s

i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m a c c r e d i t a t i o n

W h i l e n o t t e c h n i c a l l y

r e q u i r e d ,

t h e r e i s s o m

e o v e r l a p

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 s t a t e a p p r o v a l

10 4 8 6

S T A T E H A S I T S

O W N

A P P R O V A L S T A N

D A R D S

23

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona1

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii1

Idaho

Illinois1

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

NorTh DAkoTA

Ohio1

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas1

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

1. According to inormation posted onNCATE’s website.



NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota

: 57

Fg 45

How States are Faring in Alternate Route Eligibility

2 bst pctc SttsDistrict of Columbia⬆, Michigan⬆

1 Stt Mts G Minnesota⬆

13 Stts N Mt GAlabama⬆, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois,

Louisiana, Maryland⬆, Massachusetts,

New York, Ohio⬆, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, Tennessee

15 Stts pt Mt GArizona , Delaware⬆, Florida, Indiana⬆,

Iowa⬆, Kansas⬆, Kentucky, Mississippi,

New Jersey , North Carolina, South Dakota⬆,

Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia

13 Stts Mt Sm pt G

Alaska, California , Colorado , Georgia ,Idaho , Maine, Missouri, Nevada⬆,

New Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina,

Vermont, Wyoming

7 Stts D Nt Mt GHawaii , Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico,

North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 12 : 32 ⬇ : 7

G Cps


1. With some accommodation or workexperience, alternate route programs shouldscreen candidates or academic ability, suchas requiring a minimum 2.75 overall collegeGPA.

2. All alternate route candidates, includingelementary candidates and those having amajor in their intended subject area, shouldbe required to pass the state’s subject-matterlicensing test.

3. Alternate route candidates lacking a major inthe intended subject area should be able todemonstrate subject-matter knowledge bypassing a test o sucient rigor.

Bcgu


ae 2: Expnding e Pl teces

G a – atnt rt egtte se suld equie lene ue pgms exceed e dmissin

equiemens diinl pepin pgms wile ls being exible eneeds nndiinl cndides.



58 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota

analySiSNorth Dakota does not classiy any programs as alternate routes to teacher certication.

Suppg rschttp://www.nd.gov/espb/licensure/types.html

reCommendation

■ Esblis n lene ue licensue.

North Dakota should develop a genuine alternate route to licensure that is fexible regarding theneeds o nontraditional candidates in order to broaden and deepen the available pool o teachers,particularly in the elds o mathematics and science. Establishing admission standards that exceedthose o traditional preparation provides an important saeguard.

north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther explanation.


a 2: G a N D anss




: 59

Figure 46

Are states' alternate

routes selective yet flexible in admissions?

A C A D E M

I C S T A N D A R D

F O R

A D M I S S I O

N E X C E E D

S

T R A D I T I O

N A L P R O

G R A

M S

S U B J E C T -

M A T T E R

T E S T

R E Q U I R E D

N O M A J O R R E Q

U I R E D

O R

T E S T C A N B E

U S E D

I N L I E U

O F M A J O R

13 24 27

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 Dakota1

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

WyomingFg 46

1. North Dakota does not have an alternate route to certication.

1. Strong Practice: Connecticut, District o Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, Tennessee

2. Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,South Carolina, So uth Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, Wyoming

3. Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine,

Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon,Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin

4. North Dakota does not have an alternate route to cer tication.

aCaDeMiC

STaNDarD

exCeeDS ThaT

oF TraDiTioNal

proGraMS1

acdmc

stndd

t 2

N cdmc

stndd3,4

13

18 19

Fg 47

Do states require alternate routes to be selective?

SubjeCT-MaTTer

TeST reQuireD

For aDMiSSioN1

insfcnt

tstng

qmnts2,3

1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut4, District oColumbia, Florida, Illinois4, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts,Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia

2. State does not require test at all, exempts some candidates or does notrequire passage until program completion. Alaska, Caliornia, Colorado,Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Missouri,Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming


4. Required prior to entering the classroom.

2426

Fg 48

Do states ensure that alternate route teachers have subject-matter knowledge?




1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Caliornia, Colorado, Connecticut6, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland,North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas

2. Strong Practice: Arizona, Arkansas, District o Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts,Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Virginia, Washington

3. Alaska, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont,West Virginia, Wyoming

4. Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin


6. Test out option available to candidates in shortage areas only.

Fg 49

Do states accommodate the nontraditional background of alternateroute candidates?


The Disic Clumbi and Micign require candidates to demonstrateabove-average academic perormance as conditions o admission to an alternateroute program, with both requiring applicants to have a minimum 3.0 GPA. Inaddition, neither state requires a content-specic major; subject-area knowledge

is demonstrated by passing a test, making their alternate routes fexible to theneeds o nontraditional candidates.

TeST CaN be uSeD

iN lieu oF Major

or CourSework

reQuireMeNTS1

No Major or

SubjeCT area

CourSework

reQuireMeNTS2

M cs

qd t n

tst t tn3

N stt c;

gms cn

q m

cs t n

tst t tn4,5

14 13

18

5




: 61

Fg 50

How States are Faring in Alternate Route Preparation

1 bst pctc SttConnecticut

4 Stts Mt G Arkansas, Delaware⬆, Georgia, New Jersey

7 Stts N Mt GAlabama, Florida, Maryland⬆, Mississippi,

Rhode Island⬆, South Carolina, Virginia

11 Stts pt Mt GAlaska, California, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Massachusetts, Nevada⬆, New Mexico,

New York, Ohio⬆, South Dakota,

West Virginia

18 Stts Mt Sm pt GArizona, Colorado, District of Columbia,

Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa , Kansas⬆,

Michigan⬆, Minnesota⬆, Missouri,Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas,

Utah, Washington, Wyoming

10 Stts D Nt Mt GHawaii, Maine, Montana, Nebraska,

New Hampshire, North Carolina,

North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 8 : 42 ⬇ : 1

G Cps


1. The state should ensure that the amounto coursework it either requires or allows ismanageable or a novice teacher. Anythingexceeding 12 credit hours o coursework in therst year may be counterproductive, placing toogreat a burden on the teacher. This calculation ispremised on no more than six credit hours in thesummer, three in the all and three in the spring.

2. The state should ensure that alternate routeprograms oer accelerated study not to exceedsix (three credit) courses or secondary teachersand eight (three credit) courses or elementaryteachers (exclusive o any credit or practiceteaching or mentoring) over the duration o theprogram. Programs should be limited to two years, at which time the new teacher should beeligible or a standard certicate.

3. All coursework requirements should targetthe immediate needs o the new teacher (e.g.,seminars with other grade-level teachers, trainingin a particular curriculum, reading instruction andclassroom management techniques).

4. The state should ensure that candidates havean opportunity to practice teach in a summertraining program. Alternatively, the state canrequire an intensive mentoring experience,beginning with a trained mentor assigned ulltime to the new teacher or the rst criticalweeks o school and then gradually reduced.

The state should support only inductionstrategies that can be eective even in a poorlymanaged school: intensive mentoring, seminarsappropriate to grade level or subject area, areduced teaching load and requent release timeto observe eective teachers.

Bcgu



G b – atnt rt ptnte se suld ensue is lene ues pvide semlined pepin

is elevn e immedie needs new eces.




analySiSNorth Dakota does not currently oer any alternate routes to licensure.

Suppg rschttp://www.nd.gov/espb/progapproval/

reCommendation


North Dakota should develop a genuine alternate route to licensure that oers streamlined prepa-ration relevant to the immediate needs o new teachers. An alternative pathway can help broadenand deepen the available pool o teachers, particularly in the elds o mathematics and science.

north dakota reSPonSe to analySiS

North Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther explanation

a 2: G b N D anss





: 63


Cnnecicu ensures that its alternate routeprovides streamlined preparation that meetsthe immediate needs o new teachers. Thestate requires a manageable number o credithours, relevant coursework, a eld placementand intensive mentoring. Other notable statesinclude anss, Delwe, Gegi andNew Jesey. These states provide streamlined,relevant coursework with intensive mentoring.

Do states' alternate routes provide streamlined preparation that meetsthe immediate needs of

new teachers? 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

O P P O

R T U N I T Y

I N T E N

S I V E S U P P O

R T

Figure 51

13 12 29 18 13

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida1

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 Dakota2

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming1. Florida requires practice teaching or intensive mentoring.





yeS1 Smt2 N3,4

1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey,Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia

2. Indiana, Nevada, Wyoming

3. Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, District o Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

4. North Dakota does not have an alternate route to

certication.

13

3

34

Fg 52

Do states curb excessive courseworkrequirements?

1. Strong Practice: Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska,New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia

2. Strong Practice: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York,West Virginia

3. Strong Practice: Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia,Florida6, Maryland, Massachusetts

4. Alabama, Caliornia, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine,Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, U tah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming


6. Candidates are required to have one or the other, not both.

praCTiCe

TeaChiNG1

iNTeNSive

MeNToriNG2

Nt4,5boTh3

11

6 7

26

Fg 53

Do states require practice teaching or intensivementoring?




: 65

Fg 54

How States are Faring in Alternate Route Usageand Providers

0 bst pctc Stts

26 Stts Mt G Arizona⬆, Arkansas, California, Colorado,

Connecticut⬆, Delaware, District of Columbia,

Florida, Georgia, Illinois⬆, Kentucky,Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Michigan⬆, Nevada⬆, New Hampshire,

New York⬆, North Carolina, Ohio⬆,

Pennsylvania⬆, Rhode Island, Tennessee,

Texas, Virginia, Washington⬆

4 Stts N Mt GMinnesota⬆, New Jersey, South Dakota, Utah

7 Stts pt Mt GAlabama⬆, Indiana, Montana,

New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia,

Wisconsin

4 Stts Mt Sm pt GIdaho⬆, Mississippi, South Carolina, Vermont

10 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Missouri,

Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Wyoming

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 12 : 39 ⬇ : 0

G Cps


1. The state should not treat the alternateroute as a program o last resort or restrictthe availability o alternate routes to certainsubjects, grades or geographic areas.

2. The state should allow districts and nonprot

organizations other than institutions ohigher education to operate alternate routeprograms.

3. The state should ensure that its alternateroute has no requirements that would bedicult to meet or a provider that is notan institution o higher education (e.g.,an approval process based on institutionalaccreditation).

Bcgu



G C – atnt rt usg nd pdste se suld pvide n lene ue is ee m eguly bscles

limi is usge nd pvides.




analySiSNorth Dakota does not currently oer any alternate routes to licensure.

Suppg rschttp://www.nd.gov/espb/progapproval/

reCommendation


The state should develop a genuine alternate route to licensure that is ree rom regulatory obsta-cles that inappropriately limit its usage and providers. An alternative pathway can help broaden anddeepen the available pool o teachers, particularly in the elds o mathematics and science.


North Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther explanation.


a 2: G C N D anss




: 67


Twenty-six states meet this goal, and although NCTQhas not singled out one state’s policies or “best prac-tice” honors, it commends all states that permit bothbroad usage and a diversity o providers or their alter-nate routes.

Figure 55

B R O A D U S A

G E A C R O

S S

S U B J E C

T S , G R A D E S

A N D

G E O

G R A P H

I C A R E A

S

D I V E R

S I T Y O F P R

O V I D E R

S

Are states' alternate

routes free from

limitations?

2932

Alabama1

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 Dakota2

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Fg 55 nd 56

1. Alabama oers routes without restrictions or candidates with master’sdegrees. The route or candidates with bachelor’s degrees is limited tocertain subjects.


yeS N

32

18

Fg 56

Can alternate route teachers teach any subjector grade anywhere in the state?




DiSTriCT-ruN

proGraMS aND

NoN-proFiT

proviDerS

perMiTTeD1

DiSTriCT-ruN

proGraMS

perMiTTeD2

Cg nd

nst

ds n3,4

1. Strong Practice: Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Districto Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York,Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas,Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin

2. Strong Practice: Caliornia, Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina,Vermont5, West Virginia

3. Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho6, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,Minnesota, Mississippi6, Missouri6, Montana, Nebraska,New Jersey7, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina6,South Dakota, Utah6, Wyoming

4. North Dakota does not have an alternate route to

certication.5. Districts can run Peer Review programs only.

6. ABCTE is also an approved provider.

7. Permits school districts to provide programs without universitypartnerships in some circumstances.

24

6

20

Fg 57

Do states permit providers other thancolleges or universities?

Figure 58

Do states provide real

alternative pathways

to certification?

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

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

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

7 25 18

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 Dakota1

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

WyomingFg 58





: 69

Figure 59

What are the

characteristics of

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

13 24 27 13 12 29 24 32 29

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




Fg 60

How States are Faring in Part Time Teaching Licenses

1 bst pctc SttArkansas

2 Stts Mt G Florida, Georgia

5 Stts N Mt GKentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,

Utah

4 Stts pt Mt GCalifornia, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma

6 Stts Mt Sm pt GColorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana,

New York, Washington

33 Stts D Nt Mt G

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut,Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii,

Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina,

North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia,

West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

nw G

G Cps


1. Either through a discrete license or bywaiving most licensure requirements, thestate should authorize individuals withcontent expertise to teach as part-timeinstructors.

2. All candidates or a part-time teachinglicense should be required to pass a subject-matter test.

3. Other requirements or this license shouldbe limited to those addressing public saety(e.g., background screening) and those oimmediate use to the novice instructor (e.g.,classroom management training).

Bcgu



G D – pt-Tm Tcng lcnsste se suld e license wi miniml equiemens llws cnen

expes ec p ime.




: 71

analySiSNorth Dakota does not oer a license with minimal requirements that would allow content experts to

teach part time.

reCommendation

■ oe license llws cnen expes seve s p-ime insucs.

North Dakota should permit individuals with deep subject-area knowledge to teach a limited num-ber o courses without ullling a complete set o certication requirements. The state shouldveriy content knowledge through a rigorous test and conduct background checks as appropriate,while waiving all other licensure requirements. Such a license would increase districts’ fexibility tosta certain subjects, including many STEM areas, that are requently hard to sta or may not havehigh enough enrollment to necessitate a ull-time position.



a 2: G D N D anss





anss oers a license with minimal requirements that allowscontent experts to teach part time. Individuals seeking this licensemust pass a subject-matter test and are also required to completespecially-designed pedagogy training that is not overly burdensome.

Figure 61

Do states offer a license with minimal

requirements that allows content experts

to teach part-time?

YES No

16 35

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia 1

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas 2

Kentucky

Louisiana 1

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi 2

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York 2

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio 1

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington 2

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming1. License has restrictions.

2. It appears that the state has a license that may be used or this purpose; guidelines are vague.




: 73

Fg 62

How States are Faring in Licensure Reciprocity

2 bst pctc SttsAlabama, Texas

0 Stts Mt G

3 Stts N Mt G

Idaho, Ohio, Washington

13 Stts pt Mt GAlaska, Delaware, Illinois⬆, Massachusetts,

Minnesota, New York, North Carolina,

North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,

Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin

15 Stts Mt Sm pt GColorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana,

Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New

Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon⬆, Rhode

Island, Tennessee, Virginia, Wyoming

18 Stts D Nt Mt GArizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut,

District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana,

Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,

South Carolina, Vermont

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 2 : 49 ⬇ : 0

G Cps


1. The state should oer a standard license toully certied teachers moving rom otherstates, without relying on transcript analysisor recency requirements as a means o judging eligibility. The state can and shouldrequire evidence o good standing in previousemployment.

2. The state should uphold its standards or allteachers by insisting that certied teacherscoming rom other states meet the incomingstate’s testing requirements.

3. The state should accord the same license toteachers rom other states who completedan approved alternate route program thatit accords teachers prepared in a traditionalpreparation program.

Bcgu



G e – lcns rcctte se suld elp me licenses ully pble mng ses, wi pppie

seguds.




analySiSNorth Dakota does not support licensure reciprocity or certied teachers rom other states.

