2012 State Teacher Policy Yearbook Georgia NCTQ Report

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

1/36

NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2012 GEORGIA

: 1

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

r a t i o n P r o g r a m s

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

P r e p a r a t i o n

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

e p a r a t i o n

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

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

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

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

r a m

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

2012 State Teacher

Policy YearbookImproving TeacherPreparation in Georgia

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

N e e d o f A t t e

n t i o n


2/36

Acknowledgments

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

FUNDERS

The primary funders for the 2012Yearbook were:

n Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

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

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

STAFF

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

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


3/36


: 1

Improving Teacher Preparation in Georgia

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

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

CYearbook

Goal Topic2012Score

1-A Admission into Preparation Programs

1-B Elementary Teacher Preparation

1-C Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction

1-D Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics

1-E Middle School Teacher Preparation

1-F Secondary Teacher Preparation

1-G Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science

1-H Secondary Teacher Preparation in Social Studies

1-I Special Education Teacher Preparation

1-J Assessing Professional Knowledge

1-K Student Teaching

1-L Teacher Preparation Program Accountability

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


4/36


5/36


6/36

4 : NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2012GEORGIA

1. Raise admission standards.

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

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

2. Align teacher preparation withCommon Core State Standards.

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

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

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

3. Improve clinical preparation. Ensure that cooperating teachers have demonstrated evidence of

effectiveness as measured by student learning.

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

4.Raise licensing standards.

Eliminate K-8 generalist licenses.

Require subject-matter testing for middle school teacher candidates.

Require subject-matter testing for secondary teacher candidates.

Require middle school and secondary science and social studiesteachers to pass a test of content knowledge that ensures sufficientknowledge of the subjects taught.

5. Dont lower the bar forspecial education teachers.

Do away with K-12 special education teacher licenses.

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

6. Hold teacher preparationprograms accountable.

Collect data that connect student achievement gains toteacher preparation programs.

Gather other meaningful data that reflect program performance.

Establish the minimum standard of performance for eachcategory of data.

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

Teacher Preparation Policy Checklist for States


7/36


: 5

Critical Issues for State Teacher Preparation Policy

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

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

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

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

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

At present, Georgia requires that approved undergraduate teacher preparation pro-grams only accept teacher candidates who have passed the Georgia Assessments forthe Certication of Educators (GACE) basic skills test. Although the state sets the minimum score for this test,it is normed just to the prospective teacher population. The state also allows candidates to substitute equiva-lent scores on the SAT, ACT, and GRE for its basic skills testing requirement. In addition, the states current2.5 GPA requirement for admission to undergraduate programs is too low to be considered a rigorous bar forprogram admission.

NEXT STEPS FOR GEORGIA: n Require that programs use a common admissions test normed to the general college-bound population.Georgia should require programs to use an assessment that demonstrates that candidates are aca-demically competitive with all peers, regardless of their intended profession. Requiring a common testnormed to the general college population would allow for the selection of applicants in the top half oftheir class while also facilitating program comparison.

n Increase the GPA requirement.Requiring only a 2.5 GPA sets a very low bar for the academic performance of the states prospectiveteachers. Georgia should consider using a higher GPA requirement for program admission in combina-tion with a test of academic prociency. A sliding scale of GPA and test scores would allow exibility forcandidates in demonstrating academic ability. When using such multiple measures, a sliding scale that

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, ArkanCalifornia, Colorado, ConnecticuDelaware, District of Columbia,Florida,GEORGIA, Hawaii, IdahoIndiana, Iowa, Kansas, KentuckyLouisiana, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts, Michigan, MinneMississippi, Missouri, Montana,

Nebraska, Nevada, New HampshNew Jersey, New Mexico, New YNorth Carolina, North Dakota, OOklahoma, Oregon, PennsylvaniRhode Island, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,Vermont, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyom

Illinois

Texas

49

1

1


8/36


still ensures minimum standards would allowstudents to earn program admission through ahigher GPA and a lower test score, or vice-versa.

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

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

C O L L E G E -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

o r a f t e r

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

r e p p r o g r a m

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

Do states appropriatelytest teacher candidates'academic proficiency?

