The Massachusetts legislature is considering what some would consider a major teacher quality bill. As currently written, the bill is a bit of a disappointment coming from a state that currently has some of the best teacher licensing policies in the country.

For starters, in spite of the fact that there's not an iota of evidence to support such a move, the bill would require teachers to attain a master's degree in order to get a permanent license. If there is one definitive finding from teacher quality research, it is that advanced degrees provide no value for raising student achievement. Admittedly, the bill leaves room for state-approved "alternatives" to a formal degree, but given that the bill doesn't spell out what those might be, the usefulness of such an option is questionable.

The bill also calls for creation of a cadre of "master teachers," who would not necessarily make any more money than other teachers but who would function as leaders and mentors in schools. National Board certification, not surprisingly, would be a prerequisite for "master teacher" status--but so would passing a "challenging content test." We're fervently hoping that the state means one of the American Board tests, not a run-of-the-mill teacher test.

The bill would also require intensive mentoring and induction efforts, all subject to state approval. As we've learned from Chicago (see above), though, quality control on these programs is a serious issue, not to be overlooked. A reduced teaching load for new teachers may be the only strategy to overcome this problem.

Probably the most disappointing aspect of the bill is what it doesn't say about making teacher evaluations more meaningful: "evidence of the teacher's work may include, but not be limited to, classroom observations, teacher-developed unit plans, the use of various assessment data to adjust and focus instruction...collaboration...communication..." In other words: "Consider student learning if you feel like it--but don't feel obliged."