States
Progress on this goal since 2013
- Improved
- Stayed the same
- Regressed
State requires a test of elementary special education candidates’ content knowledge that reports separate scores for each of the four elementary subject areas to earn an elementary special education license.
The state requires a test that reports separate scores for each of the four elementary subject areas. : AL, LA, MO, NJ, RI
The state requires a test that reports separate scores for each of the four elementary subject areas, but it permits candidates to earn an overly broad K-12 special education license.: ID
The state requires a test that does not report separate subscores for each of the four subject areas.: CO, IL, MA, NC, NY, WI
The state does not require a test of all candidates.: AK, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, IN, KS, KY, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, MT, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY
Footnotes
CA: California requires special education candidates to verify subject matter competence by completing either the multiple subjects or single subject test requirements, or completing a subject matter preparation program. Therefore, content testing is not required.
DE: Delaware's K-12 special education license must be added to a general education elementary or secondary license. Therefore there is no guarantee that special education teachers teaching at the elementary level will have passed an elementary content test.
IA: Candidates have the option of passing the Praxis Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge (5511) test or the edTPA, which is not a content test.
IL: The Illinois Licensure Testing System (ILTS) Special Education General Curriculum test is not an elementary-specific content test. It's a general content test.
MA: Massachusetts requires the General Curriculum test that does not report scores for each elementary subject. A separate score is reported for math.
MI: Michigan's K-12 special education license must be added to a general education elementary or secondary license. Therefore there is no guarantee that special education teachers teaching at the elementary level will have passed an elementary content test
NC: North Carolina's required MTEL General Curriculum test has two subtests. Subtest I combines English Language arts, science and social studies. Subtest II reports a separate score for math. Teachers have until their second year of teaching to earn a passing score, provided they attempt to pass it during their first year.
NY: New York's general education elementary test consists three separately scored sections: literacy and English language arts, math, and arts and sciences.
PA: In Pennsylvania, PreK-8 special education candidates must have dual certification in early childhood, elementary/middle or reading specialist. Only those adding the early childhood certificate will have passed an elementary content test. The PECT PreK-4 test combines core content in two separately scored subtests.
WV: In West Virginia, candidates applying for the K-6 special education license must have dual certification in either early childhood or elementary education. Only candidates with dual certification in elementary education will have passed a content test with separate scores for each elementary subject area.
State requires a test of secondary special education candidates’ content knowledge in every subject they are licensed to teach.
The state requires a subject-matter test or separately scored subtest in subject teachers are licensed to teach. : MO
The state requires a subject-matter test but it does not separately score each subject teachers are licensed to teach, or requires a single subject test, but allows teachers to teach in any core subject area regardless of the test passed.: IL, LA, MA, NJ, NY, RI, WI
The state does not require a secondary subject matter test.: AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY
Footnotes
CA: California requires special education candidates to verify subject matter competence by completing either the multiple subjects or single subject test requirements, or completing a subject matter preparation program. Therefore, content testing is not required.
DE: Delaware's K-12 special education license must be added to a general education elementary or secondary license. Therefore there is no guarantee that special education teachers teaching at the secondary level will have passed a secondary content test.
IA: Candidates have the option of passing the Praxis Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge (5511) test or the edTPA, which is not a content test.
IL: The Illinois Licensure Testing System (ILTS) Special Education General Curriculum test is not a secondary-specific content test. It's a general content test.
MA: Candidates in Massachusetts applying for the 5-12 special education certificate must pass either the elementary General Curriculum test or a single-subject-matter test at either the 5-8 or 8-12 level.
MI: Michigan's K-12 special education license must be added to a general education elementary or secondary license. Therefore there is no guarantee that special education teachers teaching at the secondary level will have passed a secondary content test
MO: Candidates in Missouri have to pass a middle/secondary multiple-subject content test with separate passing scores required for each core content area or a single-subject secondary assessment.
NY: New York's middle school and secondary special education multiple-subjects content tests consist of three separately scored sections: literacy and English language arts, math, and arts and sciences.
PA: In Pennsylvania, grades 7-12 special education candidates must have dual certification in secondary or reading specialist. Only those adding the secondary certificate will have passed a secondary content test.
WV: In West Virginia, candidates applying for the 5-12 special education license must have dual certification in either secondary education or a reading specialist. Only candidates with dual certification in secondary education will have passed a content test.
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Early Childhood
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science and Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Special Education Preparation in Reading
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Pensions
Research rationale
Generic K-12 special
education licenses are inappropriate for teachers of high-incidence special
education students.
Too many states make no distinction between elementary and
secondary special education teachers, certifying all such teachers under a
generic K-12 special education license. While this broad umbrella may be
appropriate for teachers of low-incidence special education students, such as
those with severe cognitive disabilities, it is deeply problematic for
high-incidence special education students, who are expected to learn
grade-level content. And because the
overwhelming majority of special education students are in the high-incidence
category, the result is a fundamentally broken system.
It is virtually impossible and certainly impractical for
states to ensure that a K-12 teacher knows all the subject matter he or she is
expected to teach. Further, the issue is just
as valid in terms of pedagogical knowledge. Teacher preparation and licensure
for special education teachers must distinguish between elementary and
secondary levels, as they do for general education. The current model does
little to protect some of our most vulnerable students.
Special education
teachers teach content and therefore must know content.