Commendably, North Dakota does not appear to grant any waivers o its testing requirements. All out-o-state teachers, no matter how many years o experience they have, must meet the state’s passingscores on licensing tests.

However, other aspects o the state’s policy create obstacles or teachers rom other states seekinglicensure in North Dakota. Teachers with valid out-o-state certicates are eligible or North Dakota’sInterim Reciprocal License or its Initial License once state requirements are met. North Dakota routinelyreviews the college transcripts o licensed out-o-state teachers, an exercise that oten leads the state torequire additional coursework beore it will oer its license. States that reach a determination about anapplicant’s licensure status on the basis o the course titles listed on the applicant’s transcript may endup mistakenly equating the amount o required coursework with the teacher’s qualications.

North Dakota also requires all out-o-state teachers to take coursework in Native American and multi-

cultural studies and does not oer a test-out option.

North Dakota is also a participant in the NASDTEC Interstate Agreement; however, the latest iterationo this agreement no longer purports to be a reciprocity agreement among states and thus is no longerincluded in this analysis.

Suppg rscNorth Dakota Administrative Code 67.1-02-02

reCommendation

■ oe sndd license ceifed u--se eces, bsen unnecessyequiemens.

North Dakota should reconsider its policy o transcript reviews. Such reviews are not a particularlymeaningul or ecient exercise and are likely to result in additional coursework requirements, evenor traditionally prepared teachers; alternate route teachers, on the other hand, may have to virtu-ally begin anew, repeating some, most or all o a teacher preparation program in North Dakota.

Also, the state’s Native American and multicultural studies coursework requirements are reason-able; however, it should oer out-o-state teachers a test-out option.

■ accd e sme license u--se lene ue eces s wuld be ccded diinlly peped eces.

Regardless o whether a teacher was prepared through a traditional or alternate route, all certi-ed out-o-state teachers should receive equal treatment. State policies that discriminate againstteachers who were prepared in an alternate route are not supported by evidence. In act, a sub-

stantial body o research has ailed to discern dierences in eectiveness between alternate andtraditional route teachers.


a 2: G e N D anss





: 75


albm and texs appropriately support licensurereciprocity by only requiring certied teachers romother states to meet each state’s own testing require-ments and by not speciying any additional coursework

or recency requirements to determine eligibility or eithertraditional or alternate route teachers.

yeS1 N2

1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts,Minnesota, New York3, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania3,South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington3, Wisconsin

2. Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi,Missouri, Montana4, Nebraska4, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon,Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia,West Virginia, Wyoming

3. Exception or teachers with National Board Certication.

4. No subject-matter testing or any teacher cer tication.

15

36

Fg 63

Do states require all out-of-state teachersto pass their licensure tests?

Figure 64

What do states require

of teachers transferring

from other states?

L I C E N S E

R E C I P R O C I T Y

W I T H

N O

S T R I N G S

A T T A C H E D

T r a n s c r i p t a n a l y s i s

R e c e n c y r e q u i r e m

e n t s

9 41 12

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 1

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island 1

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington 2

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming 1Fg 64

1. For traditionally prepared teachers only.

2. Transcript review required or those with less than 3 years experience.

NorthDakota




Figure 65

Do states treat out-of-stateteachers the same whether they were prepared in atraditional or an alternateroute program?

S T A T E T R E A T S T E A C H E R S

E Q U A L L Y

S t a t e

s p e c i fi

e s d i f f e

r e n t

r e q u i r e

m e n t s f o r a l t e r n a t e

r o u t e t e a c h

e r s

S t a t e h

a s p o l i c i e s

w i t h

t h e

p o t e n t i a l t o

c r e a t e

o b

s t a c l e s

f o r a l t e r n a t e r o u t e t e a c h

e r s

6 6 39

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




: 77

Fg 66

How States are Faring in the Development o Data Systems

0 bst pctc Stts

35 Stts Mt G Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,

Hawaii, Idaho⬆, Illinois⬆, Indiana⬆, Iowa⬆,

Kansas⬆, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland⬆,

Massachusetts⬆, Minnesota⬆, Mississippi,

Missouri, Nebraska⬆, New Hampshire⬆, New

Mexico, New York⬆, North Carolina,

North Dakota⬆, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Utah, Washington⬆, West Virginia,

Wisconsin⬆, Wyoming

0 Stts N Mt G

15 Stts pt Mt GAlaska, Arizona⬆, Colorado, Connecticut,

District of Columbia⬆, Maine, Michigan,Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon,

South Dakota⬆, Texas, Vermont, Virginia

0 Stts Mt Sm pt f G

1 Stt Ds Nt Mt GCalifornia

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 17 : 33 ⬇ : 1

G Cps


1. The state should establish a longitudinaldata system with at least the ollowing keycomponents:

a. A unique statewide student identiernumber that connects student data across

key databases across years;b.A unique teacher identier system thatcan match individual teacher records withindividual student records; and

c. An assessment system that can matchindividual student test records rom year to year in order to measure academic growth.

2. Value-added data provided through thestate’s longitudinal data system shouldbe considered among the criteria used todetermine teachers’ eectiveness.

3. To ensure that data provided through thestate data system is actionable and reliable,the state should have a clear denition o“teacher o record” and require its consistentuse statewide.

Bcgu


ae 3: Ideniying Eecive teces

G a – Stt Dt Sstmste se suld ve d sysem cnibues sme e evidence needed

ssess ece eeciveness.



: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota

78

analySiSNorth Dakota has a data system with the capacity to provide evidence o teacher eectiveness.

North Dakota has all three necessary elements o a student- and teacher-level longitudinal data system.The state has assigned unique student identiers that connect student data across key databases across years and has assigned unique teacher identiers that enable it to match individual teacher records withindividual student records. It also has the capacity to match student test records rom year to year inorder to measure student academic growth.

Suppg rscData Quality Campaign

www.dataqualitycampaign.org

reCommendation

■ Develp cle defniin “ece ecd.”

North Dakota has not yet established a denition o teacher o record, which is essential in order touse the student-data link or the purpose o providing value-added evidence o teacher eectiveness.To ensure that data provided through the state data system are actionable and reliable, North Dakotashould articulate a denition o teacher o record and require its consistent use throughout the state.

north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis, but indicated there are pending regulatorychanges that may aect this goal. However, the state oered no additional explanation.


a 3: G a N D anss




: 79


Although NCTQ has not singled out one state’spolicies or “best practice” honors, it commends the35 states that have a data system with the capacityto provide evidence o teacher eectiveness.

Figure 67

Do state data systems

have the capacity to

assess teacher

effectiveness?

U N I Q U E S T U

D E N

T I D E N

T I F I E R

U N I Q U E T E A

C H E R

I D E N

T I F I E R

S Y S T E M

T H A T C A N M A T C H

T E A

C H E R

R E C

O R D S T O

S T U D E N

T R E C

O R D S

T E S T

R E C

O R D S M A T C H

O V E R

T I M E

50 35 50

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 k

indicates that the state assigns teacher identication numbers, but itcannot match individual teacher records with individual student records.




80

G Cps


1. The state should either require a commonevaluation instrument in which evidenceo student learning is the most signicantcriterion or specically require that studentlearning be the preponderant criterionin local evaluation processes. Evaluationinstruments, whether state or locallydeveloped, should be structured to preclude ateacher rom receiving a satisactory rating iound ineective in the classroom.

2. Evaluation instruments should requireclassroom observations that ocus on anddocument the eectiveness o instruction.

3. Teacher evaluations should consider objectiveevidence o student learning, includingnot only standardized test scores but alsoclassroom-based artiacts such as tests,

quizzes and student work.4. The state should require that evaluation

instruments dierentiate among variouslevels o teacher perormance. A binarysystem that merely categorizes teachers assatisactory or unsatisactory is inadequate.


Bcgu


Fg 68

How States are Faring in Evaluating Teacher Eectiveness

0 bst pctc Stts

10 Stts Mt G Colorado⬆, Delaware⬆, Florida⬆,

Maryland⬆, Michigan⬆, Nevada⬆, Ohio⬆,

Oklahoma⬆, Rhode Island⬆, Tennessee⬆

4 Stts N Mt GArizona⬆, Idaho⬆, Louisiana⬆, New York⬆

9 Stts pt Mt GArkansas⬆, Connecticut⬆, Georgia⬆,

Illinois⬆, Indiana⬆, Massachusetts⬆,

Minnesota⬆, Utah⬆, Washington⬆

18 Stts Mt Sm pt f GAlabama, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Kansas,

Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey,

New Mexico, North Carolina⬆, Oregon⬆,Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas,

West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming⬆

10 Stts D Nt Mt GDistrict of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Montana,

Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 26 : 25 ⬇ : 0


G b – etn f effctnsste se suld equie insucinl eeciveness be e pepnden ciein

ny ece evluin.




: 81

analySiSNorth Dakota does not require that objective evidence o student learning be the preponderant criterion

o its teacher evaluations.The state gives local school districts the authority to conduct teacher evaluations; however, North Dako-ta policy is silent about the content o and expectation or these evaluations.

Suppg rscNorth Dakota Century Code Title 15.1-15

reCommendation

■ requie insucinl eeciveness be e pepnden ciein ny eceevluin.

North Dakota should either require a common evaluation instrument in which evidence o studentlearning is the most signicant criterion, or it should specically require that student learning be thepreponderant criterion in local evaluation processes. Whether state or locally developed, a teachershould not be able to receive a satisactory rating i ound ineective in the classroom.

■ Ensue clssm bsevins specifclly cus n nd dcumen e eeciveness insucin.

North Dakota should not only require that its evaluations include classroom observations, but alsothe state should specically articulate that these observations ocus on eectiveness o instruc-tion. The primary component o a classroom observation should be the quality o instruction, asmeasured by student time on task, student grasp or mastery o the lesson objective, and ecientuse o class time.

■ Uilize ing cegies meningully dieenie mng vius levels ecepemnce.

To ensure that the evaluation instrument accurately dierentiates among levels o teacher peror-mance, North Dakota should require districts to utilize multiple rating categories, such as highlyeective, eective, needs improvement and ineective. A binary system that merely categorizesteachers as satisactory or unsatisactory is inadequate.

north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.

Stt Ds Nt Mt G b rsd f ts G pgss Snc 2009

a 3: G b N D anss




82

Figure 69

Do states consider

classroom effectiveness

as part of teacher

evaluations? R E Q

U I R E S T H A

T S T U D

E N T

A C H I E V E M E N T / G R

O W T H I S

T H E P R E P O

N D E R A N T C R I T E R I O

N

T e a c h e r e v a l u a t i o n s a r e t o b e

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

s t u d e n t a c h i e v

e m e n t / g r o w t h

T e a c h e r e v a l u a t i o n s m u s t

i n c l u d e

o b j e c t i v e

e v i d e n c e o f

s t u d e n t l e a

r n i n g

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

v e m e n t d a t a

n o t r e q u i r e d

12 5 7 27

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia1

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

KansasKentucky

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 Fg 69

1. District o Columbia Public Schools requires that studentlearning be the preponderant criterion o its teacher evaluations


NCTQ has not singled out any one state o“best practice” honors. Many states have madesignicant strides in the area o teacher evaluation by requiring that objective evidence o

student learning be the preponderant criterionBecause there are many dierent approachesthat result in student learning being the pre-ponderant criterion, all 10 states that meet thisgoal are commended or their eorts.

Fg 70

Using state data in teacher evaluations

Stts t rqmnts f Stdnt

acmnt Dt t lcng Dt

Sstm Cct

Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Michigan,

Nevada

Stts t Dt Sstm Cct t

N Stdnt acmnt rqmnts

am, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,

Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire,

New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania,

South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia,

Wisconsin




: 83

Fg 71

Sources o objective evidence o student

learning

Many educators struggle to identiy possible sourceso objective student data. Here are some examples:

n Standardized test scores

n Periodic diagnostic assessments

n Benchmark assessments that show student growth

nArtiacts o student work connected to specic

student learning standards that are randomly selected

or review by the principal or senior aculty, scored

using rubrics and descriptors

n

Examples o typical assignments, assessed or theirquality and rigor

n Periodic checks on progress with the curriculum

coupled with evidence o student mastery o the

curriculum rom quizzes, tests and exams

yeS1 N2

1. Strong Practice: Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada,New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington

2. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Connecticut, District oColumbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina,North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia,Wisconsin, Wyoming

17

34

Fg 72

Do states require more than two categories or teacher evaluation ratings?

NorthDakota




84

Figure 73

Do states direct how

teachers should be

evaluated?

S i n g l e s t a t e w

i d e t e a c h e r

e v a l u a t i o n s y s t e m

S t a t e - d e s i g n e d

t e a c h e r

e v a l u a t i o n w i t h

d i s t r i c t o p t - i n

D i s t r i c t -

d e s i g n e d s y s t e m

c o n s i s t e n t w i t h

s t a t e

f r a m e w

o r k / c r i t e r i a

D i s t r i c t -

d e s i g n e d s y s t e m

w i t h

m i n i m

a l i n p u t f r o m

s t a t e

N o s t a t e

p o l i c y

9 10 24 5 3

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida 1

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho 1

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

KansasKentucky 1

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland 1

Massachusetts

Michigan 2

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska 1

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island 2

South Carolina 2

South DakotaTennessee 2

Texas 2

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming 1. State approval required.

2. The state model is presumptive;districts need state approval toopt out.




: 85

G Cps


1. The state should require that all teachersreceive a ormal evaluation rating each year.

2. While all teachers should have multipleobservations that contribute to their ormalevaluation rating, the state should ensure

that new teachers are observed and receiveeedback early in the school year.

Bcgu


Fg 74

How States are Faring in Frequency o Evaluations

0 bst pctc Stts

9 Stts Mt G Alabama⬆, Idaho, Nevada, New Jersey,

North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island⬆,

Tennessee⬆, Washington

13 Stts N Mt GArizona, Colorado⬆, Delaware⬆, Florida⬆,

Georgia, Indiana⬆, Minnesota⬆, New York,

North Carolina⬆, Ohio⬆, Pennsylvania,

Utah⬆, Wyoming

9 Stts pt Mt GConnecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana⬆,

Maryland, Michigan⬆, Nebraska,

South Carolina, West Virginia

2Stts Mt Sm pt f GArkansas , Missouri

18 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, California, District of Columbia,

Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts,

Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire,

New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas,

Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 13 : 37 ⬇ : 1


G C – Fqnc f etnste se suld equie nnul evluins ll eces.




86


a 3: G C N D anss

analySiSCommendably, all teachers in North Dakota must be evaluated at least annually.

Nonprobationary teachers are required to be evaluated once a year. New teachers in North Dakota mustbe evaluated twice a year. The rst written report o the teacher’s perormance must be completed byDecember 15 and the second by March 15.

Suppg rsc

North Dakota Statute 15.1-15-01

reCommendation

■ Bse evluins n muliple bsevins.

To guarantee that annual evaluations are based on an adequate collection o inormation, NorthDakota should require multiple observations or all teachers, even those who have nonprobationary

status. Further, as evaluation instruments become more data driven, it may not be easible to issuemultiple ormal evaluation ratings during a single year. Applicable student data will likely not beavailable to support multiple ratings.





: 87


Although not awarding “best practice” honors or re-quency o evaluations, NCTQ commends all nine statesthat meet this goal not only by requiring annual evalu-ations or all teachers, but also or ensuring that new

teachers are observed and receive eedback during therst hal o the school year.

Figure 75

A N N U A L E V A L U

A T I O N

O F A L L

V E T E R A N

T E A C H E R S

A N N U A L E V

A L U A T I O

N

O F A L L

N E W

T E A C H E R S

Do states require

districts to evaluate

all teachers each year?

22 43

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware1

District of Columbia2

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

Fgs 75 nd 76

1. Although highly eective teachers are only required to receivea summative evaluation once every two years, the studentimprovement component is evaluated annually.

