In the past four years, almost every state has lowered its standards for entry into teaching. I know this all too well, as I was a policymaker in one of those states.
In March 2020, the Massachusetts teacher licensure test centers closed down. We were deluged with messages from teacher prep programs and districts worried that teacher candidates would not be able to get licensed without access to the tests. We acted under the declared state of emergency and issued emergency licenses to applicants who had not passed the state's licensure test. Faced with a crisis, we took necessary but flawed steps to solve the problem at hand. Predictably, many of the teachers with emergency licenses went to teach in the highest-poverty districts in our state.
I worried a great deal about the impact on students.
At first, the policy's impact seemed slight. An early study found little or no difference between traditionally and emergency-licensed teachers. In describing the findings, the media was swift to throw standards to the wind. Some writers suggested we should simply make the emergency licenses permanent and urged policymakers to re-think these so-called barriers. I was puzzled by the early results: Was there really no difference between teachers who had been prepared and vetted for their content knowledge, and those who had not?
Not so fast!
New research, published in April by Ben Backes, James Cowan, Dan Goldhaber, and Roddy Theobald, shows that emergency licenses did make a difference—an academically damaging one. Students taught by these emergency-licensed teachers (ELTs) in Massachusetts classrooms between 2021 and 2023 scored significantly lower in math and science assessments than other students in the same school taught by non-emergency licensed teachers. (They found no discernible effects for reading scores.) ELTs also received lower performance evaluation ratings than their peers. And non-test outcomes like absences and suspensions were slightly worse for Black students taught by ELTs. For a more detailed description of the study, read my colleague Michael Sheehy's blog post.
So why did the first study show no difference?
The new study explains that in the previous study, many teachers who received emergency licenses in the first year of the policy were already well on their way to becoming teachers—indeed, most of them had completed some or all of a teacher preparation program, already passed the first set of licensure tests, or worked in schools. The later recipients of the emergency license stepped into classrooms cold, with little or no relevant preparation.
This updated research illustrates how high licensure standards exert a protective force around our students, shielding them from the effects of well-intentioned but ill-prepared teachers.
Curiously, there has been little reporting on the more recent study—and I certainly did not hear the same loud voices calling for reinstatement of licensure test requirements or urging policymakers to cancel emergency licenses because of harm to students.
While this is just one study, it adds to the evidence that teacher preparation and high standards for entry really do matter. Teacher preparation—and the signal that licensure tests provide—is an important guardrail to ensure that aspiring teachers have essential knowledge before they get the keys to the classroom.
Yet some will still argue that licensure tests are barriers to aspiring teachers, especially teachers of color. Indeed, this study showed that ELTs were more racially diverse than their non-emergency licensed colleagues, and they were slightly more likely to stay in the classroom than teachers who came in with standard licenses. But blaming the test for creating racial disparities is like blaming the thermostat for showing you how hot your house is. There may be ways to improve licensure tests, and we should interrogate them for racial bias, to be sure, but the root cause of racially disparate outcomes in our teacher workforce goes deeper than tests.
Because of systemic inequities in access to quality teaching, pass rates for aspiring teachers of color tend to be lower than those of their white peers. But a teacher workforce can be both diverse and well-prepared. These two ideals are not mutually exclusive. Rather than removing guardrails to effective teaching, education leaders in states and teacher prep programs should focus on supporting aspiring teachers of color so they have the knowledge and skills to pass the licensure tests.
If we continue policies that send unqualified teachers into the schools with the most students of color, we will perpetuate a vicious cycle, giving students of color less access to qualified and effective teachers and then abdicating responsibility when they themselves haven't received the high-quality education they would need to become licensed teachers.
The findings from the new study on the impact of Massachusetts' emergency licensure policy confirmed my fears: It was a mistake to give unqualified, emergency-licensed teachers responsibility over student learning. Giving out these licenses made sense while the country was in crisis, but to continue this policy exacerbates inequity. These teachers go into classrooms without the content knowledge and skills they need to be successful with students. They are less effective. And they teach the most vulnerable students at higher rates. We have to reinstate standards to enter the profession and ensure that aspiring teachers get the preparation and, when needed, the financial support to meet those standards.
I also urge more states to follow in Massachusetts' footsteps in evaluating the effects of their teacher workforce policies. It would have been easier for the state to implement the policy and never look back—or to accept the first study, finding neutral outcomes, and to assume the emergency licenses were working out just fine. Massachusetts went further, continued to evaluate its policy over more years, and ended emergency licenses as a result—a model of data-informed policymaking and focus on results. I hope other states will do the same.