1 23 18 9

1

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGEORGIAHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndiana

IowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska

NevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth Carolina

South DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

Figure 2

SNEAK PEEK: Teacher Prep Review

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

Are Georgias undergraduate teacherpreparation programs in the Review sufciently selective?

are not sufciently selective.86%

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


9/36


: 7

Critical Attention: Elementary Teacher Preparation

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

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

The Common Core State Standards, adopted by nearly all states including Georgia,represent an effort to signicantly raise expectations for the knowledge and skillsAmerican students will need for college readiness and global competitiveness.And Georgia, like all states, must ensure that its teachers are prepared to teach to

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

Unfortunately, Georgias policies fail to ensure that elementary teacher candi-dates will have the subject-area knowledge necessary to teach to these standards.The state does not require a subject-matter test that reports subscores in all areas,and its coursework requirements lack the specicity to guarantee relevancy to theelementary classroom. Georgias elementary content test includes items on the science of reading; however,

the state does not provide a subscore specic to knowledge of reading instruction.

NEXT STEPS FOR GEORGIA: n Require elementary teacher candidates to pass a subject-matter test designed to ensuresufcient content knowledge of all subjects.Georgia should ensure that its elementary content test is appropriately aligned with the Common CoreState Standards and require separate, meaningful passing scores for each area on the test. AlthoughGeorgia is on the right track by administering a two-part licensing test, thus making it harder for teach-ers to pass if they fail some subject areas, the state is encouraged to further strengthen its policy andrequire separate passing scores for each core subject on its multiple-subject test.

n Require teacher preparation programs to provide mathematics content specically geared tothe needs of elementary teachers and require candidates to pass a rigorous math assessment.Although Georgia requires some knowledge in key areas of mathematics, the state should require teach-er preparation programs to provide mathematics content specically geared to the needs of elementaryteachers. This includes specic coursework in foundations, algebra and geometry, with some statistics.Georgia should also require a rigorous assessment that reports a separate subscore for and evaluatesmathematics knowledge beyond an elementary school level and challenges candidates understandingof underlying mathematics concepts.

44

1

6

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,Delaware, District of Columbia,Florida,GEORGIA, Hawaii, Idaho,Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,New Jersey, New Mexico,New York, North Carolina,North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,Wisconsin, Wyoming

Alabama, California, Connecticut,Indiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire

Massachusetts


10/36


11/36


: 9

No3

2YES1 Inadequate

Test2

11

38

GEORGIA

Do states measure new elementary teachersknowledge of math?

Figure 4

Do states ensure thatelementary teachersknow core content?

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

T E S T W I T H

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

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

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

e s t w i t h

s e p a r a t e

p a s s i n

g s c o r e f o r

s o m e s u b j e

c t s

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

e s t w i t h

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

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

9 9 29 4

1

2

2

2

3

5

4



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

Figure 5

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

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

3. Montana, Nebraska

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

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

1. Testing is not required for initial licensure.

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

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

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

5. Oregon allows alternative assessment for candidateswho fail twice.


12/36


ALABAMAAlaska

ArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode Island

South CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

FINEARTS

A r t H i s t

o r y

M u s i c

SCIENCE

C h e m i s t r

y

P h y s i c s

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

c i e n c e

E a r t h S c i e n

c e

B i o l o g

y / L i f e S c i e n

c e

SOCIAL STUDIES

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

o r y I

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

o r y I I

A m e r i c a n G

o v e r n m e n t

W o r l d H i s t

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

W o r l d H i s t

o r y ( M

o d e r n )

W o r l d H i s t

o r y

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

G e o g r a p h y

ENGLISH

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

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

e r a t u r

e

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

C o m p o s i t i o

n

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

Do states expectelementary teachersto have in-depthknowledge ofcore content?

Subject mentioned Subject covered in depth

Figure 6

AlabamaAlaska

ArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGEORGIAHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode Island

South CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming


13/36


14/36


Critical Attention: Middle School Teacher Preparation

Georgia is on track to ensure that new middle schoolteachers will be prepared to teach appropriate grade-level content.

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

Too many states fail to distinguish the knowledge and skills needed bymiddle school teachers from those needed by an elementary teacher.Whether teaching a single subject in a departmentalized setting orteaching multiple subjects in a self-contained classroom, middleschool teachers must be able to teach signicantly more advancedcontent than what elementary teachers are expected to teach.

Commendably, Georgia does not offer a K-8 generalist license, and allcandidates must be prepared in at least two areas of concentration,dened as a minimum of 15 semester hours. Further, all new middleschool teachers are required to pass a single-subject content test toattain licensure.