2. All District o Columbia Public Schools teachers are evaluated atleast annually.

yeS N

22

29

Fg 76

Do states require districts to evaluate all

teachers each year?

NorthDakota




88

at st n2Two or

More eaCh

year1

Nt qd3

18

20

13

Fg 77

Do states require classroom observations?

1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Alaska4

, Arkansas, Colorado4

,Delaware, Florida4, Georgia, Kentucky4, Maryland, Michigan,Missouri4, Nevada4, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon4,Rhode Is land, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia4

2. Arizona, Caliornia, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico,Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin

3. District o Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Montana,Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota,Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming

4. For new teachers.

yeS1 N2

1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mary-land, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, NorthDakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina,Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia

2. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado, Connecticut,Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

18

33

Fg 78

Do states require that new teachers areobserved early in the year?

NorthDakota

NorthDakota




: 89

G Cps


1. A teacher should be eligible or tenure ater acertain number o years o service, but tenureshould not be granted automatically at that juncture.

2. Evidence o eectiveness should be the

preponderant criterion in tenure decisions.3. The state should articulate a process, such as

a hearing, that local districts must administerin considering the evidence and decidingwhether a teacher should receive tenure.

4. The minimum years o service needed toachieve tenure should allow sucient datato be accumulated on which to base tenuredecisions; ve years is the ideal minimum.


Bcgu


Fg 79

How States are Faring on Tenure

1 bst pctc SttMichigan⬆

2 Stts Mt G Colorado⬆, Florida⬆

5 Stts N Mt GDelaware⬆, Nevada⬆, Oklahoma⬆,

Rhode Island⬆, Tennessee⬆

3 Stts pt Mt GIllinois⬆, Indiana⬆, New York⬆

9 Stts Mt Sm pt f GConnecticut, Idaho⬆, Kentucky,

Massachusetts⬆, Minnesota, Missouri,

New Hampshire⬆, North Carolina, Ohio

31 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California,

District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii,

Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine⬆, Maryland,

Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey,

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,


Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,


Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 15 : 36 ⬇ : 0


G D – Tnte se suld equie enue decisins e bsed n evidence ece

eeciveness.




90

analySiSNorth Dakota does not connect tenure decisions to evidence o teacher eectiveness.

Teachers in North Dakota are awarded tenure automatically ater a two-year probationary period, absentan additional process that evaluates cumulative evidence o teacher eectiveness.

Suppg rscNorth Dakota Administrative Rules 67.1-02-05-06

reCommendation

■ End e umic wding enue.

The decision to grant tenure should be a deliberate one, based on consideration o a teacher’s com-mitment and actual evidence o classroom eectiveness.

■ Ensue evidence eeciveness is e pepnden ciein in enue decisins.

North Dakota should make evidence o eectiveness, rather than the number o years in the class-room, the most signicant actor when determining this leap in proessional standing.

■ aicule pcess lcl disics mus dminise wen deciding wic eces geenue.

North Dakota should require a clear process, such as a hearing, to ensure that the local districtreviews a teacher’s perormance beore making a determination regarding tenure.

■ requie lnge pbiny peid.

North Dakota should extend its probationary period, ideally to ve years. This would allow or anadequate collection o sucient data that refect teacher perormance.



a 3: G D N D anss




: 91

How long before a teacher earns tenure?

Figure 80

Nopolicy

1 year

2 years

3 years

4YEARS

5YEARS

STATE ONLYAWARDSANNUAL

CONTRACTS

1 1 5 32 4 5 3

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


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 1

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island 2

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

1. Teachers may also earn careerstatus with an average rating oat least eective or a our-yearperiod and a rating o at leasteective or the last two years.

2. Teachers who receive two yearso ineective evaluations aredismissed.




92


Micign has increased its probationary period to ve years and requires that evidence o eectiveness be theprimary criterion in awarding tenure.

Figure 81

How are tenure

decisions made?

E V I D

E N C E

O F

S T U D E N

T

L E A R N

I N G I S

T H E

P R E P O N

D E R

A N

T C R I T E R I O

N

S o m e e v i d e n c e

o f s t u d e n t

l e a r n i n g i s

c o n s i d e r e d

V i r t u a l l y

a u t o m a t i c a l l y

8 4 39

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia 1

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma 2

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Fg 81

1. No state-level policy; however, the contract between DCPS and theteachers’ union represents signicant advancement in the area oteacher tenure.

2. The state has created a loophole by essentially waiving student learningrequirements and allowing the principal o a school to petition orcareer-teacher status.

eviDeNCe

oF STuDeNT

learNiNG iS The

prepoNDeraNT

CriTerioN

Sm

dnc f

stdnt nng

s cnsdd

vt

tmtc

84

39

Fg 82

How are tenure decisions made?

NorthDakota




: 93

G Cps


1. The state should base advancement rom aprobationary to a nonprobationary license onevidence o teacher eectiveness.

2. The state should not require teachers toulll generic, unspecied coursework

requirements to advance rom a probationaryto a nonprobationary license.

3. The state should not require teachers tohave an advanced degree as a condition oproessional licensure.

4. Evidence o eectiveness should be a actorin the renewal o a proessional license.


Bcgu


Fg 83

How States are Faring on Licensure Advancement

1 bst pctc SttRhode Island⬆

1 Stt Mts G Louisiana⬆

0 Stts N Mt G

3 Stts pt Mt GDelaware⬆, Illinois⬆, Maryland

6 Stts Mt Sm pt f GAlaska, Arkansas, California, Georgia,

New Mexico, Washington

40 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut,

District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho,

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

York, North Carolina , North Dakota,

Ohio , Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,

South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,

Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia,

Wisconsin, Wyoming

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 4 : 45 ⬇ : 2


G e – lcns adncmntte se suld bse licensue dvncemen n evidence ece eeciveness.




94

analySiSNorth Dakota’s requirements or licensure advancement and renewal are not based on evidence o

teacher eectiveness.To advance rom an Initial license to a regular Five-year Renewal license, teachers are required to teachor 18 months and complete our semester hours o re-education credit.

North Dakota does not include evidence o eectiveness as a actor in the renewal o a proessionallicense. North Dakota teachers must renew their Regular licenses every ve years by completing our re-teaching hours and being under contract or at least 30 days o the previous ve years.

Suppg rschttp://www.nd.gov/espb/licensure/renewal.html

North Dakota Administrative Code 67.1-02-02-04http://www.nd.gov/espb/licensure/

reCommendation

■ requie evidence eeciveness s p ece licensing plicy.

North Dakota should require evidence o teacher eectiveness to be a actor in determining wheth-er teachers can renew their licenses or advance to a higher-level license.

■ Discninue licensue equiemens wi n diec cnnecin clssm eeciveness.

While targeted requirements may potentially expand teacher knowledge and improve teacher prac-tice, North Dakota’s general, nonspecic coursework requirements or license advancement andrenewal merely call or teachers to complete a certain amount o seat time. These requirements donot correlate with teacher eectiveness.



a 3: G e N D anss




: 95


rde Islnd is integrating certication, cer-tication renewal and educator evaluation.Teachers who receive poor evaluations or veconsecutive years are not eligible to renew their

certication. In addition, teachers who consis-tently receive ‘highly eective’ ratings will beeligible or a special license designation.

1. Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi,Montana, New York and Oregon all require a master’s degreeor coursework equivalent to a master’s degree

2. Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Tennessee

3. Alabama, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio,South Carolina, U tah, Virginia, West Virginia

4. Strong Practice: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado,Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas,Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont,Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming

rqd f

fssn

cns1

rqd

f

tndncd

cns3

otn f

fssn

cns ncgd

stt

c2

No4

811

4

28

Fg 85

Do states require teachers to earnadvanced degrees beore conerring

proessional licensure?

Figure 84

Do states require teachersto show evidence of effectiveness before

conferring professionallicensure? C

o n s i d e

r a t i o n g i v e

n t o

t e a c h e

r

p e r f o r m a n c

e b u t p e r f o r m

a n c e i s

n o t t i e d

t o c l a s

s r o o m

e f f e c t i v e

n e s s

S o m e o b j e c

t i v e e v i d e

n c e o f

e f f e c t i v e

n e s s i s

c o n s i d e

r e d

O B J E C

T I V E E V

I D E N

C E O F

E F F E C T I V

E N E S S

I S R E Q

U I R E D

P e r f o r m

a n c e n o t c

o n s i d e

r e d

3 3 11 34

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois1

Indiana

Iowa

KansasKentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland2

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Fg 84

1. Illinois allows revocation o licenses based on ineectiveness.

2. Maryland uses some objective evidence through their evalu-ation system or renewal, but advancement to proessionallicense is still based on earning an advanced degree.

NorthDakota




96

ys1 No2

1. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina,North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,

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

2. Strong Practice: Caliornia, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, New Jersey,New Mexico, Rhode Island

44

7

Fg 86

Do states require teachers to take additional, nonspecifc coursework beore conerring or renewing proessional licenses?

ys1 No2

1. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia

2. Strong Practice: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia,Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida,Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,

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

3

48

Fg 87

Do states award lietime proessional licenses?

NorthDakota

NorthDakota




: 97

Fg 88

How States are Faring on Equitable Distribution

0 bst pctc Stts

0 Stts Mt G

0 Stts N Mt G

6 Stts pt Mt GConnecticut, New Jersey, New York,

North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina

36 Stts Mt Sm pt f GAlaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado,

Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,

Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho⬆, Indiana, Kansas,


Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi,

Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,

New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania⬆,

South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah⬆

,Vermont⬆, Virginia, Washington,


9 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan,

New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma,

Wyoming

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 4 : 47 ⬇ : 0

G Cps


T stt sd m t fng dtc :

1. An “Academic Quality” index or each schoolthat includes actors research has ound to beassociated with teacher eectiveness, such as:

a. percentage o new teachers;

b. percentage o teachers ailing basic skillslicensure tests at least once;

c. percentage o teachers on emergencycredentials;

d. average selectivity o teachers’undergraduate institutions; and

e. teachers’ average ACT or SAT scores;

2. The percentage o highly qualied teachersdisaggregated by both individual school and

by teaching area;3. The annual teacher absenteeism rate

reported or the previous three years,disaggregated by individual school;

4. The average teacher turnover rate or theprevious three years, disaggregated byindividual school, by district and by reasonsthat teachers leave.

Bcgu

A detailed rationale and supporting research or

this goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.


G F – eqt Dsttnte se suld publicly ep disics’ disibuin ece len mng scls

ideniy inequiies in scls seving disdvnged cilden.




98

a 3: G F N D anss

analySiSProviding comprehensive reporting may be the state’s most important role or ensuring the equitable

distribution o teachers among schools. North Dakota does not report school-level data that can helpsupport the equitable distribution o teacher talent.

North Dakota does not collect or publicly report any o the data recommended by NCTQ. The statedoes not provide a school-level teacher quality index that demonstrates the academic backgrounds o aschool’s teachers and the ratio o new to veteran teachers. North Dakota also does not report on teacherabsenteeism or turnover rates.

North Dakota provides 2009-2010 data on the disparities between the percentage o highly qualiedteachers, depending upon poverty levels and years o teacher experience. North Dakota’s Equity Plan,published in 2006, reports on the percentage o highly qualied teacher at the school level. However,these data have not been updated.

Suppg rsc

North Dakota Highly Qualied Teachers 2009-2010http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/dpi/reports/Prole/0910/ProleDistrict/HQ.pd

North Dakota’s Equity Planhttp://www.dpi.state.nd.us/grants/hqt/NDRevisedStatePlan.pd

reCommendation

■ Use ece quliy index ep publicly bu ec scl.

A teacher quality index, such as the one developed by the Illinois Education Research Council, withdata including teachers’ average SAT or ACT scores, the percentage o teachers ailing basic skillslicensure tests at least once, the selectivity o teachers’ undergraduate colleges and the percent-age o new teachers, can shine a light on how equitably teachers are distributed both across andwithin districts. North Dakota should ensure that individual school report cards include such datain a manner that translates these actors into something easily understood by the public, such as acolor-coded matrix indicating a school’s high or low score.

■ Publis e d cilie cmpisns css scls.

North Dakota should collect and report other school-level data that refect the stability o a school’saculty, including the rates o teacher absenteeism and turnover.

■ Pvide cmpive d bsed n scl demgpics.

Providing comparative data or schools with similar poverty and minority populations would yieldan even more comprehensive picture o gaps in the equitable distribution o teachers.

■ rep d e scl level.

North Dakota should ensure that it is reporting all currently collected data at the school-level,rather than aggregated by district.





: 99

■ Ensue d e cuen.

It is important to keep data updated and current in order to provide the public with an accurate

picture o teacher distribution across schools in districts. North Dakota should update the data itreports on the percentage o highly qualied teachers at the school level, as the state has not doneso since 2006.

north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis




100

examPleS of BeStPraCtiCe

No state has an outstanding recordwhen it comes to public reporting oteacher data that can help to ame-

liorate inequities in teacher qualityHowever, Cnnecicu, New Jesey

New Y, N Clin, rde

Islnd and Su Clin repormore school-level data than othestates.

Do states publicly

report school-level

data about teachers?

A N I N D E X

F O R E A C

H S C H

O O L

T H A T I N

C L U D E S F A C

T O R S

A S S O C I A T E D

W I T H

T E A C H E R

Q U A L I T Y

P E R C E N T A G

E O F N E W

T E A C H E R S

1

P E R C E N T A G

E O F T E A C

H E R S

O N

E M E R G

E N C Y

C R E D E N T I A L S

1

P E R C E N T A G

E O F H I G H L Y

Q U A L I F I E D

T E A C H E R S

A N N U A L T U R N

O V E R

R A T E

T E A C H E R

A B S E N T E E I S M

R A T E

Figure 89

180 10 41 6 5

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


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


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming1. Ideally, percentage o new teachers and

percentage o teachers on emergencycredentials would be incorporated into ateacher quality index.




: 101

Area 4: Retaining Eective Teacers

G a – indctnTe state suld require eective inductin r all new teacers, wit special

empasis n teacers in ig-needs scls.

G Cps


1. The state should ensure that new teachersreceive mentoring o sucient requency andduration, especially in the rst critical weekso school.

2. Mentors should be careully selected

based on evidence o their own classroomeectiveness and subject-matter expertise.Mentors should be trained, and theirperormance as mentors should be evaluated.

3. Induction programs should includeonly strategies that can be successullyimplemented, even in a poorly managedschool. Such strategies include intensivementoring, seminars appropriate to gradelevel or subject area, a reduced teachingload and requent release time to observeeective teachers.

Bcgu


Fg 90

How States are Faring on Induction

1 bst pctc SttSouth Carolina

7 Stts Mt GAlabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts,

New Jersey, North Carolina, West Virginia

17 Stts N Mt GCalifornia, Colorado, Connecticut⬆,

Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland⬆,

Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,

New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah,

Virginia

11 Stts pt Mt GAlaska, Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico,

NoRTh DAkoTA⬆, Ohio, Oregon,

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington,

Wisconsin

6 Stts Mt Sm pt f G

Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota⬆,Montana, Texas

9 Stts D Nt Mt GDistrict of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana ,

Louisiana , Nevada, New Hampshire,

South Dakota , Vermont, Wyoming

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 4 : 44 ⬇ : 3




102

a 4: G a Nrt Data anss


analySiSNorth Dakota provides mentoring to new teachers through a two-year Teacher Support System Grant

Program unded until June 30, 2011. Districts must apply and be selected to participate in this mentoringprogram.

Mentors may only work with one beginning teacher each semester. Building administrators should selectmentors who have a minimum o three years o teaching experience and have been teaching in thepresent district or a minimum o two years. Mentors must participate in training and have a minimumo 18 hours o one-on-one conerencing time with the beginning teachers. Both mentors and beginningteachers must have at least one ull day o release time or observation. Mentors will receive an $800stipend per semester.

