Licensure Reciprocity: Washington
Expanding the Pool of Teachers Policy
Analysis of Washington's policies
Teachers with valid out-of-state certificates are eligible for Washington's Residency Certificate. The state does not require evidence of effective teaching during previous employment in its reciprocity policy.
Washington only provides testing waivers to teachers who have attained National Board Certification. All other out-of-state teachers, no matter how many years of experience they have, must meet Washington's passing scores on licensing tests.
There appear to be no recency or coursework requirements for applicants who completed a state-approved preparation program; however, alternate route teachers must have three years of experience and have participated in a supervised classroom-based internship during the course of the alternate route program.
Those with fewer than three years of experience are likely to be subject to transcript reviews, an exercise that often leads the state to require additional coursework before it will offer a license. States that reach a determination about an applicant's licensure status on the basis of the course titles listed on the applicant's transcript may end up mistakenly equating the amount of required coursework with the teacher's qualifications.
Washington 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 Washington
Require evidence of effective teaching when determining eligibility for full certification.
To facilitate the movement of effective teachers between states, Washington 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 (see "Evaluation of Effectiveness" analysis and recommendations).
Accord the same license to out-of-state alternate route teachers as would be accorded to traditionally prepared teachers.
Regardless of whether a teacher was prepared through a traditional or alternate route, all certified out-of-state teachers should receive equal treatment. The state's policy of transcript reviews would appear to imply that lacking a clear match with Washington's own professional requirements, the teacher would have to begin anew, repeating some, most or all of a preparation program in Washington.
Washington should also reconsider its experience requirement for alternate route teachers, as it may deter talented teachers from applying for certification, namely those who participate in programs such as Teach For America, an alternate route in which teachers participate for two years. State policies that discriminate against teachers who were prepared in an alternate route are not supported by evidence. In fact, a substantial body of research has failed to discern differences in effectiveness between alternate and traditional route teachers.
State response to our analysis
Washington asserted that its interstate reciprocity rules only require completion of a state-approved program that had a field experience; it does not matter whether it’s alternative or traditional. The state noted that Teach For America always involves a field experience, unless the candidate never got past the summer part or never had a classroom placement. Washington added that it is not aware of a state where TFA is excluded as a provider.
-
Washington
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.