3

25

23

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

Maryland, Massachusetts, New York

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


15/36


: 13

1. California offers a K-12 generalist licensefor self-contained classrooms.

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

3. With the exception of mathematics.

4. Oregon offers 3-8 license.

5. Wisconsin offers 1-8 license.

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

Do states distinguish middle grade preparation fromelementary preparation?

32 5 14

3

4

5

1

2

Figure 9



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


16/36


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

o , t e s t d o

e s n o t

r e p o r t s u b s

c o r e s f o r

a l l c o r e s u b j

e c t s

N o , K - 8 l i c

e n s e r e q u i r e

s

o n l y

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

N o , t e s t i n

g o f a l l

s u b j

e c t s

n o t r

e q u i r e d

25 4 15 7

1

2

4

5

6

7

3





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 10


17/36


: 15

Critical Attention: Secondary Teacher Preparation

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

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

Yet not all states ensure that secondary teachers have sufcient content knowl-edge in the subjects they are licensed to teach. And nearly all stateseven thosethat do generally require content testing for secondary teachersallow somescience and/or social studies teachers to teach with broad licenses that havesignicant loopholes.

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

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

Commendably, Georgia requires that its secondary teacher candidates pass a content test (Georgia Assessmentsfor the Certication of Educators, or GACE) to teach any core secondary subjects. The state does not offer sec-ondary certication in general social studies. However, Georgia does allow secondary certication in broadeld science. Teachers with this license are not required to pass individual content tests for each disciplinethey are permitted to teach, but rather they have to pass two subtests that comprise the general assess-ment. The rst part includes earth science and life science, and the second includes physical science and char-acteristics of science.

NEXT STEPS FOR GEORGIA: n Require secondary science teachers to pass a content test for each discipline they are licensedto teach.By allowing a general science certicationand only requiring a general knowledge science examGeorgia is not ensuring that these secondary teachers possess adequate subject-specic content knowl-

Alaska, Arizona, California, ColoradIowa, Montana, Nebraska,New Hampshire, North Carolina,Oregon, Washington, Wyoming

Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut,Delaware, District of Columbia,Florida,GEORGIA, Hawaii, Idaho,

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

Indiana, Minnesota, Tennessee

12

3

36


18/36


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

Y E S

N o

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

3

L o o p h o l e

i n s

c i e n c e

28

L o o p h o l e

i n s o c i a l

s t u d i

e s

34 12


Iowa1

KansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska



Figure 11

edge. However, although Georgias testingrequirements fall short of ensuring masteryof each science discipline, the fact that can-

didates have to pass each subtest to pass theoverall test indicates that the state is on theright track.


19/36


: 17

Critical Attention: Special Education Teacher Preparation

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

Across the country, states are raising performance expectations to ensure thatstudents who graduate from high school are college and career ready. These morerigorous standards apply to special education students just as they do to otherstudents.The challenge of ensuring that teachers are prepared to teach to the new CommonCore State Standards is even more pronounced for special education teachers, whotypically have had to meet an even lower bar for content preparation than general

educators. And certication rules for special education teachers that do not differ-entiate between teaching at the elementary and secondary levels only exacerbatethe problem.Allowing a generic K-12 special education certication makes it virtually impos-sible and certainly impractical for states to ensure that these teachers know all thesubject matter they are expected to teach; this issue is just as valid in terms ofpedagogical knowledge.While a K-12 special education license may be appropriate for low-incidence spe-cial education students, such as those with severe cognitive disabilities, it is deeplyproblematic for the overwhelming majority of high-incidence special educationstudents who are expected to learn grade-level content.Regrettably, Georgia offers a generic P-12 special education certication, in addition to grade-specicoptions. The state does not hold its early childhood special education teachers to the same preparationand testing requirements as general education teachers, nor does it ensure that these teachers will beprepared to teach to the Common Core State Standards, as noted in the elementary section.To qualify as the teacher of record, and to teach every core academic subject in the P-5 classroom, earlychildhood special education teachers must pass a GACE content test specically geared to special educa-tion candidates. This test combines reading, English language arts, math, science, social science, health,physical education and the arts; it does not report subscores for each individual content area.To qualify as the teacher of record in the ve areas of language arts, reading, math, social science and sci-ence for grades P-8, special education candidates must pass two GACE content tests geared specically tospecial education candidates. The rst test combines reading, English language arts and social science; thesecond combines math and science. To qualify as the teacher of record for grades 9-12, special educationcandidates must pass the appropriate 6-12 GACE content assessment.Special education teachers who do not pass these content tests may serve consultative roles. To earn

the P-12 special education certication, candidates must complete an academic concentration in socialscience, science, math, language arts or reading, consisting of 15 semester hours of academic content thatconforms with the requirements of the content concentrations for middle grades.