Suppg rscNorth Dakota Teacher Support System Grant Program

http://www.nd.gov/espb/TSSGPMentoringRFP.pd

reCommendation

■ Ensure tat a ig-quality mentring experience is available t all new teacers, especiallytse in lw-perrming scls.

Although North Dakota does provide mentoring to some o its new teachers, the state shouldensure that all new teachers—especially any teacher in a low-perorming school—receive mentor-ing support, especially in the rst critical weeks o school. North Dakota should consider expandingits program throughout the state and continuing it beyond the current grant period.

■ Set mre specic parameters.

To ensure that all teachers receive high-quality mentoring, North Dakota should set a timeline inwhich mentors are assigned to all new teachers throughout the state, soon ater the commencing

o teaching, to oer support during those rst critical weeks o school. Mentors should be requiredto be trained in a content area or grade level similar to that o the new teacher.

■ Ensure tat mentring is sucient duratin and requency.

North Dakota requires just 18 contact hours between new teachers and their mentors over thecourse o the school year. The state should consider whether time requirement that ensures newteachers receive adequate support, especially in the rst critical weeks o school.





: 103

Do states have policies

that articulate the

elements of effective

induction?

M E N

T O R I N

G F O

R A L L

N E W

T E A C H E R S

M E N T O

R I N G P R O

V I D E D

A T T H E

B E G I N N I N

G O F T H E S C H

O O L Y E A R

M E N T O R I N

G O F S U F F I C I E N

T

F R E Q U E N

C Y A N D D U R A T I O

N

C A R E F U L S E L E C T I O

N O F M E N T O

R S

M E N

T O R S

M U S T B E

T R A I N E D

M E N

T O R S / P R O

G R A M

M U S T

B E E V

A L U A T E D

Figure 91

30 18 9 17 28 12

U S E

O F A V A R I E T Y

O F E F F E C

T I V E

I N D U C T I O

N S T R A T E G

I E S

17

M E N

T O R I S

C O M P E N

S A T E D

21

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


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


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming




104


Sut Carlina requires that all new teachers, prior to thestart o the school year, be assigned mentors or at leastone year. Districts careully select mentors based on experi-ence and similar certications and grade levels, and men-

tors undergo additional training. Adequate release timeis mandated by the state so that mentors and new teach-ers may observe each other in the classroom, collaborate oneective teaching techniques and develop proessionalgrowth plans. Mentor evaluations are mandatory andstipends are recommended.

STroNG

iNDuCTioN1

lmtd/w

ndctn2

N ndctn3

1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island,South Carolina, U tah, Virginia, West Virginia

2. Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana,New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,South D akota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin

3. District o Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana,Nevada, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wyoming

2517

9

Fg 92

Do states have policies that articulate theelements o eective induction?

NoRThDAkoTA




: 105


G b – pfssn DmntTe state suld require pressinal develpment t be based n needs identied

trug teacer evaluatins.

G Cps


1. The state should require that evaluationsystems provide teachers with eedbackabout their perormance.

2. The state should direct districts to alignproessional development activities with

ndings rom teachers’ evaluations.

Bcgu


Fg 93

How States are Faring on ProessionalDevelopment

0 bst pctc Stt

10 Stts Mt G Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana,

Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina,

Rhode Island, South Carolina, Wyoming

7 Stts N Mt GFlorida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky,

New Mexico, New York, Texas

10 Stts pt Mt GColorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts,

Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee,

Washington, West Virginia

12 Stts Mt Sm pt f GAlabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho,

Kansas, Maryland, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Oregon, Utah

12 Stts D Nt Mt GDistrict of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Montana,

Nebraska, New Hampshire, NoRTh DAkoTA,

Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont,

Virginia, Wisconsin

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

n G




106


a 4: G b Nrt Data anss

analySiSNorth Dakota does not have state-level policy that connects proessional development to teachers’

evaluations.

reCommendation

■ Require tat evaluatin systems prvide teacers wit eedbac abut teir perrmance.

In order to increase their eectiveness in the classroom, teachers need to receive eedback onstrengths and areas that need improvement identied in their evaluations. As such, North Dako-ta should require that evaluation systems provide teachers with eedback about their classroomperormance.

■ Ensure tat pressinal develpment is aligned wit ndings rm teacers’ evaluatins.

Proessional development that is not inormed by evaluation results may be o little value to teach-

ers’ proessional growth and aim o increasing their eectiveness in the classroom. North Dakotashould ensure that districts utilize teacher evaluation results in determining proessional develop-ment needs and activities.





: 107


Ten states meet this goal, and although NCTQ has notsingled out one state’s policies or “best practice” honors,Luisiana is commended or clearly articulating that theeedback provided to a teacher in a post-observation coner-

ence must include a discussion o a teacher’s strengths andweaknesses.

Figure 95

A L L T E A

C H E R

S

R E C E I V

E F E E D

B A C K

E V A L U

A T I O N I N F O

R M S

P R O F E S S I O

N A L

D E V E L O

P M E N

T


evaluations are used to

help teachers improve?

24 12

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

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. Strong Practice: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Miss issippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island,South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming

2. Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland,Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma

3. Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Utah

4. Alabama, District o Columbia, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nebraska,New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin

Fg 94

Do teachers receive eedback on their evaluations?

ALL TEACHERSRECEIVE FEEDBACK1

Teachers only receive copiesof their evaluations2

No related policy orpolicy unclear4

24 11

3

13 No3

NoRThDAkoTA




108

1. Strong Practice: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana,Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Rhode Island,South Carolina, Wyoming

2. Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Texas

3. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, District o Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa,Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi4, Montana,Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,

Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin4. Mississippi requires proessional development based on evaluation results

only or teachers in need o improvement in school identied as at-risk.

yeS1 on f tcs

w c

nstsfct

tns2

N/n

td

c3

12

5

34

Fg 96

Do states require that teacher evaluations inorm proessional development?

NoRThDAkoTA




: 109

G Cps


1. While the state may nd it appropriate toarticulate teachers’ starting salaries, itshould not require districts to adhere to astate-dictated salary schedule that denessteps and lanes and sets minimum pay ateach level.

2. The state should discourage districts romtying additional compensation to advanceddegrees. The state should eliminate salaryschedules that establish higher minimumsalaries or other requirements to pay more toteachers with advanced degrees.

3. The state should discourage salary schedulesthat imply that teachers with the mostexperience are the most eective. The stateshould eliminate salary schedules thatrequire that the highest steps on the pay

scale be determined solely be seniority.

Bcgu



G C – p ScsTe state suld give lcal districts autrity ver pay scales.

Fg 97

How States are Faring in Pay Scales

2 bst pctc SttsFlorida⬆, Indiana⬆

1 Stt Mts G Idaho⬆

1Stt N Mts GMinnesota

29 Stts pt Mt GAlaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,

Connecticut, District of Columbia, Iowa,

Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,


New Mexico, New York, NoRTh DAkoTA,

Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah,

Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

3 Stts Mt Sm pt f GIllinois, Rhode Island, Texas

15 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia,

Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,

North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 3 : 48 ⬇ : 0




110

analySiSNorth Dakota gives local districts the authority or pay scales, eliminating barriers such as state salary

schedules and other regulations that control how districts pay teachers. Local districts are given theauthority to “contract with, employ, and compensate school district personnel.”

Suppg rscNorth Dakota Century Code 15.1-09-33 (20)

reCommendation

■ Discurage districts rm tying cmpensatin t advanced degrees.

While still leaving districts the fexibility to establish their own pay scale, North Dakota shouldarticulate policies that denitively discourage districts rom tying compensation to advanceddegrees, in light o the extensive research showing that such degrees do not have an impact onteacher eectiveness.

■ Discurage salary scedules tat imply tat teacers wit te mst experience are temst eective.

Similarly, North Dakota should articulate policies that discourage districts rom determining thehighest steps on the pay scale solely by seniority.

north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota disagreed with this analysis but oered no urther explanation.


a 4: G C Nrt Data anss




: 111

Figure 98

What role does the state

play in deciding teacher

pay rates?

D I S T R

I C T S

S E T S A L A

R Y

S C H E D

U L E

S e t s m i n i m

u m s a l a r y

S e t s m i n i m

u m

s a l a r y s c h e d u l e

16 8 27

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado1

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 Island2

South Carolina


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming1. Colorado gives districts the option o a salary schedule,

a perormance pay policy or a combination o both.

2. Rhode Island requires that local district salary schedules arebased on years o service, experience and training.


Flrida and Indiana allow local districts todevelop their own salary schedules while pre-venting districts rom ocusing on elementsnot associated with teacher eectiveness. In

Florida, local salary schedules must ensurethat the most eective teachers receive salaryincreases greater than the highest annual salaryadjustment available. Indiana requires local sal-ary scales to be based on a combination o ac-tors and limits the years o teacher experience andcontent-area degrees to account or no more thanone-third o this calculation.




112

1. Rhode Island requires local district salary schedules to includeteacher “training”.

2. Texas has a minimum salary schedule based on years o experience.Compensation or advanced degrees is let to district discretion.

Figure 99

Do states discouragedistricts from basing

teacher pay on advanced degrees?

R e q u i r e s

c o m

p e n s a t i o n

f o r a d v a n c

e d d e

g r e e s

L e a v e s p a y

t o

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

n

R E Q

U I R E S

P E R F O

R M A N C E

T O C O U N T M O R E T H A N

A D V A N C E D

D E G R E E S

3 32 16

2

1

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




: 113

G Cps


1. The state should encourage districts tocompensate new teachers with relevant priorwork experience through mechanisms suchas starting these teachers at an advancedstep on the pay scale. Further, the stateshould not have regulatory language thatblocks such strategies.

Bcgu



G D – Cmnstn f p W encTe state suld encurage districts t prvide cmpensatin r related prir

subject-area wr experience.

Fg 100

How States are Faring in Compensation or Prior Work Experience

1 bst pctc SttNorth Carolina

1 Stt Mts G California

0 Stts N Mt G

4 Stts pt Mt GDelaware, Georgia, Texas, Washington

0 Stts Mt Sm pt f G

45 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,

Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida,

Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,


Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,


New Mexico, New York, NoRTh DAkoTA,

Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,

Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West

Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 0 : 51 ⬇ : 0




114


analySiSNorth Dakota does not encourage local districts to provide compensation or related prior subject-area

work experience. However, the state does not seem to have regulatory language blocking such strategies.

reCommendation

■ Encurage lcal districts t cmpensate new teacers wit relevant prir wr experience.

While still leaving districts with the fexibility to determine their own pay scales, North Dakotashould encourage districts to incorporate mechanisms such as starting these teachers at a highersalary than other new teachers. Such policies would be attractive to career changers with relatedwork experience, such as in the STEM subjects.


North Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.

a 4: G D Nrt Data anss




: 115

yeS1 N2

1. Strong Practice: Caliornia, Delaware, Georgia, North Carolina,Texas, Washington

2. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Districto Columbia, Florida, 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 Da-

kota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, SouthCarolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, WestVirginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

6

45

Fg 101

Do states direct districts to compensateteachers or related prior work experience?


Nrt Carlina compensates new teachers withrelevant prior-work experience by awarding them one

year o experience credit or every year o ull-timework ater earning a bachelor’s degree that is related to

their area o licensure and work assignment. One yearo credit is awarded or every two years o work expe-rience completed prior to earning a bachelor’s degree.

NoRThDAkoTA




116

G Cps


1. The state should support dierential pay oreective teaching in shortage subject areas.

2. The state should support dierential pay oreective teaching in high-need schools.

3. The state should not have regulatory

language that would block dierential pay.

Bcgu



G e – Dffnt pTe state suld supprt dierential pay r eective teacing in srtage

and ig-need areas.

Fg 102

How States are Faring on Dierential Pay

1 bst pctc SttGeorgia

12 Stts Mt G Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York,

Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas

3 Stts N Mt GMaryland, Virginia, Washington

8 Stts pt Mt GColorado, Hawaii , Idaho⬆, North Carolina,

Pennsylvania , Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming

10 Stts Mt Sm pt f GConnecticut, Illinois, Mississippi, Montana,

Nebraska, Oregon, Rhode Island⬆,

South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont

17 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware,

District of Columbia, Indiana, Iowa , Kansas,

Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,

NoRTh DAkoTA, West Virginia

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 2 : 45 ⬇ : 4




: 117

a 4: G e Nrt Data anss


analySiSNorth Dakota neither supports dierential pay by which a teacher can earn additional compensation by

teaching certain subjects nor oers incentives to teach in high-needs schools. However, the state has noregulatory language that would directly block districts rom providing dierential pay.

North Dakota may oer teacher signing bonuses or accepting positions that are unlled 45 days priorto the start o the school year. To qualiy, a teacher must be highly qualied and must not have taughtin the state during the previous 12 months.

Teachers who are National Board Certied are eligible to receive a $1,000 annual supplement. However,this dierential pay is not tied to high-needs schools or subject-area shortages.

Suppg rscNorth Dakota Century Code 15.1-16-21; 15.1-18.1-02

reCommendation

■ Supprt dierential pay initiatives r eective teacers in bt subject srtage areas andig-needs scls.

North Dakota should encourage districts to link compensation to district needs. Such policies canhelp districts achieve a more equitable distribution o teachers.

■ Cnsider tying Natinal Bard supplements t teacing in ig-needs scls.

This dierential pay could be an incentive to attract some o the state’s most eective teachers toits low-perorming schools.





118

Figure 103

Do states provide

incentives to teach in

high-need schools

or shortage subject

areas? D I F F E R

E N T I A

L

P A Y

L o a n F o

r g i v e n e s s

L o a n F o

r g i v e n e s s

D I F F E R

E N T I A

L

P A Y

N o s u p p

o r t

HIGH NEED

SCHOOLS

SHORTAGE

SUBJECT

AREAS

4

21 7 17 11 17

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut1

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland2

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 Dakota3

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

1. Connecticut oers mortgage assistance andincentives to retired teachers working inshortage subject areas.

2. Maryland oers tuition reimbursement orteacher retraining in specied shortagesubject areas and oers a stipend oralternate route candidates teaching inshortage subject areas.

3. South Dakota oers signing bonusesand scholarships to ll shortages inhigh-need schools.

4. Shortage subject area dierential pay islimited to the Middle School TeacherCorps program.




: 119

1. Strong Practice: Arkansas, Caliornia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas,Virginia

2. Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, North Carolina, Washington,Wisconsin, Wyoming

3. Idaho, Pennsylvania, Utah

4. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia,Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,Vermont, West Virginia

Nt4hg nd

scs

n2

7

Stg

sjcts

n3

3

boTh1

14

27

Fg 104

Do states support dierential pay or teaching in high need schools and shortage subjects?


Gergia supports dierential pay by which teachers canearn additional compensation by teaching certain subjects.The state is especially commended or its new compensationstrategy or math and science teachers, which moves teachers

along the salary schedule rather than just providing a bonusor stipend. The state also supports dierential pay initiativesto link compensation more closely with district needs and toachieve a more equitable distribution o teachers. Georgia’seorts to provide incentives or National Board Certicationteachers to work in high-need schools are also noteworthy.

NoRTh

DAkoTA




120

G Cps


1. The state should support perormancepay eorts, rewarding teachers or theireectiveness in the classroom.

2. The state should allow districts fexibilityto dene the criteria or perormance pay

provided that such criteria connect toevidence o student achievement.

3. Any perormance pay plan should allow orthe participation o all teachers, not justthose in tested subjects and grades.

Bcgu



G F – pfmnc pTe state suld supprt perrmance pay but in a manner tat recgnizes its

apprpriate uses and limitatins.

