The best way to approach such a loaded document is to start with the overarching principles which guide the proposed changes. They are as follows:
The four guiding principles deal with the two traditional phases of licensure, entering the profession and maintaining credentials, in addition to teacher leadership and processing.
When it comes to entering the profession, few will argue against reforms that require more training and practice before a teacher enters the classroom. Currently, it is possible for a teacher to begin teaching in their own classroom simply because they have a bachelors degree in the subject and passed the appropriate MTEL. I actually think the proposed models do a good job in emphasizing that training matters. In the proposal, there are two ways in which one can enter the profession. The first is through a traditional educator prep program. The second is a year-long teaching residency. This model is similar in format to programs such as the Boston Teacher Residency, which requires participants to receive on-the-job training by working for a year with a master teacher before beginning in his or her own classroom. This change would be difficult for mid-career entrants to the profession considering the time necessary to devote to such a residency. However, if our common goal is to elevate the profession, we must ask those who desire to educate children that they commit to a rigorous training process.
The Pathways to Leadership principle is also commendable. While Massachusetts is the leader in most way when it comes to education, we are far behind others when it comes to giving classroom teachers a chance to take on meaningful leadership roles. We have a very traditional path to leadership: teacher, building administrator, central office. The proposed models begin to lay the groundwork for a more dynamic career path by offering endorsements that can be earned by classroom teachers in various areas such as data specialist, curriculum and instruction, technology integration, etc. This could very well lead to a more dynamic leadership structure in districts large and small.
And nobody will argue that creating a more efficient processing system for licensure is a welcomed principle!
Despite these good ideas, the heart of the document has major issues. The largest problem is the concept of tying license renewal to the educator evaluation system. Under all of the models, license renewal is dependent, to varying degrees, on the educator's summative performance rating. In two of the models (A & C), student impact ratings are a criteria as well. One could see the well intentions of such models. In an era filled with mandates and reforms, it makes sense to streamline where it's possible. However, this proposal is inappropriate for many reasons, specifically:
1. The educator evaluation system is barely off the ground, and not working well enough and consistently enough throughout the state. In a perfect world, with a perfect system, it would make sense to tie teacher effectiveness to licensure, but the reality is far from perfect. Every single district (and even schools within districts) is implementing the system in different ways with varying degrees of success. Proficient in one building can look fundamentally different than another. It can even vary across evaluators. Licensure should be a constant; something that means the same thing everywhere in the Commonwealth. The educator evaluation system, which hasn't even been fully implemented yet, is just too new, too inconsistent, and too unreliable to connect with licensure.
2. Tying licensure to the educator evaluation system compromises the intent of the system itself. We have been told as educators that the purpose of the evaluation system is to provide high quality feedback and promote professional growth. We are already struggling to reconcile this notion with the reality of being so ratings focused. To tie the ability for an educator to practice in Massachusetts to this system further undermines that intent. Instead of being about feedback and growth, this system will increasingly be about trying to keep your license. For administrators, it will mean evaluations and rating decisions will be tainted by the prospects of ruining one's career. Most districts don't even have the supports necessary to help teachers labeled Needs Improvement to improve their practice. Can we really sleep at night knowing that educators could be permanently shut out of a career because they were never appropriately supported to begin with? I can't.
It also bears noting that licensure is a sensitive topic for many. Whether or not you agree with the idea of "lifetime certification" many well-qualified educators who received such credentials in the past have been though the ringer of reform over the years. This proposal takes that lack of trust and deserved skepticism to a new level. And what about those of us who invested lots of time and money into graduate degrees only to find that the new proposal only values such work as above and beyond (an option for license B under only one model)? Relationships must be considered when making such large policy changes.
For these reasons, educators must speak out in opposition to this proposal. Anyone who knows me knows that I am all about consensus and finding common ground. The teacher leadership and educator prep aspects of this plan are viable and could be great in the long run. However, the core proposal of tying licensure to educator evaluations is a non-negotiable. If implemented, we will be permanently affixed to an unproven system, and the fundamental nature of licensure will be compromised. If we want to create a licensure system that is more dynamic than what we currently have, we need to go back to the drawing board. And this time, we need practicing classroom teachers at the table from day one.