NEXT STEPS FOR GEORGIA:

n Eliminate licenses for special education that do not differentiate between the preparationof elementary teachers and that of secondary teachers.Georgias policies address subject preparation for special education teachers to a greater degree thanwhat is found in most states; however, these policies are undermined by allowing special education

Alaska, Arizona, California, ColoradoConnecticut, Delaware, Districtof Columbia, Florida,GEORGIA,Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, KansKentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, New Hampshire,New Mexico, Nevada,North Carolina, North Dakota,Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,Virginia, Washington, Wyoming

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

35

0

16


20/36


D O E S

N O T O F F E R

A

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

O f f e

r s K - 1 2

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

c

c e r t i f i c

a t i o n ( s )

O f f e

r s o n l y

a K - 1 2

c e r t i f i c

a t i o n

Do states distinguishbetween elementaryand secondary specialeducation teachers?

16 10 25

1

1





Figure 12

teachers who have not passed content tests toserve consultative roles in grades P-12. Whilespecial educators should be valued for theircritical role working with students with disabil-ities and special needs, they are identied bythe state not as special education assistantsbut as special education teachers, presum-ably because the state expects them to provideinstruction to children. Providing instructionto children who have special needs requiresboth knowledge of effective learning strate-gies and some knowledge of the subject mat-ter at hand. Failure to ensure that all specialeducation teachers are well trained in speciccontent areas deprives these students of theopportunity to reach their academic potential.

n Provide a broad liberal arts program ofstudy to elementary special educationcandidates and require that they pass thesame content test as general educationteachers.Georgia should ensure that special educationteacher candidates who will teach elementarygrades possess knowledge of the subject mat-ter at hand. Not only should the state requirecore-subject coursework relevant to the ele-mentary classroom, but it should also requirethat these candidates pass the same subject-matter test required of all elementary teachers.

n Ensure that secondary special education

teachers possess adequate contentknowledge.Secondary special education teachers are fre-quently generalists who teach many core subject areas. While it may be unreasonable toexpect secondary special education teachers tomeet the same requirements for each subjectthey teach as other teachers who teach onlyone subject, Georgias current policy of requir-ing limited subject-matter testing for onlyteachers of record is unacceptable and will nothelp special education students to meet rig-orous learning standards. To provide a middleground, Georgia should consider a custom-ized HOUSSE route for new secondary specialeducation teachers and look to the exibilityoffered by the Individuals with Disabilities Edu-cation Act (IDEA), which allows for a combina-tion of testing and coursework to demonstraterequisite content knowledge in the classroom.

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


21/36


: 19

Elementary Subject-Matter Test

Required for an elementaryspecial education license

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

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

Secondary Subject-Matter Test(s)

Tests in all core subjectsrequired for secondaryspecial education license

None

Test in at least one subjectrequired for secondary specialeducation license

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

Required for a K-12

special education licenseNone

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

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

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

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

Which states require subject-matter testing for special education teachers?Figure 13


22/36


Critical Attention: Student Teaching

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

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

Central to the quality of the student teaching experience is the classroom teacherwho serves as the teacher candidates mentor, or cooperating teacher. Only strongteachers with evidence of their effectiveness, as assessed by objective measures ofstudent learning and the teachers principals, should be able to serve as cooperat-ing teachers. Yet placement is much more likely to be the luck of the draw. NCTQsrecent study Student Teaching in the United States found that three out of fourteacher preparation programs fail to require that cooperating teachers must beeffective instructors.

Georgia not only fails to articulate any requirements for cooperating teachers,but the state also lacks any specic requirements for the duration of the studentteaching experience.