Fg 105

How States are Faring on Perormance Pay

2 bst pctc SttsFlorida⬆, Indiana⬆

14 Stts Mt G Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia⬆, Idaho⬆,

Massachusetts⬆, Michigan⬆, Minnesota,

Oklahoma⬆

, South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia⬆

1 Stt N Mts GCalifornia

6 Stts pt Mt GKentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,

Nevada⬆, Oregon⬆

1 Stt Mts Sm pt f GNebraska⬆

27 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Alaska , Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois,

Iowa , Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Montana,


New York, North Carolina, NoRTh DAkoTA,

Ohio , Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,

Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,

Wyoming

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 11 : 37 ⬇ : 3




: 121

a 4: G F Nrt Data anss


analySiSNorth Dakota does not support perormance pay. The state does not have any policies in place that oer

teachers additional compensation based on evidence o eectiveness.

reCommendation

■ Supprt a perrmance pay plan tat recgnizes teacers r teir eectiveness.

Whether it implements the plan at the state or local level, North Dakota should ensure that peror-mance pay structures thoughtully measure classroom perormance and connect student achieve-ment to teacher eectiveness. The plan must be developed with careul consideration o availabledata and subsequent issues o airness.

■ Cnsider pilting perrmance pay in a select number scl districts.

This would provide an opportunity to discover and correct any limitations in available data or meth-

odology beore implementing the plan on a wider scale.





122


An increasing number o states are sup-porting perormance pay initiatives. Flrida and Indiana are particularly noteworthyor their eorts to build perormance into

the salary schedule. Rather than awardbonuses, teachers’ salaries will be based inpart on their perormance in the classroom.

Do states support

performance pay?

P E R F O R M

A N

C E

F A C T O

R E D

I N T O

S A L A

R Y F O

R

A L L

T E A C H

E R S

P E R F O R M

A N C E

B O N

U S E S

A V

A I L A B L E T O

A L L T E A C H

E R S

P e r f o r m a n c e

p a y p e r m

i t t e d /

e n c o u r a g e d b y

t h e s t a t e

S t a t e - s p o n s o r e d

p e r f o r m a n c e

p a y i n i t i a t i v e s

o f f e r e d i n

s e l e c t

d i s t r i c t s

D o e s

n o t s u p p o r t

p e r f o r m a n c e

p a y

Figure 106

3 4 512 27

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska1

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. Nebraska’s initiative does not go into eect until 2016.




: 123

G Cps


1. Participants in the state’s pension systemshould have the option o a ully portablepension system as their primary pension planby means o a dened contribution plan or adened benet plan that is ormatted similarto a cash balance plan.

2. Participants in the state’s pension systemshould be vested no later than the third yearo employment.

3. Dened benet plans should oer teachersthe option o a lump-sum rollover toa personal retirement account upontermination o employment that includes,at minimum, the teacher’s contributionsand accrued interest at a air interest rate.In addition, withdrawal options rom eitherdened benet or dened contribution plans

should include unds contributed by theemployer.

4. Dened benet plans should allowteachers to purchase time or unlimitedprevious teaching experience at the time oemployment. Teachers should also be allowedto purchase time or all ocial leaves oabsence, such as maternity or paternity leave.

Bcgu

A detailed rationale and supporting research or

this goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.


G G – pnsn FtTe state suld ensure tat pensin systems are prtable, fexible and air t

all teacers.

Fg 107

How States are Faring on Pension Flexibility

2 bst pctc SttsAlaska, South Dakota

0 Stts Mt G

2 Stts N Mt G

Ohio, South Carolina

15 Stts pt Mt GCalifornia , Colorado, Florida , Iowa, Kansas,

Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska,

NoRTh DAkoTA, Oregon, Utah⬆, Virginia,

Washington, Wyoming

31 Stts Mt Sm pt f GAlabama, Arizona , Arkansas, Connecticut,

Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia,

Hawaii , Idaho, Illinois , Indiana, Kentucky,

Maryland , Massachusetts, Michigan⬆,

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada,


North Carolina , Oklahoma, Pennsylvania ,

Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,


1 Stt Ds Nt Mt GNew York

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 2 : 39 ⬇ : 10




124

analySiSNorth Dakota only oers a dened benet pension plan to its teachers as their mandatory pension plan.

This plan is not ully portable, does not vest until year ve and does not provide any employer contribu-tion or teachers who choose to withdraw their account balances when leaving the system. However,the state is commended or oering fexibility to teachers by allowing them to purchase years o service.

Teachers in North Dakota also participate in Social Security, so they must contribute to the state’sdened benet plan in addition to Social Security. Although retirement savings in addition to SocialSecurity are good and necessary or most individuals, the state’s policy results in mandated contributionsto two infexible plans, rather than permitting teachers options or their state-provided savings plans.

Vesting in a dened benet plan guarantees a teacher’s eligibility to receive lietime monthly benetpayments at retirement age. Nonvested teachers do not have a right to later retirement benets; theymay only withdraw the portion o their unds allowed by the plan. North Dakota’s vesting at ve yearso service limits the options o teachers who leave the system prior to this point.

Teachers in North Dakota who choose to withdraw their contributions upon leaving only receive theirown contributions plus interest. This means that those who withdraw their unds accrue no benetsbeyond what they might have earned had they simply put their contributions in basic savings accounts.Further, teachers who remain in the eld o education but enter another pension plan (such as in anotherstate) will nd it dicult to purchase the time equivalent to their prior employment in the new systembecause they are not entitled to any employer contribution.

North Dakota provides teachers with the fexibility to purchase years o service. The ability to purchasetime is important because dened benet plans’ retirement eligibility and benet payments are otentied to the number o years a teacher has worked. North Dakota’s plan allows teachers to purchaseunlimited time or previous teaching experience and approved leaves o absence. This provision is rareand a great advantage to those who move to North Dakota with teaching experience and those whoneed to take a leave or paternity or maternity care, or or other personal reasons.

Suppg rscNorth Dakota Teachers’ Fund or Retirement Member Handbook, eective August 1, 2011

http://www.nd.gov/rio/TFFR/Publications/Handbook.pd

reCommendation

■ oer teacers a pensin plan tat is ully prtable, fexible and air.

North Dakota should oer teachers or their mandatory pension plan the option o either a denedcontribution plan or a ully portable dened benet plan, such as a cash balance plan. A well-structured dened benet plan could be a suitable option among multiple plans. However, as thesole option, dened benet plans severely disadvantage mobile teachers and those who enter theproession later in lie. Because teachers in North Dakota participate in Social Security, they arerequired to contribute to two dened benet-style plans.

■ Increase te prtability its dened benet plan.

I North Dakota maintains its dened benet plan, it should allow teachers that leave the system towithdraw employer contributions. The state should also decrease the vesting requirement to yearthree. A lack o portability is a disincentive to an increasingly mobile teaching orce.


a 4: G G Nrt Data anss




: 125

■ oer a ully prtable supplemental retirement savings plan.

I North Dakota maintains its dened benet plan, the state should at least oer teachers the

option o a ully portable supplemental dened contribution savings plan, with employers matchinga percentage o teachers’ contributions.

north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota stated that while the state sponsors a dened benet (DB) plan, North Dakota publicschool teachers also have access to a supplemental dened contribution (DC) plan, usually through a403(b) plan, sponsored by school districts rather than the state.

The state noted that many North Dakota Teachers’ Fund or Retirement (NDTFFR) members are vestedater three years (Tier 1 members employed prior to 7/1/08); however, some are vested ater ve years(Tier 2 members employed ater 7/1/08).

North Dakota contended that NDTFFR members who withdraw their unds when they stop teachingreceive member contributions plus 6 percent interest which is well in excess o the interest they wouldearn in a basic savings account. Should the member terminate and select a reund, these member contri-butions plus interest would help und service purchases in another retirement system.

The state made the ollowing additional comment: “It should also be noted that in addition to salary,pensions are important tools in attracting and retaining qualied teachers. Traditional DB pensions havebeen shown to be overwhelmingly and consistently preerred by teachers, oer a proven track record inhelping in their recruitment and retention, and provide a good deal or taxpayers.

“DB plans help attract and retain teachers. Recent studies have shown that younger employees, whenexposed to the pros and cons o each type o pension plan, preer the traditional pension model. Further-more, economists have repeatedly ound that DB pension plans provide strong incentives or employeeretention. Employees with a DB plan tend to report higher levels o commitment than those with onlya DC plan. Public employers rely on their pension plan to help retain quality workers, particularly in aproession like teaching that relies on long-term or career-oriented proessionals.

“DB plans are a good deal or taxpayers. Because o their group nature, DB plans are much more ecientat delivering retirement benets than individual account-based DC plans. In act, a recent study by theNational Institute on Retirement Savings (NIRS) shows that a DB plan can provide a target level o retire-ment income at almost hal the cost o a DC plan. Proessionally managed, pooled assets oered by DBplans help assure greater returns and reduced investment risk, and have served to keep taxpayer costs toonly about one-ourth the total cost o existing teacher pensions.

“The unprecedented declines in the value o individual retirement savings plans in 2008-09 have borneout the long-held ears o many that such 401(k)-type plans alone cannot be depended on to provide oradequate, reliable lietime retirement security. Thereore, promoting DC plans as a replacement or the

existing DB model would not appear to improve teacher recruitment and retention.”





126

laSt word

NCTQ’s analysis is limited to members that entered the system in the 2010-2011 academic year, asincluding all tiers or all plans would be conusing and cumbersome within each analysis. Furthermore,the policies that apply to new teachers represent the state’s current approach moving orward.

While commendable that individual employers may provide supplemental savings plans, this option doesnot guarantee access to all teachers, as some employers may not participate.

The state does oer interest at a higher rate than current basic savings plans. This is a valuable aspect othe system or teachers who choose to withdraw their contributions. The ormer 8 percent rate is similarto oering an employer match. However, interest rates credited to accounts are easily altered, as shownwith its change that applies to all members, and returning to its previous policy o a guaranteed employermatch o contributions would oer more security or teachers who withdraw their unds.

Dened contribution plans can be structured to have many o the benets o dened benet plans butwith the added benets o portability and fexibility to attract new individuals to the proession andto treat all teachers airly or each year o service, not to mention less stress to states’ nancial health(see Goal 4-H). Plans can be structured as cash balance plans that allow the employer to maintain theinvestment risk and to include benets such as disability and survivor coverage. Increased participation indened contribution plans may also result in lower ees more commensurate with dened benet plans.Teachers’ individual accounts can be invested in statewide, proessionally managed unds to align theirearnings and losses with other statewide plans, such as a dened benet plan. Teachers must receiveproper education on topics such as longevity risk, tax implications and annuity options.

Dened benet plans do provide retirement security to long-time teachers but at a great cost both interms o actual dollars spent and the commitment o those dollars to the pension system rather thanother compensation strategies that may aid in recruitment and retention. The benets are so back loaded

and tied to longevity, that the dollars spent on retirement are oten not valued because they are not seenby potential employees. Many individuals may never enter the proession i they know they may not beable to dedicate 25 or more years within one system because they can receive more balanced compensa-tion in a dierent sector. Teachers who move between states, while still dedicating their lie to teaching,receive ar less in retirement benets even though they educated just as many students or just as long asteachers who spend their entire career in a single state. Further, our systems need to attract highly eec-tive teachers who can produce great results, especially in high-needs schools, whether or not they areprepared to make a career-long commitment or only teach or shorter periods o time. A dened benetpension system does not grant shorter-term teachers the same pension wealth per year o teaching as ateacher who was able to teach longer in a dierent assignment.

When oered the choice, more public employees are enrolled in a dened benet plan. However, thereality is that most members never actually “choose” a plan; the dened benet system is the deault

plan. For example, in 2010 in Ohio 79 percent o members deaulted into the dened benet plan, whilein Florida 53 percent entered by deault. Interestingly, in Florida, not including the “deaulted” employees,more new employees actually chose the dened contribution plan; 25 percent enrolled in the denedcontribution plan while 22 percent actively chose the dened benet plan. In South Carolina, 18 percentenrolled in the dened contribution plan, which is impressively high considering that new teachers onlyhave 30 days to make their choice. Despite the dened benet plan being the deault plan, at least acertain percentage o teachers actively choose a dened contribution plan. This shows that certain teach-ers preer a dened contribution plan, and that the option o a dened contribution plan is an attractiverecruitment tool or some proessionals.




: 127

Fg 108

Pension Glossary

Accrued Liability: The value o a pension plan’s promised benets calculated by an actuary (actuarial valua-

tion), taking into account a set o investment and benet assumptions to a certain date.

Actuarial Valuatin: In a pension plan, this is the total amount needed to meet promised benets. A set o

mathematical procedures is used to calculate the value o benets to be paid, the unds available and the

annual contribution required.

Amrtizatin Perid: The gradual elimination o a liability, such as a mortgage, in regular payments over a

specied period o time.

Benet Frmula: Formula used to calculate the amount teachers will receive each month ater retirement.

The most common ormula used is (years o service x nal average salary x benet multiplier). This amount is

divided by 12 to calculate monthly benets.

Benet Multiplier: Multiplier used in the benet ormula. It, along with years o service, determines the total

percentage o nal average salary that a teacher will receive in retirement benets. In some plans, the multiplier

is not constant, but changes depending upon retirement age and/or years o service.

Dened Benet Plan: Pension plan that promises to pay a specied amount to each person who retires ater

a set number o years o service. Employees contribute to them in some cases; in others, all contributions aremade by the employer.

Dened Cntributin Plan: Pension plan in which the level o contributions is xed at a certain level,

while benets vary depending on the return rom investments. Employees make contributions into a tax-

deerred account, and employers may or may not make contributions. Dened contribution pension plans, unlike

dened benet pension plans, give the employee options o where to invest the account, usually among stock,

bond and money market accounts.

Lump-sum Witdrawal: Large payment o money received at one time instead o in periodic payments.

Teachers leaving a pension plan may receive a lump-sum distribution o the value o their pension.

Nrmal Cst: The amount necessary to und retirement benets or one plan year or an individual or a whole

pension plan.

Pensin Wealt: The net present value o a teacher’s expected lietime retirement benets.

Purcasing Time: A teacher may make additional contributions to a pension system to increase service credit.

Time may be purchased or a number o reasons, such as proessional development leave, previous out-o-state

teaching experience, medical leaves o absence or military service.

Service Credit/Years Service: Accumulated period o time in years or partial years or which a teacher

earned compensation subject to contributions.

Supplemental Retirement Plan: An optional plan to which teachers may voluntarily make tax-deerred con-

tributions in addition to their mandatory pension plans. Employees are usually able to choose their rate o

contribution up to a maximum set by the IRS; some employers also make contributions. These plans are gener-

ally in the orm o 457 or 403(b) programs.

Vesting: Right an employee gradually acquires by length o service to receive employer-contributed benets,

such as payments rom a pension und.

Sources: Barron’s Dictionary o Finance and Investment Terms, Seventh Edition; Caliornia State Teachers’

Retirement System http://www.calstrs.com/Members/Dened%20Benet%20Program/glossary.aspx;

Economic Research Institute, http://www.eridlc.com/resources/index.cm?useaction=resource.glossary




128

What type of pension

systems do states offer

teachers?

D e f i n e d

b e n e f i t p l a n

o n l y

D e f i n e d

b e n e f i t p l a n w i t h

d e f i n e d

c o n t r i b u t i o n s u p p l e m

e n t a l p l a n

H y b r i d

p l a n

1

C H

O I C E

O F D E F I N

E D B E N

E F I T O R

D E F I N

E D C O N T R I B U T I O

N P L A

N

D E F I N

E D C O N

T R I B U

T I O N

P L A N

O N

L Y

Figure 109

25 17 4 4 1

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California2

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana3

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

Ohio4

Oklahoma

Oregon5

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina6


Texas

Utah7

Vermont

Virginia

Washington8

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

1. A hybrid plan has components o both a dened benet planand a dened contribution plan.

2. Caliornia oers a small cash balance component but endedmost o the unding to this portion as o January 1, 2011.

3. Indiana also oers a supplemental dened contribution plan.

4. Ohio also oers the option o a hybrid plan and oers asupplemental dened contribution plan.

5. Oregon also oers a supplemental dened contribution plan.

6. South Carolina also oers a supplemental dened contribu-tion plan.

7. Utah oers a choice between a dened contribution or ahybrid plan.

8. Washington oers a choice between a dened benet or ahybrid plan.


Alasa provides a air and fexible denedcontribution pension plan or all teachersThis plan is also highly portable, as teachersare entitled to 100 percent o employer con

tributions ater ve years o service. SutData’s dened benet plan has some creative provisions, which makes it more likea dened contribution plan. Most notablyteachers are able to withdraw 85 percent otheir employer contributions ater three yearso service. In addition, Flrida, oi, Sut

Carlina and Uta are noteworthy or oering teachers a choice between a dened beneor hybrid plan and a dened contribution plan




: 129

yeS1 N2

1. Strong Practice: Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon,South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington

2. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado3, Connecticut,Delaware, District o Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii3, Idaho, Illinois,Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,


3. Although not ully portable, the state’s dened benet plan hassome notable portability provisions.

10

41

Fg 110

Do states oer teachers an option other than a nonportable defned beneft plan?

