Licensure Reciprocity: Arkansas
Expanding the Pool of Teachers Policy
Analysis of Arkansas's policies
Arkansas offers its standard license to out-of-state certified teachers. However, the state does not require evidence of effective teaching during previous employment in its reciprocity policy.
To qualify for the standard license, out-of-state teachers must either submit passing scores on tests in the licensing state or earn passing scores on Arkansas's content area exams. The state also allows a waiver for candidates who submit proof of at least three years' teaching experience.
Out-of-state teachers are also required to complete either three college credit hours in Arkansas history at an accredited institution or a 45-hour professional development piece in Arkansas history offered through Arkansas IDEAS, if the licensure area is elementary or social studies. The state does not offer teachers a test-out option. Documentation of the following professional development training must also be submitted: parental involvement, child maltreatment, teen suicide awareness and prevention, and dyslexia.
Arkansas is a participant in the NASDTEC Interstate Agreement, which outlines which other states' certificates will be accepted by the receiving state. This agreement is not a collection of two-way reciprocal acceptances, nor is it a guarantee that all certificates will be accepted by the receiving state, and it is therefore not included in this analysis.
Recommendations for Arkansas
Require evidence of effective teaching when determining eligibility for full certification.
To facilitate the movement of effective teachers between states, Arkansas should require that evidence of teacher effectiveness, as determined by an evaluation that includes objective measures of student growth, be considered for all out-of-state candidates. Such evidence should indeed be a factor for candidates who come from states that make student growth an important factor of a teacher evaluation, especially in a state such as Arkansas, which requires evidence of student growth to be a significant criterion of its teacher evaluations (see "Evaluation of Effectiveness" analysis and recommendations).
To uphold standards, require that teachers coming from other states meet testing requirements.
Arkansas should insist that out-of-state teachers meet its own testing requirements, and it should not provide any waivers of its teacher tests unless an applicant can provide evidence of a passing score under its own standards. This is especially important when it comes to out-of-state teachers who have passed content tests that do not rise to the level of Arkansas's standard, such as an elementary content test that requires a passing score on each content core subject (see "Elementary Teacher Preparation" analysis and recommendations).
Offer a standard license to certified out-of-state teachers, absent unnecessary requirements.
Although the state's Arkansas history coursework requirement is reasonable, it should offer out-of-state teachers a test-out option.
State response to our analysis
Arkansas asserted that Act 1090 of the 2015 legislative session amended the code to allow the 45-hour Arkansas history professional development course via Arkansas IDAS to meet the Arkansas history requirement for teachers completing a nontraditional program or licensing by reciprocity.
Last word
Arkansas should strengthen its policy and offer out-of-state teachers a test-out option, as this would prevent the requirement from creating an obstacle for any candidates who can satisfy the state that they already have appropriate and sufficient knowledge of Arkansas history.
-
Arkansas
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
Evidence of effectiveness is far more important than transcript review.
In an attempt to ensure that teachers have the appropriate
professional and subject-matter knowledge base when granting certification,
states often review a teacher's college transcript, no matter how many years
earlier a bachelor's degree was earned. A state certification specialist
reviews the college transcript, looking for course titles that appear to match
state requirements. If the right matches are not found, a teacher may be
required to complete additional coursework before receiving standard licensure.
This practice holds true even for experienced teachers who are trying to
transfer from another state, regardless of experience or success level. The
application of these often complex state rules results in unnecessary obstacles
to hiring talented and experienced teachers. Little evidence indicates that
reviewing a person's undergraduate coursework improves the quality of the
teaching force or ensures that teachers have adequate knowledge.
New evaluation systems coming on line across the country
which prioritize effectiveness and evidence of student learning offer an opportunity to bypass counterproductive efforts like transcript review
and get to the heart of the matter: is
the out of state teacher seeking licensure in a new state an effective
teacher?
Testing requirements
should be upheld, not waived.
While many states impose burdensome coursework requirements,
they often fail to impose minimum standards on licensure tests. Instead, they
offer waivers to veteran teachers transferring from other states, thereby
failing to impose minimal standards of professional and subject-matter
knowledge. In upholding licensure standards for out-of-state teachers, the
state should be flexible in its processes but vigilant in its verification of
adequate knowledge. Too many states have policies and practices that reverse
these priorities, focusing diligently on comparison of transcripts to state
documents while demonstrating little oversight of teachers' knowledge. If a
state can verify that a teacher has taught successfully and has the required
subject-matter and professional knowledge, its only concern should be ensuring
that the teacher is familiar with the state's student learning standards.
States licensing
out-of-state teachers should not differentiate between experienced teachers
prepared in alternate routes and those prepared in traditional programs.
It is understandable that states are wary of accepting
alternate route teachers from other states, since programs vary widely in
quality. However, the same wide variety in quality can be found in traditional
programs. If a teacher comes from another state with a standard license and can
pass the state's licensure tests, whether the preparation was traditional or
alternative should be irrelevant.
Licensure Reciprocity: Supporting Research
Many
professions have gone further than teaching in encouraging interstate mobility.
The requirements for attorneys, for example, are complicated, but often offer
certain kinds of flexibility, such as allowing them to answer a small set of
additional questions. See the Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admissions
Requirements 2014, published by the National Conference of Bar Examiners
and the American Bar Association, available at https://www.ncbex.org/assets/media_files/Comp-Guide/CompGuide.pdf.
On
the similarity in effectiveness between graduates of traditional and
alternative programs, see J.
Constantine, D. Player, T. Silva, K. Hallgren, M. Grider, J. Deke, and E. Warner, An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification, Final Report. February 2009, U.S.
Department of Education, NCEE 2009-4043. D. Boyd, P. Grossman, H. Lankford, S. Loeb, and J. Wyckoff, "How Changes in Entry Requirements Alter the Teacher Workforce and Affect Student Achievement." NBER Working Paper No. 11844, December 2005. T. Kane, J. Rockoff, and D.
Staiger. "What Does Certification Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City." NBER Working Paper No.12155, April 2006. G. Henry, C. Thompson, K. Bastian, C. Fortner, D. Kershaw, K. Purtell, R. Zulli, A. Mabe, and A. Chapman, "Impacts of Teacher Preparation on Student Test Scores in North Carolina: Teacher Portals". The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Carolina Institute for Public Policy, 2010, 34p. Z. Xu, J.
Hannaway, and C. Taylor, "Making a Difference? The Effects of Teach for America in High School." The Urban Institute/Calder, Working Paper 17, April 2007.D. Boyd, P. Grossman, K. Hammerness. H. Lankford, S. Loeb, M. Ronfeldt, and J. Wyckoff, "Recruiting Effective Math Teachers: How Do Math Immersion Teachers Compare?: Evidence from New York City." NBER Working Paper No.16017, May 2010;
as well as "How Changes in Entry Requirements Alter the Teacher Workforce and Affect Student Achievement," by D. Boyd, P. Grossman, H. Lankford, S. Loeb, and J. Wyckoff, NBER Working Paper No.11844, December 2005; and "The Effects of Teach For America on Students: Findings from a National Evaluation," by P. Decker, D. Mayer, and S. Glazerman, Mathematica Policy
Research Inc., 2004.