While special educators should be valued for their critical
role in working with students with disabilities and special needs, the state
identifies them not as "special education assistants" but as
"special education teachers," presumably because it expects them to
provide instruction. Inclusion models, where special education students receive
instruction from a general education teacher paired with a special education
teacher to provide instructional support, do not mitigate the need for special
education teachers to know content. Providing instruction to children who have
special needs requires knowledge of both effective learning strategies and the
subject matter at hand. Failure to ensure that teachers are well trained in
content areas deprives special education students of the opportunity to reach
their academic potential.
Special Education Teacher Preparation: Supporting Research
For
an analysis of the importance of special educator content knowledge see N.
Levenson, "Something Has Got to Change: Rethinking Special Education", American Enterprise Institute, Future of American Education Project, Working Paper, 2011-01.
For
the impact of special education certification see L. Feng and T. Sass, "What Makes Special-Education Teachers Special?: Teacher Training and Achievement of Students with Disabilities" Calder Institute, Working Paper 49, June 2010.
Numerous
research studies have established the strong relationship between teachers'
vocabulary (a proxy for being broadly educated) and student achievement. For
example: A.J. Wayne and P. Youngs, "Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review," Review of Educational Research, Volume 73,
No. 1, Spring 2003, pp. 89-122. See also G.J. Whitehurst, "Scientifically based research on teacher quality: Research on teacher preparation and professional development," presented at the 2002 White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers; R. Ehrenberg and D. Brewer, "Did Teachers' Verbal Ability and Race Matter in the 1960s? Coleman Revisited," Economics of
Education Review, Volume 14, No. 1, March 1995, pp. 1-21.
Research
also connects individual content knowledge with increased reading
comprehension, making the capacity of the teacher to infuse all instruction
with content of particular importance for student achievement. See D.T. Willingham, "How knowledge helps: It speeds and strengthens reading comprehension, learning—and thinking," American Educator, Volume 30, No. 1, Spring 2006.
For
the importance of teachers' general academic ability, see R. Ferguson,
"Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money
Matters," Harvard Journal on Legislation, Volume 28, Summer 1991, pp. 465-498; L Hedges, R. Laine, and R. Greenwald, "An Exchange: Part I: Does Money Matter? A Meta-Analysis of Studies of the Effects of Differential School Inputs on Student Outcomes," Educational Researcher, Volume 23, No. 3, April 1994, pp. 5-14; E. Hanushek, "Teacher Characteristics and Gains in Student Achievement: Estimation Using Micro Data," American Economic
Review, Volume 61, No. 2, May 1971, pp. 280-288; E. Hanushek, "A More Complete Picture of School Resource Policies," Review of Educational
Research, Volume 66, Number 3, Fall 1996, pp. 397-409; H. Levin, Concepts of Economic Efficiency and Educational Production," in Education as an Industry, ed.
J. Froomkin, D. Jamison, and R. Radner (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1976); D.
Monk, "Subject Area Preparation of Secondary Mathematics and Science Teachers and Student Achievement," Economics of Education
Review, Volume 13, No. 2, June 1994, pp. 125-145; R. Murnane, "Understanding the Sources of Teaching Competence: Choices, Skills, and the Limits of Training," Teachers College Record, Volume 84, No. 3, Spring 1983, pp. 564-569; R.
Murnane and B. Phillips, Effective Teachers of Inner City Children: Who
They Are and What They Do? (Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research,
1978), 44 p.; R. Murnane and B. Phillips, "What Do Effective Teachers of Inner-City Children Have in Common?" Social Science Research, Volume 10, No. 1, March 1981, pp. 83-100; M. McLaughlin and D. Marsh, "Staff Development and School Change," Teachers College Record, Volume 80, No. 1, 1978, pp. 69-94;
R. Strauss and E. Sawyer, "Some New Evidence on Teacher and Student Competencies," Economics of Education Review, Volume 5, No. 1, 1986, pp. 41-48; A. A. Summers and B.L. Wolfe, "Which School Resources Help Learning? Efficiency and Equity in Philadelphia Public Schools," Business
Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, February 1975).
Sandra
Stotsky has documented the fact that teacher candidates often make
inappropriate or irrelevant coursework choices that nonetheless satisfy state
requirements. See S. Stotsky with L. Haverty, "Can a State Department of Education Increase Teacher Quality? Lessons Learned in Massachusetts," in Brookings Papers on Education Policy: 2004,
ed. Diane Ravitch (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2004).
On
the need for colleges and universities to improve their general education
coursework requirements, see The Hollow Core: Failure of the General Education Curriculum (Washington, D.C.: American Council of Trustees
and Alumni, 2004). For a subject-specific example of institutions' failure to
deliver solid liberal arts preparation see, The Coming Crisis in Citizenship: Higher Education's Failure to Teach America's History and Institutions (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute,
2006).
For
information on teacher licensing tests, see The Academic Quality of Prospective Teachers: The Impact of Admissions and Licensure Testing (Princeton,
NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1999). A study by C. Clotfelter, H. Ladd, and
J.Vigdor of elementary teachers in North Carolina also found that teachers with
test scores one standard deviation above the mean on the Elementary Education
Test as well as a test of content was associated with increased student
achievement of 0.011 to 0.015 standard deviations. "How and Why Do Teacher
Credentials Matter for Student Achievement?" The Calder Institute (2007).