How many years before teachers vest?

Figure 111

3 YEARSOR LESS

4 to 5 years

6 to 9 years

10 years

3 29 3 16

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware1


Florida2

Georgia

Hawaii3

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa3

KansasKentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

NoRTh DAkoTA

Ohio4

Oklahoma

Oregon5

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina6


Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington7

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Fg 111

1. For teachers who join the system on or ater January 1, 2012.

2. Florida’s dened benet plan does not vest until year eight;teachers vest in the state’s dened contribution plan ater one year.

3. For teachers who join the system on or ater July 1, 2012.

4. Ohio’s dened benet plan does not vest until year ve; teachersvest in the state’s dened contribution plan ater one year.

5. Oregon oers a hybrid plan in which teachers vest immediately inthe dened contribution component and vest in the dened benetcomponent ater ve years.

6. South Carolina’s dened benet plan does not vest until year ve;teachers vest immediately in the state’s dened contribution plan.

7. Based on Washington’s Plan 2. The state also oers a hybrid planin which teachers vest immediately in the dened contributioncomponent and vest in the dened benet component ater 10 years.

NoRThDAkoTA




130

What funds do states permit

teachers to withdraw from

their defined benefit plans

if they leave after

five years?1 L e s s

t h a n t h e i r

o w n

c o n t r i b u t i o

n

O n l y

t h e i r o w n


n

T h e i r

o w n

c o n t r i b u t i o n

p l u s i n

t e r e s t

T h e i r o w n

c o n t r i b u

t i o n a n d

p a r t o f t h e

e m p l o

y e r


n p l u s

i n t e r e s t

T H E I R

O W

N C O N T R I B U

T I O N

A N D F U L L E M

P L O Y E R

C O N T R I B U

T I O N

P L U S I N T E R E S T

Figure 112

4 5 34 6 1

Alabama

Alaska2

Arizona

Arkansas

California3

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa4

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan5

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada6

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

NoRTh DAkoTA

Ohio7

Oklahoma

Oregon8

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina9


Texas

Utah10

Vermont

Virginia

Washington11

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

1. States’ withdrawal policies may vary depending on a teacher’s years o service. Year ve is used as a common point ocomparision.

2. As o July 1, 2006, Alaska only oers a dened contributionplan to new members, which allows teachers leaving thesystem ater ve years to withdraw 100 percent o the

employer contribution.3. Caliornia has a dened benet plan with a small cash balance

component, which allows exiting teachers to withdraw theircontributions and any employer contributions plus earningsrom their cash balance component, regardless o their actionregarding their dened benet account.

4. Once vested, Iowa teachers may withdraw an employer matcequal to one-thirtieth o their years o service. Eective July1, 2012 teachers vest at seven years o service, so a teacherleaving at year ve would not be entitled to any employercontribution.

5. Michigan only oers a hybrid plan. Exiting teachers maywithdraw their own contributions and accrued earningsimmediately and the employer contributions to the denedcontribution component once vested at year our. Michiganteachers may withdraw their own contributions and accruedinterest rom the dened benet component but may not

withdraw the employer contribution.

6. Most teachers in Nevada und the system by salary reductionor orgoing pay raises and thus do not have direct contributioto withdraw. The small mintority that are in a contributorysystem may withdraw their contributions plus interest.

7. Ohio has two other pension plans. Ohio’s denedcontribution plan allows teachers with at least one year oservice who are leaving the system to withdraw 100 percento the employer contribution. Exiting teachers with at leastve years o experience in Ohio’s combination plan maywithdraw their employee-unded dened contributioncomponent and the present value o the benets oered inthe dened benet component.

8. Oregon only has a hybrid retirement plan, which allows exitinteachers to withdraw their contributions plus earnings romtheir dened contribution component; they still receive theemployer-unded dened benet payments at retirement age

9. South Carolina also has a dened contribution plan, whichallows exiting teachers to withdraw 100 percent o theircontributions and employer contributions, plus earnings.

10. Utah oers a hybrid pension plan, which only has employeecontributions when the costs exceed the guaranteedemployer contribution. When costs are less than the employecontribution, the excess is contributed to the employee accouand reundable ater vesting.

11. Washington also has a hybrid plan, which allows exitingteachers to withdraw their contributions plus earnings romtheir dened contribution component; they still receive theemployer-unded dened benet payments at retirement age




: 131

lmtd cs

mttd3

1. Purchasing time does not apply to dened contribution plans. Instates that oer multiple plans or a hybrid plan, the graph reersto the state’s dened benet plan or the dened benet componento its hybrid plan. Alaska only oers a dened contribution plan andis not included.

2. Strong Practice: Caliornia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire,North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah

3. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri,Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,Wisconsin, Wyoming

4. Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon

N cs

mttd4

5

36

uNliMiTeD

purChaSe

perMiTTeD2

9

Fg 113

Do states permit teachers to purchase time or previous teaching experience? 1

1. Purchasing time does not apply to dened contribution plans.In states that oer multiple plans or a hybrid plan, the graphreers to the state’s dened benet plan or the dened benetcomponent o its hybrid plan. Alaska only oers a denedcontribution plan and is not included.

2. Strong Practice: Alabama, Caliornia, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa,Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,South Carolina, South Dakota

3. Arizona, Connecticut, District o Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana,Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey,North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia,Washington, Wyoming

4. Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan,Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York,Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia,Wisconsin

N cs

mttd4

19

lmtd

cs

mttd3

18

uNliMiTeD

purChaSe

perMiTTeD2

13

Fg 114

Do states permit teachers to purchase time or leaves o absence?1

NoRThDAkoTA

NoRThDAkoTA




132

G Cps


1. The state should ensure that its pensionsystem is nancially sustainable, withoutexcessive ununded liabilities or aninappropriately long amortization period.

2. Mandatory employer and employee

contribution rates should not beunreasonably high, as they reduce teachers’paychecks and commit district resourcesthat could otherwise be spent on salaries orincentives.

Bcgu



G h – pnsn SstntTe state suld ensure tat excessive resurces are nt cmmitted t unding

teacers’ pensin systems.

Fg 115

How States are Faring on Pension Sustainability

3 bst pctc SttsSouth Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin

3 Stts Mt G Alaska, District of Columbia⬆, Florida

6Stts N Mt GDelaware , Georgia, New York, North

Carolina, Washington, Wyoming⬆

9 Stts pt Mt GCalifornia , Idaho , Indiana, Iowa ,

Nebraska , Nevada , Oregon , Texas ,

Utah

20 Stts Mt Sm pt f GAlabama, Arizona, Colorado , Connecticut,

Illinois , Kansas, Kentucky , Louisiana ,

Maine , Massachusetts , Michigan ,

Minnesota, Mississippi , New Hampshire ,

New Jersey , Rhode Island , South Carolina,

Vermont , Virginia, West Virginia

10 Stts D Nt Mt GArkansas , Hawaii , Maryland , Missouri ,

Montana , New Mexico, NoRTh DAkoTA ,

Ohio , Oklahoma, Pennsylvania

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 2 : 20 ⬇ : 29




: 133

analySiSAs o June 30, 2010, the most recent date or which an actuarial valuation is available, North Dakota’s

pension system or teachers is 69.8 percent unded and has an amortization period o over 30 years. Thismeans that i the plan earns its assumed rate o return and maintains current contribution rates, it wouldtake the state over 30 years to pay o its ununded liabilities. Neither the state’s unding ratio nor itsamortization period meets conventional standards, and the state’s system is not nancially sustainableaccording to actuarial benchmarks.

In addition, North Dakota commits excessive resources toward its teachers’ retirement system. The cur-rent employer contribution rate o 8.75 percent is too high, in light o the act that local districts andteachers must also contribute 6.2 percent to Social Security. While this rate allows the state to pay oliabilities, it does so at great cost, precluding North Dakota rom spending those unds on other, moreimmediate means to retain talented teachers. The mandatory employee contribution rate o 7.75 per-cent is not unreasonable, although very close to what is considered excessive.

Suppg rsc2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, North Dakota Retirement and Investment Oce, or the year ended June30, 2010

http://www.nd.gov/rio/SIB/Publications/CAFR/2010AnnualReport.pd

reCommendation

■ Ensure tat te pensin system is nancially sustainable.

The state would be better o i its system was over 95 percent unded and had an amortizationperiod o 30 years or less to allow more protection during nancial downturns. However, NorthDakota should consider ways to improve its unding level without raising the contributions oschool districts and teachers. In act, the state should work to decrease employer contributions.Committing excessive resources to pension benets can negatively aect teacher recruitment and

retention. Improving unding levels necessitates, in part, systemic changes in the state’s pensionsystem. Goals 4-G and 4-I provide suggestions or pension system structures that are both sustain-able and air

north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota asserted that to improve unding levels, which declined primarily because o the marketdownturn in 2008-2009, the 2011 state legislature approved North Dakota Teachers’ Fund or Retire-ment contribution rate increases. Employee and employer contribution rates will both increase by 2percent on July 1, 2012, and by another 2 percent on July 1, 2014, reaching 11.75 percent or employeesand 12.75 percent or employers. Rates will return to 7.75 percent or employee and employer whenNDTFFR reaches the 90 percent-unded level.

The state also noted that in addition to the contribution increases, the 2011 state legislature alsoapproved benet modications to improve TFFR unding levels. School districts, teachers, and admin-istrators supported the contribution and benet changes recognizing the importance o a well-undeddened benet plan.


a 4: G h Nrt Data anss






: 135

Figure 116

A T L E A

S T 8 0 P E R

C E N

T

F U N D E D

M A X I U M U M

3 0

Y E A R

A M

O R T I Z

A T I O N

P E R I O D

Do state pension

systems meet standard

benchmarks for

financial health?

16 26

1

1

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan2

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

NoRTh DAkoTA

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah3

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Fg 116

1. The amortization period is set to be under 30 years; however, theamortization period is not determined because the state is notmeeting its annual required contribution.

2. Michigan opened a new system in July 2010.

3. Utah opened a new system in July 2011.


Sut Data, Tennessee and Wiscnsin provide nan-cially sustainable pension systems without committingexcessive resources. The systems in these states are ullyunded without requiring excessive contributions rom

teachers or school districts.

yeS2 N3

1. Cannot be determined or Michigan or Utah, which recentlyopened new systems.

2. Strong Practice: Alaska, Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida,Georgia, Indiana4, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Oregon,South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin

3. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado, Connecticut,Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

4. Based on Indiana’s current plan only.

14

35

Fg 117

Are state pension systems fnancially sustainable?1

NoRTh

DAkoTA




136

Fg 118

Real Rate o Return

The pension system unding levels report-

ed here are based on each state’s individual

actuarial valuation, which use a series o varyingassumptions. One o these assumptions con-

cerns rate o return, which greatly aects a sys-

tem’s unding level. I investment returns all

short o assumptions, the und will have a de-

cit; i returns are greater than expected, the und

will have a surplus. Higher assumed rates involve

more risk, while rates closer to infation (typically

in the 3-5 percent range) are saer.

Most state pension unds assume a rate between

7.5 percent and 8.25 percent. A state using a 7.5

percent rate will report a lower unding level than

i it had used 8.25 percent, even though its lia-

bilities remain the same. Many states report that

they do meet or exceed an eight percent rate o

return over the lie o the plan.

However, some economists argue that states’

assumed rates o return are too high, and should

instead be closer to our percent. They cau-

tion that the risk associated with states’ higher

rates is borne by taxpayers, with the result that

tax rates rise to und pension decits. A rate

closer to our percent would make the vast

majority o the nation’s pension systems lessthan 50 percent unded. In light o the current

market situation, the debate over the rate o

return is particularly timely. With no current con-

sensus by experts or policymakers, NCTQ used

states’ sel-reported numbers rather than recal-

culate all unding levels based on a standard rate

o return. Considering how many states’ systems

NCTQ ound in questionable nancial health

without using the lower rates some economists

preer, it is clear this is an issue that demands

policymakers’ attention.

Figure 119

How well funded are state pension systems?

Funding Level

N/A

118.3%

116%

103.2%99.8%

96.3%

96%

95.9%

94.7%

90.6%

87.5%

87.2%

86.6%

85.7%

83.2%

82.9%

82.4%

80.8%

80.2%

79%

78.9%

78.9%

78.5%

78%

77.7%

75.1%

74.7%

73.8%

71.2%

69.8%

67.8%

66.5%

65.9%

65.7%

65.4%

65.4%

64.8%

64.2%

63%

61.4%

61.4%

61%59.1%

58.5%

57.6%

56.7%

56%

54.4%

48.4%

48.4%

46.5%

Alaska1


Washington

New YorkWisconsin

South Dakota

Delaware

North Carolina

Indiana2

Tennessee

Wyoming

Georgia

Florida

Utah

Oregon

Texas

Nebraska

Iowa

Virginia

Arizona

Idaho

Michigan

Minnesota

California

Missouri

Pennsylvania

Alabama

Arkansas

Nevada

NoRTh DAkoTA

South Carolina

Vermont

Maine

New Mexico

Maryland

Montana

Colorado

Mississippi

Massachusetts

Connecticut

Hawaii

KentuckyOhio

New Hampshire

New Jersey

Oklahoma

Kansas

Louisiana

Illinois

Rhode Island

West Virginia

Fg 119

1. Alaska has only a dened contribution pension system.

2. Indiana’s current plan is 94.7 percent unded. However, when thecurrent plan is combined with its closed plan, the unding leveldrops to 44.3 percent.




: 137

Fg 120

What is a reasonable rate or pensioncontributions?

n 4-7 percent each or teachers and districts in

states participating in Social Security

n 10-13 percent each or teachers and districts

in states not participating in Social Security

Analysts generally agree that workers in their

20’s with no previous retirement savings should

save, in addition to Social Security contributions,

about 10-15 percent o their gross income in

order to be able to live during retirement on 80

percent o the salary they were earning when

they retired. While the recommended savings

rate varies with age and existing retirement sav-

ings, NCTQ has used this 10-15 percent bench-mark as a reasonable rate or its analyses. To

achieve a total savings o 10-15 percent, teacher

and employer contributions should each be in

the range o 4-7 percent. In states where teach-

ers do not participate in Social Security, the total

recommended retirement savings (teacher plus

employer contributions) is about 12 percent high-

er to compensate or the act that these teachers

will not have Social Security income when they

retire. In order to achieve the appropriate level o

total savings, teacher and employer contributions

in these states should each be in the range o 10-13 percent.

Sources:

http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/resource_cen-

ter/expert_insight/retirement_strategies/planning/

how_much_should_you_save_for_retirement_play_

the_percentages.html

https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/retirement/

saving/set-retirement-goals

Figure 121

What are the current employer 1 contribution rates to state

pension systems?

Employer contribution rate

Social Security (+6.2%) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia2

Hawaii3

Idaho

Illinois3

Indiana

Iowa

KansasKentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts3

Michigan4

Minnesota3

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey5

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

NoRTh DAkoTA

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania3

Rhode Island6

South Carolina


Texas7

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Fg 1211. The employer contribution rate includes the contributions o both school

districts and state governments, where appropriate.