In March 2020, the Massachusetts teacher licensure test centers closed down. We were deluged with messages from teacher prep programs and districts worried that teacher candidates would not be able to get licensed without access to the tests. We acted under the declared state of emergency and issued emergency licenses to applicants who had not passed the state's licensure test. Faced with a crisis, we took necessary but flawed steps to solve the problem at hand. Predictably, many of the teachers with emergency licenses went to teach in the highest-poverty districts in our state.
I worried a great deal about the impact on students.
At first, the policy's impact seemed slight. An early study found little or no difference between traditionally and emergency-licensed teachers. In describing the findings, the media was swift to throw standards to the wind. Some writers suggested we should simply make the emergency licenses permanent and urged policymakers to re-think these so-called barriers. I was puzzled by the early results: Was there really no difference between teachers who had been prepared and vetted for their content knowledge, and those who had not?
Not so fast!
New research, published in April by Ben Backes, James Cowan, Dan Goldhaber, and Roddy Theobald, shows that emergency licenses did make a difference—an academically damaging one. Students taught by these emergency-licensed teachers (ELTs) in Massachusetts classrooms between 2021 and 2023 scored significantly lower in math and science assessments than other students in the same school taught by non-emergency licensed teachers. (They found no discernible effects for reading scores.) ELTs also received lower performance evaluation ratings than their peers. And non-test outcomes like absences and suspensions were slightly worse for Black students taught by ELTs. For a more detailed description of the study, read my colleague Michael Sheehy's blog post.
So why did the first study show no difference?
The new study explains that in the previous study, many teachers who received emergency licenses in the first year of the policy were already well on their way to becoming teachers—indeed, most of them had completed some or all of a teacher preparation program, already passed the first set of licensure tests, or worked in schools. The later recipients of the emergency license stepped into classrooms cold, with little or no relevant preparation.
This updated research illustrates how high licensure standards exert a protective force around our students, shielding them from the effects of well-intentioned but ill-prepared teachers.
Curiously, there has been little reporting on the more recent study—and I certainly did not hear the same loud voices calling for reinstatement of licensure test requirements or urging policymakers to cancel emergency licenses because of harm to students.
While this is just one study, it adds to the evidence that teacher preparation and high standards for entry really do matter. Teacher preparation—and the signal that licensure tests provide—is an important guardrail to ensure that aspiring teachers have essential knowledge before they get the keys to the classroom.
Yet some will still argue that licensure tests are barriers to aspiring teachers, especially teachers of color. Indeed, this study showed that ELTs were more racially diverse than their non-emergency licensed colleagues, and they were slightly more likely to stay in the classroom than teachers who came in with standard licenses. But blaming the test for creating racial disparities is like blaming the thermostat for showing you how hot your house is. There may be ways to improve licensure tests, and we should interrogate them for racial bias, to be sure, but the root cause of racially disparate outcomes in our teacher workforce goes deeper than tests.
Because of systemic inequities in access to quality teaching, pass rates for aspiring teachers of color tend to be lower than those of their white peers. But a teacher workforce can be both diverse and well-prepared. These two ideals are not mutually exclusive. Rather than removing guardrails to effective teaching, education leaders in states and teacher prep programs should focus on supporting aspiring teachers of color so they have the knowledge and skills to pass the licensure tests.
If we continue policies that send unqualified teachers into the schools with the most students of color, we will perpetuate a vicious cycle, giving students of color less access to qualified and effective teachers and then abdicating responsibility when they themselves haven't received the high-quality education they would need to become licensed teachers.
The findings from the new study on the impact of Massachusetts' emergency licensure policy confirmed my fears: It was a mistake to give unqualified, emergency-licensed teachers responsibility over student learning. Giving out these licenses made sense while the country was in crisis, but to continue this policy exacerbates inequity. These teachers go into classrooms without the content knowledge and skills they need to be successful with students. They are less effective. And they teach the most vulnerable students at higher rates. We have to reinstate standards to enter the profession and ensure that aspiring teachers get the preparation and, when needed, the financial support to meet those standards.
I also urge more states to follow in Massachusetts' footsteps in evaluating the effects of their teacher workforce policies. It would have been easier for the state to implement the policy and never look back—or to accept the first study, finding neutral outcomes, and to assume the emergency licenses were working out just fine. Massachusetts went further, continued to evaluate its policy over more years, and ended emergency licenses as a result—a model of data-informed policymaking and focus on results. I hope other states will do the same.