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

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

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,Arkansas, California, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, District ofColumbia,GEORGIA, Hawaii, Idaho,Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts, Michigan, MinnesotaMississippi, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, South Carolina,South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,Wisconsin, Wyoming

Florida, Indiana, Tennessee

48

3

0


23/36


: 21

1. Based on new REPA II regulations.

2. Candidates can student teach forless than 12 weeks if determinedto be procient.

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

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

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

F U L L T I M

E S T U D E N T

T E A C H I N G

L A S T S A T

L E A S T 1

0 W E E K S

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

283

2

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGEORGIAHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndiana 1




Figure 14


24/36


Critical Attention: Teacher Preparation Program Accountability

Georgia could do more to hold its teacher preparationprograms accountable for the effectiveness of the teachersthey produce.

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

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

Georgia collects some program-specic, objective data that reect program per-formance, including data relating to candidates during student teaching. The state also reports the data itcollects at the program-level to provide the public with meaningful, readily understandable indicators of howwell programs are doing. However, Georgia has not established minimum performance standards that can beused for accountability purposes, and the reported data do not distinguish between candidates in traditionaland alternate route programs.

According to Georgias winning Race to the Top application, the state plans to evaluate graduates impacton student achievement, track the rate at which induction teachers move to the career teacher level,and also assess candidates ability to produce student learning gains before they are allowed to graduatefrom programs.

NEXT STEPS FOR GEORGIA: n Establish minimum standards of performance.

In order to make use of the data Georgia already collects and publishes, it is critical that the stateestablish precise minimum standards for teacher preparation program performance for each categoryof data. Georgia should be mindful of setting rigorous standards for program performance, as its cur-rent requirement that 80 percent of program graduates pass the states licensing tests is too low a bar.Programs should be held accountable for meeting rigorous standards, and there should be consequencesfor failing to do so, including loss of program approval.

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

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

Florida, Louisiana

37

2

12


25/36


: 23

GEORGIA

Do states use studentachievement data to hold

teacher preparation programs accountable?

Figure 15n Distinguish between alternate routeprograms and traditional preparationprograms in public reporting.

It would be more useful to the publicespe-cially hiring school districtsif Georgias reportson teacher preparation program performanceincluded specic data at the program level.

n Maintain full authority over teacherpreparation program approval.There appears to be considerable overlap betweenthe public process of state program approval andthe private process of national accreditation.While it is not unreasonable that the state maywish to coordinate these processes for institu-tions also seeking national accreditation, Georgiashould ensure that it is the state that considersthe evidence of program performance and makesthe decision about whether programs shouldcontinue to be authorized to prepare teachers. YES1 In Race to the

Top plan, butnot in policy2

No3

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

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

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

8 7

36


26/36


Do states hold teacher preparation programsaccountable?

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

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

C O L L E C T E D

M I N I M U M

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

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

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

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

33 5 15

1 2

2

2

1

1

1

4

4

1

4

2

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColorado 3

ConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGEORGIAHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndiana 5

IowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaine 1

MarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska

Nevada1

New Hampshire 6

New Jersey 1

New MexicoNew York North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhio 1

OklahomaOregonPennsylvania 1

Rhode Island 1

South Carolina 1

South DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginia 1

WashingtonWest Virginia 1

WisconsinWyoming

Figure 16

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

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

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

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

The latest edition of the Teacher Stafng Report can be

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

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

1. Traditional preparation only.

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

3. Required, but not yet available.

4. Alternate routes only.

5. Based on new REPA II regulations.

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


27/36


: 25

1. National accreditation can be substituted for state approval.

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

n To ensure adequate subject-area knowledge,Georgia shouldrequire secondary teacherswho obtain certication in general scienceto pass individual content tests (or a com-posite test that reports individual subscores)for each discipline they will be licensed toteach, as noted in the secondary critical atten-tion section.

n Georgia shouldrequire all elementary specialeducation teacher candidates to pass the

same content test as general elementaryeducation candidates. Special educationstudents, like all students, are expected to meetthe Common Core State Standards. The stateputs special education students at a disad-vantage in meeting these expectations if theirteachers are held to lower requirements forcontent knowledge.

What is the relationshipbetween state programapproval and nationalaccreditation?

N a t i o n a l a

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

r e q u i r e d f o r

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

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

a n d s t a t

e a p p r o v a l

31 12

S T A T E H A S I T S

O W N

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

8

1

1

1

1





Figure 17


28/36


29/36


: 27

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

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

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

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

n Strong academic performance and subject-matter-knowledge testing are prerequisites forprogram admission.

n Subject-area majors are not required or candidates have the option to test out of any subject-areacoursework requirements.

n Coursework is streamlined and not overly burdensome, and it meets the immediate needs ofnew teachers.

