Delivering Well Prepared Teachers Policy
Although Utah requires that its secondary teacher candidates pass a Praxis II content test to teach any core secondary subjects, the state permits a significant loophole to this important policy by allowing both physical science and general social studies licenses, without requiring subject-matter testing for each subject area within these disciplines.
Utah does not offer a general science certification for secondary science teachers. However, the state does offer a physical science endorsement. Candidates are required to pass either the Chemistry or Physics Praxis II content test.
In Utah, general social studies is called composite social studies. Candidates are required to pass the Praxis II Social Studies content
test. Teachers with this license are not limited to teaching general
social studies but rather can teach any of the topical areas. Further,
although
Utah offers subject-specific endorsements in social
studies, such as economics, geography and history, the state requires
candidates to pass either the subject-specific Praxis II content test or
the general assessment mentioned above.
Require secondary teachers with umbrella certifications to pass a content test for each discipline they are licensed to teach.
By allowing general social studies and physical science certifications—and only requiring general knowledge exams for each—Utah is not ensuring that these secondary teachers possess adequate subject-specific content knowledge. The state's required general social studies assessment combines all subject areas (e.g., history, geography, economics). The state's assessment options for physical science cover either chemistry or physics. Neither test adequately measures subject-matter competence in the area of physical science.
Utah recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis. The state added that the physical science endorsement referenced in the analysis does qualify a teacher to provide instruction in basic chemistry and physics courses as described in the report. However, teachers with this endorsement may not provide instruction in either the advanced placement or concurrent enrollment versions of either chemistry or physics. The state added that this flexibility is intended to aid scheduling in rural areas as well as help to create smaller class sizes in introductory chemistry and physics courses.
Utah also noted that its licensure requirements for science teachers are intended to balance high standards for teachers and flexibility for districts, particularly rural districts, in meeting the hiring needs in an area that is consistently one of the most critical teacher-shortage areas in the state. As in all areas, quality evaluation and employment decisions of the building principal, in addition to state licensure requirements, are vitally important to ensuring that every student has a highly effective teacher.
Specialized science
teachers are not interchangeable.
Based on their high school science licensure requirements,
many states seem to presume that it is all the same to teach anatomy,
electrical currents and Newtonian physics. Most states allow teachers to obtain
general science or combination licenses across multiple science disciplines,
and, in most cases, these teachers need only pass a general knowledge science
exam that does not ensure subject-specific content knowledge. This means that a teacher with a background
in biology could be fully certified to teach advanced chemistry or physics
having passed only a general science test—and perhaps answering most of the
chemistry or physics questions incorrectly.
There is no doubt that districts appreciate the flexibility
that these broad field licenses offer, especially given the very real shortage
of teachers of many science disciplines.
But the all-purpose science teacher not only masks but perpetuates the
STEM crisis—and does so at the expense of students. States need either to make sure that general
science teachers are indeed prepared to teach any of the subjects covered under
that license or allow only single subject science certifications. In either case states need to consider strategies
to improve the pipeline of science teachers, including the use of technology,
distance learning and alternate routes into STEM fields.
Is a social studies teacher prepared to teach history?
Most states offer a general social studies license at the secondary level. For this certification, teachers can have a background in a wide variety of fields, ranging from history and political science to anthropology or psychology and are usually only required to pass a general social studies test. Under such a license a teacher who majored in psychology could be licensed to teach secondary history having passed only a general knowledge test and answering most—and perhaps all—history questions incorrectly.
Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science: Supporting Research
For
an examination of how science teacher preparation positively impacts student
achievement, see D. Goldhaber and D. Brewer, "Does Teacher Certification Matter? High School Teacher Certification Status and Student Achievement",
Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, Volume 22, No. 2, June 20, 2000, pp. 129-145; 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; A. Rothman, "Teacher characteristics and student learning". Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, Volume 6, No. 4, December 1969, pp. 340-348.
See
also, NCTQ "The All-Purpose Science Teacher: An Analysis of Loopholes in State Requirements for High School Science Teachers." (2010).
In addition, research studies have
demonstrated the positive impact of teacher content knowledge on student
achievement. For example, see D.
Goldhaber, "Everyone's Doing It, But What Does Teacher Testing Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness?" Journal of Human
Resources,Volume 42, No. 4, Fall 2007, pp. 765-794. See also D. Harris and T. Sass, "Teacher Training, Teacher Quality, and Student Achievement". Calder Institute,March 2007,
Working Paper 3. Evidence can also be found in B. White, J. Presely, and K. DeAngelis, "Leveling up: Narrowing the Teacher Academic Capital Gap in Illinois", Illinois Education Research Council, Policy Research Report: IERC 2008-1, 44 p.; D. Goldhaber and D.
Brewer, "Why Don't Schools and Teachers Seem to Matter? Assessing the Impact of Unobservables on Educational Productivity." Journal
of Human Resources, Volume 32, No. 3, Summer 1997, pp. 505-523.