2. The contribution rate is set to increase in uture years. Some schooldistricts in Georgia do not contribute to Social Security.

3. The contribution rate is set to increase in uture years.

4. Michigan opened a new system in July 2010 and employer contributionsare not yet reported.

5. New Jersey reports its contributions as a fat dollar amount, and apercentage could not be calculated.

6. The contribution rate is set to increase in uture years. Most, but not all,school districts in Rhode Island contribute to Social Security.

7. The contribution rate is set to decrease in 2012.

10

12.6

10.1

14

10.3

14.8

19.2

9.3

0

3.8

10.3

15

10.4

12.7

7.5

8.1

9.4

17.8

23.7

17.3

15.5

22.6

N/a

6.2

12

14.5

10

8.9

11.9

10.7

N/a

9.9

11.1

13.1

8.8

14

14.5

13.9

5.6

22.3

9.2

6

6.4

6.6

10

7.4

8.8

9.2

29.2

4.8

7.1




138

Figure 123

How much do state pension systems

require teachers to contribute?

Teacher contribution rate

Social Security (+6.2%) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Alabama1

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware1


Florida

Georgia1

Hawaii1

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

KansasKentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan2

Minnesota1

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska3

Nevada4

New Hampshire

New Jersey1

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

NoRTh DAkoTA1

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania5

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah6

Vermont

Virginia

Washington7

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

1. Strong Practice: Alaska, Caliornia, Colorado, District o Columbia, Florida,Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey5, South Dakota, Tennessee,Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming

2. Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana,New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,Oregon, South Ca rolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia

3. Michigan6

4. Arizona, Hawaii, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island

5. While not excessive, the employer and state contribution are quite low.The most recent total employer contribution was only 5.4 percent o the

actuarially-determined annual required contribution.6. Employer contribution rates to Michigan’s new system have not

yet been reported.

Fg 123

1. The contribution rate is set to increase in uture years.

2. Teachers contribute 9.4 percent to the dened benet component and areautomatically enrolled to contribute 2 percent to the dened contributioncomponent; teachers may change the latter rate.

3. The contribution rate is set to increase in 2012 and decrease in 2014.

4. Teachers share in the employer contribution through salary reductions ororegoing equivalent pay raises.

5. For teachers hired ater July 1, 2011, the contribution ranges rom7.5-12.3 based on a variety o actors.

6. Teachers in the hybrid plan must make a mandatory contribution i theemployer contribution does not cover system costs.

7. For the dened benet plan; the rate varies or the dened contributionplan rom a minimum o 5 percent.

ecss

m

cnttn

n2

ecss

tc

cnttn

n3

ecss

m

nd tc

cnttns4

26

1

8

No exCeSSive

CoNTribuTioNS1

16

Fg 122

Do states require excessive contributions to their pension systems?

7.3

8

11.4

6

8

8

7.3

3

8

3

5.5

6

6.2

9.4

3

5.4

6

10.9

8

7.7

7

11

11.4

6

9

14.5

7.2

8.8

11.9

7

6.5

11.2

3.5

6

7.8

10

7

6

7.5

9.5

6.5

6

5

6.4

0

5

5

4.8

6

6.2

7

NoRThDAkoTA




: 139

G Cps


1. The ormula that determines pensionbenets should be neutral to the number o years worked. It should not have a multiplierthat increases with years o service orlongevity bonuses.

2. The ormula or determining benets shouldpreserve incentives or teachers to continueworking until conventional retirement ages.Eligibility or retirement benets should bebased on age and not years o service.

Bcgu


Area 4: Delivering Well-Prepared Teacers

G i – pnsn NttTe state suld ensure tat pensin systems are neutral, unirmly increasing

pensin wealt wit eac additinal year wr.

Fg 124

How States are Faring on Pension Neutrality

1 bst pctc SttAlaska

3 Stts Mt G Illinois⬆, Minnesota, New Jersey⬆

8 Stts N Mt GLouisiana⬆, Maine⬆, Michigan⬆, Ohio,

Oregon, South Carolina, Utah⬆, Washington

26 Stts pt Mt GAlabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware,

District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,

Hawaii⬆, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland,

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,

North Carolina, NoRTh DAkoTA⬆,

Oklahoma⬆, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,

Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia,

Wisconsin

1 Stt Mts Sm pt f GNew Hampshire⬆

12 Stts D Nt Mt GArizona, California, Connecticut, Iowa,

Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri,

New York, Rhode Island, Vermont , Wyoming

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 10 : 40 ⬇ : 1




140

analySiSNorth Dakota’s pension system is based on a benet ormula that is not neutral, meaning that each year

o work does not accrue pension wealth in a uniorm way until teachers reach conventional retirementage, such as that associated with Social Security.

Teachers’ retirement wealth is determined by their monthly payments and the length o time theyexpect to receive those payments. Monthly payments are usually calculated as nal average salary mul-tiplied by years o service multiplied by a set multiplier (such as 1.5). Higher salary, more years o serviceor a greater multiplier increases monthly payments and results in greater pension wealth. Earlier retire-ment eligibility with unreduced benets also increases pension wealth, because more payments will bereceived.

To qualiy as neutral, a pension ormula must utilize a constant benet multiplier and an eligibility time-table based solely on age, rather than years o service. Basing eligibility or retirement on years o servicecreates unnecessary and oten unair peaks in pension wealth, while allowing unreduced retirement at a

young age creates incentives to retire early. Plans that change their multipliers or various years o ser-vice do not value each year o teaching equally. Thereore, plans with a constant multiplier and that baseretirement on an age in line with Social Security are likely to create the most uniorm accrual o wealth.

North Dakota’s pension plan is commended or utilizing a constant benet multiplier o 2 percent; how-ever, teachers may retire beore standard retirement age based on years o service without a reductionin benets. Teachers may retire when they are at least 60 years o age and qualiy or the “Rule o 90,”meaning age plus years o service equal 90, while other vested teachers may not retire until age 65.Thereore, teachers who begin their careers by age 30 can reach the “Rule o 90” with 30 years o serviceby age 60, entitling them to ve additional years o unreduced retirement benets beyond what otherteachers would receive who may not retire until age 65. These provisions may encourage eective teach-ers to retire earlier than they might otherwise, and they ail to treat equally those teachers who enterthe system at a later age and give the same amount o service.

Suppg rscNorth Dakota Teachers’ Fund or Retirement Member Handbook, eective August 1, 2011

http://www.nd.gov/rio/TFFR/Publications/Handbook.pd

reCommendation

■ End retirement eligibility based n years service.

North Dakota should change its practice o allowing teachers whose age and years o service equal90 to retire at any age with ull benets. I retirement at an earlier age is oered to some teachers,benets should be reduced accordingly to compensate or the longer duration they will be awarded.

■ Align eligibility r retirement wit unreduced benets wit Scial Security retirement age.

North Dakota allows all teachers to retire beore conventional retirement age, some as young as 56.As lie expectancies continue to increase, teachers may draw out o the system or many more yearsthan they contributed. This is not compatible with a nancially sustainable system (see Goal 4-H).


a 4: G i Nrt Data anss




: 141


North Dakota restated that to improve unding levels, the 2011 state legislature approved benet modi-cations in addition to contribution rate increases as described in Goal 4-H. For non-grandathered Tier 1employees, and all Tier 2 employees, the eligibility age or unreduced retirement benets will increase tominimum age 60 or members with the Rule o 90, or minimum age 65 or those members without theRule o 90. Also, the reduction actor will increase rom 6 percent to 8 percent per year or those mem-bers who retire beore normal retirement age. School districts, teachers and administrators supportedthe contribution and benet changes recognizing the importance o a well-unded dened benet plan.

Suppg rscND Teachers’ Fund or Retirement, Summary o HB 1134 Provisions

http://www.nd.gov/rio/TFFR/Legislation/HB1134%20summary%20o%20provisions.web.pd

laSt wordThe state is commended or moving retirement eligibility more in line with Social Security retirementage; however, eligibility based on years o service still remains, which creates uneven accrual o pensionwealth.




142

yeS2 N3

1. This only reers to determining retirementeligibility, not retirement benets.

2. Strong Practice: Alaska, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan,Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey

3. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado, Connecticut,Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,

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

8

43

Fg 125

Do states base retirement eligibility on age,which is air to all teachers?1

Figure 126

T o t a l a m o u n t

i n b e n e f i t s

p a i d

p e r t e a c h e r

f r o m t h e

t i m e o f

r e t i r e m e n t

u n t i l a g e 6 5

E a r l i e s t r e t i r e m

e n t a g e

t h a t

a t e a c h e r

w h o

s t a r t e d

t e a c h i n g a t

a g e 2 2

m a y

r e c e i v e u n r e d u c e d

b e n e f i t s

How much do states

pay for each teacher that retires withunreduced benefits atan early age?1

$0

$0$0

$0

$0

$238,654

$289,187

$310,028

$317,728

$337,385

$337,385

$361,536

$385,583

$385,583

$413,808

$416,007

$430,013

$440,819

$443,421

$447,707

$468,982

$481,979

$485,257

$486,832

$518,228

$520,009

$520,009

$551,428

$551,743

$568,555

$577,142

$577,687

$577,687

$577,927

$585,737

$594,296

$624,786

$624,786

$625,747

$650,011$650,011

$655,506

$664,340

$681,789

$687,265

$734,124

$780,983

$789,343

$791,679

65

$0 67

6665

65

65

52

60

62

55

60

60

58

60

60

56

57

59

57

60

55

56

60

55

56

47

57

57

55

56

52

50

55

55

52

52

57

52

52

47

5757

54

55

50

52

52

52

51

49

Alaska2

Illinois

Maine

Minnesota3

New Hampshire

New Jersey

Washington

Tennessee

Michigan

California4

Indiana

Hawaii5

Kansas

Oregon

NoRTh DAkoTA

Oklahoma

Maryland

Wisconsin

Rhode Island

New York

Texas

South Dakota

Virginia

Louisiana

Florida

Vermont

Montana

Connecticut

Utah

Iowa

Idaho

North Carolina

South Carolina

Nebraska

West Virginia

Delaware


Massachusetts6

Georgia

Mississippi

Alabama

ColoradoPennsylvania

Wyoming

Arizona

Arkansas

Ohio

New Mexico

Nevada

Missouri

Kentucky

Fg 126

1. All calculations are based on a teacher who starts teaching at age 22, earns astarting salary o $35,000 that increases 3 percent per year, and retires at the ages/he is rst eligible or unreduced benets. The calculations use states’ currentbenet ormulas and do not include cost o living increases. The nal average salary

was calculated as the average o the highest three years o salary, even though aew states may vary rom that standard. Age 65 was used as a point o comparisionbecause it is the miminum eligibility or unreduced Social Security benets.

2. Does not apply to Alaska’s dened contribution plan.

3. Minnesota provides unreduced retirement benets at the age o ull Social Securitybenets or age 66, whichever comes rst.

4. Caliornia’s ormula has many options or retirement. A teacher with 40 years oexperience at age 62 would reach Caliorina’s maximum allowable multiplier o 2.4percent.

5. Age 60 is the earlier teachers hired on or ater July 1, 2012 may retire. Teachershired prior to this point may retire at age 55.

6. Massachusetts’s ormula has many options or retirement. A teacher with 35 yearso experience at age 57 would reach Massachusetts’s maximum allowable beneto 80 percent.

NoRThDAkoTA




: 143


Alasa oers a dened contribution pension plan that isneutral, with pension wealth accumulating in an equal wayor all teachers or each year o work. In addition, Illinis,Minnesta and New Jersey oer a dened benet plan

with a ormula multiplier that does not change relative to years o service and does not allow unreduced benets orretirees below age 65. Illinois and New Jersey are urthercommended or ending their previous practices o allowingteachers to retire well beore Social Security age without areduction in benets.

1. Alaska has a dened contribution plan, which does not have abenet multiplier.

2. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware,District o Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina,North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West

Virginia, Wisconsin3. Arizona, Caliornia, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky,

Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York,Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming

Mt

cngs sd

n s f

sc3

15

CoNSTaNT2

35

Fg 127

What kind o multiplier do states use tocalculate retirement benefts?1

NoRThDAkoTA




144

Fg 128

Double-Dipping: Cure the Disease, Not the Symptom

Benet recipients in teacher pension plans have recently been under scrutiny or “double-dipping,” when individuals

receive a pension and salary at the same time. This can occur when teachers reach retirement eligibility, yet wish to

keep working without losing pension wealth. Teachers can retire, start receiving their monthly benets and then re-turn to teaching. The restrictions on a teacher’s ability to return to work vary rom state to state. Policies can include

waiting periods, limitations on earnings or restrictions to working in dicult-to-ll positions.

Some descriptions portray teachers working while collecting their pensions as greedy or somehow taking advantage,

when in act they are just ollowing the system that is in place. When a teacher reaches retirement eligibility in a

dened benet system, her pension wealth peaks and, ater that, wealth accrual slows or even decreases because

every year a teacher delays retirement, she loses a year o pension benets. For example, i a teacher could retire

with 60 percent o her salary at age 56, then every year she teaches past that point she is, in eect, working or only

40 percent o her pay because she is not receiving her pension. This puts relatively young teachers and the districts

who wish to retain them in a dicult position. Districts want to keep eective teachers in schools, but the nancial

reality or teachers is hard to pass up.

Retirees returning to work are also an issue or dened benet pension system unding because contributions are

not being made to the system that would be made i those positions were held by non-retirees. This adds to the

unding imbalances that many states’ dened benet systems ace.

Some states have created Deerred Retirement Option Plans (DROP) in which retirees can have their benets placed

in a savings account while they return to work and, once they retire again, they can receive the lump sum in their

DROP accounts and resume their monthly benets.

Returning to work would not be a large policy issue i systems did not allow teachers to retire with unreduced

benets at such relatively young ages and i pension wealth accrual were more neutral. An eective teacher

should be able to keep teaching and at the same time know that her pension wealth will not erode. More systemic

xes—like the ones outlined in the Yearbook—are needed. Calls to prohibit double-dipping are not addressing the

real problem.






146

analySiSNorth Dakota allows new teachers who have not met licensure requirements to teach under the alterna-

tive access license, which is issued in areas where there is a documented shortage o regularly licensedteachers. The applicant must have a bachelor’s degree in the content area to be assigned, and renewaldepends on supply and demand o certicated teachers available or these positions. The alternate accesscan be renewed annually, but the “license will be issued only once to complete all testing requirementsor regular licensure.”

Suppg rscNorth Dakota Century Code 67.1-02-04-01

reCommendation

■ Ensue ll eces pss equied subjec-me licensing ess befe ey ene eclssm.

While North Dakota’s policy minimizes the risks brought about by having teachers in classroomswho lack sucient or appropriate subject-matter knowledge by oering its alternative license orone year only beore teachers are required to take the required subject-matter tests, the state couldtake its policy a step urther and require all teachers to meet subject-matter license requirementsprior to entering the classroom.

north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota had no comment on this goal.

Stt N Mts G pgss Snc 2009

a 5: G a N D anss




: 147

Fgu 130

Do states still award emergency licenses?1


Cld, Illinis, Mississippi, and New Jesey requireall new teachers to pass all required subject-mattertests as a condition o initial licensure.

13

27

9

Nonrenewable emergencyor provisional licenses2

Renewableemergency or

provisional licenses3

NO EMERGENCY ORPROVISIONAL LICENSES4

How long can new teachers

practice without passing

licensing tests?

N O D E F E R R A L

U p t o 1 y e a r

U p t o 2 y e a r s

3 y e a r s o r m o r e

( o r u n s p e c i f i e d )

Figure 131

9 814 18

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa1

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana2

Nebraska3

NevadaNew Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Texas

Utah4

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming5

Fgu 131

1. Iowa only requires subject-matter testing or elementary teachers.

2. Montana does not require subject-matter testing.

3. Nebraska does not require subject-matter testing.

4. There is a potential loophole in Utah, as alternate route teachers appearable to delay passage o subject-matter tests.

