Posted by Heather
1:15-2:30pm
Teacher Preparation and Certification in Washington: State Policy Perspective and Direction
Jennifer Wallace, PESB
Roger Erskine, PESB and LEV board
With Pat Wasley, Dan Goldhaber and Frank Kline
Ms. Wallace began by discussing the challenge the Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB) regularly struggles with: balancing between defining and requiring appropriate credentials and providing access and opportunity to acquire them.
The PESB sets the credentialing requirements/standards for teachers in the State and approves/reviews teacher credentialing programs in the State. Ms. Wallace then highlighted that data produced by colleges of education are not easily accessible to the public or policymakers.
Rep. Priest asked about when the evolution of teacher preparation programs stops. Ms. Wallace replied that the PESB has put in place a number of accountability mechanisms but wants more.
Ms. Wallace presented lessons from other states: 1) accountability at institutions leadership level, 2) state investment in redesign/faculty development, and 3) better data systems.
Somehow we got onto cut scores of certification exams. Chair Grimm asked if the cut scores changed every year, to which Ms. Wallace responded “no.” Rep. Hunter asked about the percentage of test takers who fail credentialing exams, which Ms. Wallace estimated at 10 or 20 percent. Mr. Erskine added that the percentage is higher for underrepresented groups.
Then we moved to out-of-endorsement assignment of teachers. This is a concern in the State, and the PESB is developing strategies to end this practice.
Superintendent Kowalkowski asked about measuring teachers’ mastery of pedagogy, to which Ms. Wallace clarified that certification in Washington tests teachers’ mastery of both subject-area knowledge and pedagogy.
Ms. Wallace then spoke to Washington’s need for better data. The following points of data are unavailable at present: whether/where WA program completers are teaching and how they are doing; whether and where teaching assignments match qualifications; teacher qualifications related to student demographics; and true picture of out-of-field assignments.
She also spoke to measuring teacher quality, saying it goes beyond a single test. Rep. Anderson asked a question about measuring teacher effectiveness, and Ms. Wallace pointed out there is a difference between knowing math and knowing how to teach math. Chair Grimm asked about studies showing the benefit of pedagogy on student achievement. Mr. Kline and Ms. Wallace both said yes, there is evidence that pedagogy matters. Chair Grimm asked about testing pedagogy. Ms. Wallace responded that some states do test pedagogy mastery with pen-and-paper exams, but Washington law specifically prohibits it. Chair Grimm then asked if that was a wise law. Ms. Wallace provided the perceived rationale behind the law — that it takes more than a pen-and-paper test to determine mastery of pedagogy. Chair Grimm then asked if the PESB would have as much work if there was a pen-and-paper test to determine pedagogy mastery. Ms. Wallace said the work of the PESB is about more than determining mastery of pedagogy of teacher candidates, but also award accreditation to colleges of education.
Rep. Hunter asked about the ability of the PESB to close down programs that do not meet standard. Ms. Wallace shared that one school has lost its accreditation and has ceased operation and another school (Central Washington University) that lost its accreditation but recently regained it (by reviewing its program and fixing any shortcomings).
Ms. Wallace picked up Chair Grimm’s disinterest in hearing about meeting districts’ need for teachers and started to skip that portion of her presentation, but touched on financial assistance available to prospective teachers. Rep. Priest then said standards are important, but so is recruitment and wants to know who is responsible for recruitment of teachers. And if it’s not the PESB, then maybe it’s the legislature. Rep. Hunter proffered that school boards are responsible, since they are penalized for not having highly qualified teachers. Ms. Wallace answered, in many states it is the legislature and maybe it needs to be that way in Washington. Dr. Goldhaber chipped in that compensation is tied to this issue and should be considered with recruitment. Dr. Hyde suggested no one in Washington is responsible for recruitment and that needs to be corrected. And if colleges of education have open slots and people aren’t applying, then raising compensation may help with that and/or offering scholarships. Ms. Wasley said there are scholarships out there. Superintendent Kowalkowski asked about the cost to a university for teacher candidates. Ms. Wasley said it costs $22,000 for a five-year program at SPU, which does not account for housing, books, or other costs. And a retooling program costs about $5,000.
Dr. Goldhaber added that a lot of teachers are counseled out of teaching in the first three years of teaching, often quietly, so it can be hard to track. This coincides with scholarships because the State could then provide a lot of money to educate individuals who end up not teaching for a long period of time. Rep. Haigh suggested loan forgiveness after a certain number of years in the classroom as an alternative. Dr. Goldhaber and Ms. Wasley both cautioned that loan forgiveness is less attractive to potential candidates than scholarships. Chair Grimm made the comment “money is money” and seemed to suggest compensation would be the best incentive.
In closing, Mr. Erskine said that not only do we need to educate novice teachers, but we need to provide continuing support to ensure all teachers remain excellent educators.
On to Q&A. Rep. Hunter asked about assessments — not a test — of teacher quality and effectiveness, like the Teaching Assistance Program or National Board Certification. He acknowledged this would be expensive. Dr. Goldhaber doesn’t think there is one assessment we could use to measure teacher effectiveness, just like the SAT cannot always predict how a student will do in college. Ultimately, Rep. Hunter asked about finding a better way to link licensure with student achievement. Dr. Goldhaber said he would be shocked if we couldn’t come up with a better way to do that, seconded by Mr. Erskine. Ms. Wasley referenced a few tools and programs in use now that attempt to measure this. Ms. Wallace seconded and spoke about the shift to evidence-based competencies by the PESB. Dr. Hyde asked about a timeline for some of these tools in development.
Rep. Haigh asked about retooling and posited teachers eligible for retooling are the ones we should go after. Ms. Wallace said there are a lot of programs and scholarships available for retooling.
Chair Grimm asked Dr. Hyde about districts reporting of out-of-endorsement assignments. Dr. Hyde spoke about the NCLB requirement of districts to report the number of teachers who are highly qualified. Superintendent Kowalkowski said districts also need to report to the PESB the number of teachers they have teaching out of endorsement and apply for waivers.