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

n Limits are not placed on the subjects and/or grades an alternate route teacher can teach, andalternate route providers are not restricted to colleges and universities; districts and nonprots shouldbe permitted to offer programs as well.

Georgia has one alternate route: Georgia Teacher Academy for Preparation and Pedagogy. While Georgiasprogram has a number of strengths it allows for broad usage and a diversity of providers as well as stream-lined and relevant coursework and mentoring and practice teaching the program has room for improvement(see Figure 19). The Georgia Teacher Academy for Preparation and Pedagogy fails to ensure strong admissionsrequirements and verication of subject-matter knowledge among candidates.

NEXT STEPS FOR GEORGIA: n Set rigorous admissions requirements and high standards for the Georgia Teacher Academy for

Preparation and Pedagogy.Previously the Georgia Teacher Academy for Preparation and Pedagogy required candidates to have aminimum 2.5 GPA; however, the state no longer requires candidates to demonstrate prior academicperformance. Georgia should require a standard for alternate routes that is higher than what is requiredof traditional teacher candidates, such as a GPA of at least 2.75. Alternatively, the state could requireone of the standardized tests of academic prociency commonly used in higher education for graduateadmissions, such as the GRE.

Alternate Routes to Certication


30/36


Critically, Georgia should also require all alternate route candidates to pass a subject-matter test as acondition of program admission because having subject-matter knowledge prior to beginning teaching isfundamental. Georgia allows candidates to pass a subject-matter test in lieu of meeting content course-work requirements, but all candidates should pass a subject-matter test as a condition of admission.

Georgia should also eliminate its basic skills test requirement, which is impractical and ineffective forcandidates already holding a college degree. Basic skills tests measure minimum competencyessen-tially those skills that a person should have acquired in middle schooland are inappropriate for candi-dates who have already earned a bachelors degree. Passage of a basic skills test provides no assurancethat the candidate has the appropriate subject-matter knowledge needed for the classroom.


31/36


32/36


What are the characteristicsof states alternate routes?

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

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

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

C T -

M A T T E R

K N O W L E D G E

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

O F T E S T

O U T O P T I O N S

S T R E A M L I N E D

C O U R S E W O R K

R E L E V A N T

C O U R S E W O R K

R E A S O N A B L E

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

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

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

O R I N G

B R O A D U S A G E

D I V E R S I T Y

O F P R O V I D E R S

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

AlabamaAlaskaArizona

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


Figure 19


33/36


34/36


Figure 20

Authority for Teacher Preparation in Georgia

Members of theGeorgia State

Board of Education areappointed

by the Governor.

There is overlap between NCATE accreditation andstate approval of teacher

education programs.

The GeorgiaProfessionalStandards

Commission holdsthe authority forsetting teacher

preparation programstandards and

admission criteria.


Commission holdsthe authority toapprove teacher

education programs.

Governor of Georgia

Members of the GeorgiaProfessional Standards

Commission areappointed bythe Governor.


Commission isthe state authority

charged with adoptingrules regarding

teacher certication.

The State SchoolSuperintendent is elected.


35/36

Red

Green

AUTHORITY

ADMISSION INTOPREPARATIONPROGRAMS

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

Professional StandardsCommission

ELEMENTARYTEACHERPREPARATION

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

Require a content specialization in an academic subject area.


SPECIALEDUCATIONTEACHERPREPARATION

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


STUDENTTEACHING

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


YellowAUTHORITY

SECONDARYTEACHERPREPARATION

Require secondary science teachers to pass a content test foreach discipline they are licensed to teach.


TEACHERPREPARATIONPROGRAMACCOUNTABILITY

Establish minimum standards of performance foraccountability purposes for all licensure pathways.


AUTHORITY

MIDDLE SCHOOLTEACHERPREPARATION


Critical Attention Summary for Georgia


36/36

1420 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005Tel: 202-393-0020 Fax: 202-393-0095 Web: www.nctq.org

Subscribe to NCTQs blog PDQ Follow NCTQ on Twitter and Facebook

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

Sandi JacobsVice President

2012 State Teacher Policy Yearbook Georgia NCTQ Report

Documents

Transcript of 2012 State Teacher Policy Yearbook Georgia NCTQ Report