5. Wyoming only requires subject-matter testing or elementary andsocial studies teachers.

1. Not applicable to Montana and Nebraska, which do not require subjectmatter testing.

2. Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Caliornia, Connecticut, Delaware, Districto Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina,North Dakota5, Ohio5, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont,

Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming

3. Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin

4. Strong Practice: Colorado, Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey,New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia

5. License is renewable, but only i licensure tests are passed.

NorthDakota




148

Fgu 132

How States are Faring on Consequences for Unsatisfactory Evaluations

2 bst pctc SttsIllinois⬆, Oklahoma

11 Stts Mt G Alaska, Arkansas⬆, Colorado⬆, Delaware⬆,

Florida, Indiana⬆, Louisiana, New Mexico,

New York⬆, Rhode Island⬆, Washington

6 Stts N Mt GGeorgia, Hawaii, Michigan⬆, North Carolina,

South Carolina, Texas

13 Stts pt Mt GCalifornia, Connecticut, Iowa,

Massachusetts⬆, Minnesota⬆, Mississippi,

Missouri, Nevada⬆, Oregon, Pennsylvania,

Tennessee⬆, Utah, West Virginia

5 Stts Mt Sm pt f G

Arizona, Idaho⬆, Ohio⬆, Virginia, Wyoming⬆

14 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama , District of Columbia, Kansas,

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana,

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont,

Wisconsin

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 15 : 35 ⬇ : 1

G Cps


1. The state should require that all teacherswho receive a single unsatisactoryevaluation be placed on an improvementplan, whether or not they have tenure.

2. The state should require that all teachers

who receive two consecutive unsatisactoryevaluations or two unsatisactory evaluationswithin ve years be ormally eligible ordismissal, whether or not they have tenure.

Bcgu


ae 5: Exiing Ineffecive teces

G b – Unstsfct evutnste se suld icule cnsequences f eces wi unsisfcy evluins,

including specifying eces wi muliple unsisfcy evluins suld beeligible f dismissl.




: 149

analySiSNorth Dakota does not have a policy regarding teachers who receive unsatisactory evaluations.

reCommendation

■ requie ll eces w eceive unsisfcy evluins be plced n impvemenplns.

North Dakota should adopt a policy requiring that teachers who receive even one unsatisactoryevaluation be placed on structured improvement plans. These plans should ocus on perormanceareas that directly connect to student learning and should list noted deciencies, dene specicaction steps necessary to address these deciencies and describe how and when progress will bemeasured.

■ Me eligibiliy f dismissl cnsequence f unsisfcy evluins.

Teachers who receive two consecutive unsatisactory evaluations or have two unsatisactory evalu-ations within ve years should be ormally eligible or dismissal, regardless o whether they havetenure. North Dakota should adopt a policy to ensure that teachers who receive such unsatisactoryevaluations are eligible or dismissal.



a 5: G b N D anss




150

Figure 133

What are the

consequences for

teachers who receive

unsatisfactory

evaluations? O t h

e r c o n s e q

u e n c e s

E L I G I B L E

F O R D I S M

I S S A L

A F T

E R

M U L T I P L E

U N

S A T I S F A

C T O

R Y

R A T I N

G S

I M P R

O V E M

E N T P L A

N A F T E R

A S I N

G L E

U N

S A T I S F A

C T O R Y

R A T I N

G

N o a r t i c u

l a t e d c o n s e q

u e n

c e s

27 17 8 17

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho 1

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

KansasKentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts 2

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi 3

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada 4

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina 5

North Dakota

Ohio 6

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

1. Teachers could ace nonrenewal based onevaluation results, but it is not clear that ateacher is eligible or dismissal ater multipleunsatisactory evaluations.

2. While results o evaluations may be used indismissal decisions, there are no specic criteria ora teacher’s eligibility or dismissal.

3. Improvement plans are only used or teachersin identied “Schools At Risk.” Those sameteachers are also eligible or dismissal or multipleunsatisactory evaluations.

4. A teacher reverts to probationary status ater twoconsecutive years o unsatisactory evaluations, butit is not clear that a teacher is eligible or dismissal.

5. Teachers in low perorming schools can bedismissed ater one negative rating.

6. Local school boards must include procedures orusing evaluation results or the removal o poorlyperorming teachers.




: 151


Illinis and olm both require that teachers who receive unsatisac-tory evaluations be placed on improvement plans. Teachers in Illinois arethen evaluated three times during a 90-day remediation period and areeligible or dismissal i perormance remains unsatisactory. In addition,

new legislation in Illinois allows districts to dismiss a teacher without goingthrough the remediation process i that teacher has already completed aremediation plan but then receives an unsatisactory rating within the nextthree years. Oklahoma’s improvement plan may not exceed two months,and i perormance does not improve during that time, teachers are eligibleor dismissal.

yeS1 N2

1. Strong Practice: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana,Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington

2. Alabama, Arizona, Caliornia, Connecticut, District o Columbia, Georgia, Idaho 3, Iowa, Kansas,Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,Nevada4, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon,South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

3. Teachers could ace nonrenewal based on evaluation results, but it is not clear that a teacher iseligible or dismissal ater multiple unsatisactory evaluations.

4. A teacher reverts to probationary status ater two consecutive years o unsatisactory evaluations,but it is not clear that a teacher is eligible or dismissal.

17

34

Fgu 134

Do states specify that all teachers with multiple unsatisfactory evaluations are eligible for dismissal?

NorthDakota




152

Fgu 135

How States are Faring in Dismissal for Poor Performance

1 bst pctc SttOklahoma⬆

2 Stts Mt G Florida⬆, Indiana⬆

6 Stts N Mt GColorado⬆, Illinois⬆, Michigan⬆, New York⬆,

Rhode Island⬆, Tennessee⬆

8 Stts pt Mt GArizona⬆, Delaware⬆, Hawaii⬆,

Massachusetts⬆, Nevada⬆, Ohio⬆,

Wisconsin, Wyoming⬆

4 Stts Mt Sm pt f GLouisiana, New Hampshire, Virginia,

West Virginia

30 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California,

Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia,

Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,

Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico,

North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon,


Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington

Pgss s G Sc 2009:

⬆ : 16 : 35 ⬇ : 0

G Cps


1. The state should articulate that teachersmay be dismissed or ineective classroomperormance.

2. A teacher who is terminated or poorperormance should have an opportunity to

appeal. In the interest o both the teacherand the school district, the state shouldensure that this appeal occurs within areasonable time rame.

3. There should be a clear distinction betweenthe process and accompanying due processrights or teachers dismissed or classroomineectiveness and the process andaccompanying due process rights or teachersdismissed or acing license revocation or elonyor morality violations or dereliction o duties.

Bcgu


ae 5: Exiing Ineffecive teces

G C – Dsmss f p pfmncte se suld icule ineffecive clssm pefmnce is gunds f

dismissl nd ensue e pcess f emining ineffecive eces is expediennd fi ll pies.




: 153

analySiSIn North Dakota, tenured teachers who are terminated have multiple opportunities to appeal. When a

school district wishes to dismiss a teacher or cause, a hearing is held by an administrative law judge.Once the hearing has concluded, the judge has 30 days to issue ndings o act and conclusions to theschool board, ater which the teacher may le an additional appeal with the district court. The state doesnot speciy the time rame or the hearing or the appeal.

North Dakota does not explicitly make teacher ineectiveness grounds or dismissal, nor does the statedistinguish the due process rights o teachers dismissed or ineective perormance rom those acingother charges commonly associated with license revocation, such as a elony and/or morality violations.The process is the same regardless o the grounds or cancellation, which include immoral conduct,insubordination, conviction o a elony, unbecoming conduct, ailure to perorm duties, gross ineciencyand continuing physical or mental disability.

Suppg rscNorth Dakota Statute 15.1-15-07; 15.1-15-08; 28.32-39

reCommendation

■ Specify clssm ineffeciveness is gunds f dismissl.

“Failure to perorm duties” is ambiguous at best and may be interpreted as concerning derelictiono duty rather than ineectiveness. North Dakota should explicitly make teacher ineectivenessgrounds or dismissal so that districts do not eel they lack the legal basis or terminating consis-tently poor perormers.

■ Ensue eces emined f p pefmnce ve e ppuniy ppel

wiin esnble ime fme.

Nonprobationary teachers who are dismissed or any grounds, including ineectiveness, are entitled

to due process. North Dakota should articulate policy that provides nonprobationary teachers anopportunity to appeal district decisions to terminate their contracts. However, cases that drag onor years drain resources rom school districts and create a disincentive or districts to attempt toterminate poor perormers. Thereore, the state must ensure that the opportunity to appeal occursonly once and only at the district level. It is in the best interest o both the teacher and the districtthat a conclusion is reached within a reasonable time rame.

■ Disinguis e pcess nd ccmpnying due pcess igs beween dismissl fclssm ineffeciveness nd dismissl f mliy vilins, felnies deelicin fduy.

While nonprobationary teachers should have due process or any termination, it is important todierentiate between loss o employment and issues with ar-reaching consequences that couldpermanently impact a teacher’s right to practice. North Dakota should ensure that appeals relatedto classroom eectiveness are only decided by those with educational expertise.


a 5: G C N D anss





154

Do states articulatethat ineffectiveness is

grounds for dismissal?

Figure 136

13 389

N o Y

E S , T H

R O U G H

E V A L U

A T I O

N P O

L I C Y

Y E S ,

T H R O U G H

D I S M

I S S A L P O

L I C Y

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona 1

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

IowaKansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada2

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia 3

Washington

West Virginia 3

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Fgu 136

1. It is let to districts to dene “inadequacy o classroom perormance.”

2. A teacher reverts to probationary status ater two consecutive years o unsatisactoryevaluations, but it is not articulated that ineectiveness is grounds or dismissal.

3. Dismissal policy includes dismissal or unsatisactory evaluations, but the state’sevaluation system does not measure teacher eectiveness (see Goal 3-B).


olm clearly articulates that teacher ineectiveness in theclassroom is grounds or dismissal and has taken steps to ensurethat the dismissal process or teachers deemed to be ineectiveis expedited. Teachers acing dismissal have only one opportunityto appeal.

1. Strong Practice: Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Wisconsin

2. Teachers in these states revert to probationary status ollowing ineective evaluationratings, meaning that they no longer have the due process right to multiple appeals:Colorado, I ndiana, Tennessee

3. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia,Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois5, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New MexicoNew York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,South Ca rolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming

4. District o Columbia, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada6, Utah, Vermont

5. The teacher is responsible or the cost o the second appeal.

6. Though a teacher returns to probationary status ater two consecutive unsatisactoryratings, the state does not articulate clear policy about its appeals process.

on f tcs

dsmssd f

sns t tn

nffctvnss2

N c

c s

unc4

ys3

38

3

No1

4 6

Fgu 137

Do states allow multiple appeals of teacher dismissals?

NorthDakota






156


analySiSNorth Dakota does not have policy that addresses the actors used by districts to determine which

teachers are laid o during a reduction in orce.

reCommendation

■ requie disics cnside clssm pefmnce s fc in deemining wiceces e lid ff duing educins in fce.

North Dakota can still leave districts fexibility in determining layo policies, but it should do sowithin a ramework that ensures that classroom perormance is considered.

■ Ensue seniiy is n e nly fc used deemine wic eces e lid ff.

Unlike some states, North Dakota does not require that districts consider seniority; however, thestate should do more to prevent districts rom making decisions solely on this basis.


a 5: G D N D anss




: 157

Figure 139

Do states preventdistricts from basing

layoffs solely on “lastin, first out”?

P E R F O

R M A N

C E M U S T

B E

C O N S I D E R E D

17

S E N I O R I T Y

C A N N

O T B E

T H E D E C I D I N

G F A

C T O

R

11

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


Cld, Flid and Indin all speciy that in determining whichteachers to lay o during a reduction in orce, classroom perormance isthe top criterion. These states also articulate that seniority can only beconsidered ater a teacher’s perormance is taken into account.

yeS1 N2

1. Strong Practice: Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,Missouri, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah

2. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Connecticut,Delaware, District o Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa,Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio3, Oregon, Pennsylvania,South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia,Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

3. Tenure is considered rst.

11

40

Fgu 140

Do districts have to consider performance indetermining which teachers are laid off?

NorthDakota




158

1. Strong Practice: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri6, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio6, Oklahoma,Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas

2. Strong Practice: Idaho, Utah

3. Hawaii, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin7

4. Caliornia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon

5. Alabama, Alaska6, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia, Georgia6, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts6,Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska6, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia,Washington, Wyoming

6. Nontenured teachers are laid o rst.

7. Only or counties with populations o 500,000 or more and or teachers hired beore 1995.

SeNioriTy

CaN be

CoNSiDereD

aMoNG oTher

FaCTorS1

15

SeNioriTy

CaNNoT be

CoNSiDereD2

2

lff ct

ft t dstct

dsctn5

23

Snt

must

cnsdd4

6

Snt

s t s

fct3

5

Fgu 141

Do states prevent districts from overemphasizing seniority in layoff decisions?

NorthDakota



Board of Directors

Barbara O’Brien, Chair

Senior Fellow, The Piton Foundation

Stacey BoydChie Executive Ofcer, The Savvy Source or Parents

Chester E. Finn, Jr.

President, The Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Ira FishmanManaging Director, NFL Players Association

Marti Watson GarlettFounding Dean o the Teachers College,

Western Governors University

Former Vice President, Academic Programs and

Proessional Licensure, Laureate Education, Inc.

Henry L. Johnson

Former U.S. Assistant Secretary or Elementary

and Secondary Education

Consultant, Center or Results, Learning Forward

Advisory Board

• Steven J. Adamowski, Connecticut State Board o Education • Sir Michael Barber, Pearson • Roy E. Barnes, ormer

Governor, State o Georgia • McKinley A. Broome,Woodholme Elementary School • Cynthia G. Brown,Center or American

Progress • David Chard, Southern Methodist University • Andrew Chen, EduTron • Jean Clements, Hillsborough Classroom

Teachers Association • Celine Coggins, Teach Plus • Pattie Davis, Fairview Middle School • Jo Lynne DeMary, Virginia

Commonwealth University • Michael Feinberg,The KIPP Foundation • Michael Goldstein,The Match School, Massachusetts • Eric A. Hanushek, The Hoover Institution • Joseph Hawkins, Westat • Frederick M. Hess, American Enterprise Institute

• Paul T. Hill, Center on Reinventing Public Education • E.D. Hirsch, Core Knowledge Foundation • Michael Johnston,

Colorado State Senate • Barry Kauman, BK Education Consulting Services • Frank Keating, ormer Governor, State o

Oklahoma • Joel I. Klein, News Corporation • Martin J. Koldyke, Academy or Urban School Leadership • Wendy Kopp,

Teach For America • James Larson, Charles A. Tindley Accelerated School • Tom Lasley, Edvention • Amy Jo Leonard,

Turtle Mountain Elementary School • Deborah M. McGri, NewSchools Venture Fund • Ellen Moir, New Teacher

Center • Robert N. Pasternack, Voyager Expanded Learning • Michael Podgursky, University o Missouri-Columbia

• Michelle Rhee, StudentsFirst • Steanie Sanord, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation • Audrey Soglin, Illinois Education

Association • Daniel Willingham, University o Virginia • Suzanne Wilson, Michigan State University

Donald N. LangenbergChancellor Emeritus, University System o Maryland

Clara M. LovettPresident Emerita, Northern Arizona University

Carol G. Peck

Former President and Chie Executive Ofcer,

Rodel Charitable Foundation o Arizona

Former National Superintendent o the Year

John L. WinnFlorida Education Commissioner, Retired

Kate WalshPresident, National Council on Teacher Quality



Documents

Stpy11 Northdakota Report