Requirements for Out-of-State Teachers:
Washington
Hiring Policy
Analysis of Washington's policies
Eligibility for Standard License: Washington allows teachers with valid out-of-state certificates to be eligible for its Residency Certificate.
Evidence of Effectiveness: Washington does not require evidence of effective teaching during previous employment in its reciprocity policy.
Testing Requirement: Washington allows out-of-state teachers to use their passing scores from the originating state to meet its testing requirements.
Additional Requirements: Washington does not articulate 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 requires a criminal background check.
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 a determinative factor of a teacher evaluation. (See "Student Growth" analysis and recommendations.)
To uphold standards, require that teachers coming from other states meet testing requirements.
Washington should insist that out-of-state teachers meet its own testing requirements, and it should not waive its teacher testing requirements unless an applicant can provide evidence of a passing score that meets its own standards. By continuing to allow testing waivers, Washington cannot ensure that teachers who have passed assessments in other states have met comparable content-knowledge expectations.
Accord the same license to out-of-state alternate route teachers that 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 in Washington 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 was helpful in providing NCTQ with the facts necessary for this analysis. The state also noted that teachers can meet reciprocity one of two ways: (1) verification of program completion, or (2) certification plus three years. For option 1, teachers must have their out-of-state preparation program sign a form stating that they met all of the requirements to be fully certified in that state. For option 2, teachers must show their out-of-state certificate, plus verification of three-plus years of employment as a teacher in that same state.
Updated: December 2017
-
Washington
Select another topic
General Teacher Preparation
- Program Entry
- Teacher Shortages and Surpluses
- Program Performance Measures
- Program Reporting Requirements
- Student Teaching/Clinical Practice
- Teaching Methods
Elementary Teacher Preparation
Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Middle School Content Knowledge
- Middle School Licensure Deficiencies
- Adolescent Literacy
- Secondary Content Knowledge
- Secondary Licensure Deficiencies
Special Education Teacher Preparation
Alternate Routes
Hiring
- Requirements for Out-of-State Teachers
- Provisional and Emergency Licensure
- Licensure for Substitute Teachers
- Supporting New Teachers
Teacher and Principal Evaluation
Teacher Compensation
Retaining Effective Teachers
Early Childhood Preparation
How we graded
6A: Requirements for Out-of-State Teachers
- Evidence of Effectiveness: The state should require evidence of effective teaching in previous employment from all out-of-state teachers.
- Criminal Background Check: The state should require all out-of-state teachers to possess a clean criminal record.
- Content Knowledge: The state should uphold its content-knowledge standards by requiring all out-of-state teachers to meet or exceed its own state testing requirements.
- Accessibility: The state should:
- offer a standard license to fully certified, out-of-state teachers without requiring additional coursework based on transcript analyses or certifications that are out of date.
- accord the same process and set of requirements for out-of-state teachers who completed an approved alternate route program as it accords to out-of-state teachers prepared in traditional preparation programs.
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it requires teachers to provide evidence of effective teaching based on prior teaching experience.
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it requires a full criminal background check for all teachers seeking to transfer licenses to teach in its state.
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it requires teachers to demonstrate adequate content knowledge by meeting the recipient state's content test requirements, or by showing proof of passing an appropriate content test in the originating state.
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it does not require any additional obstacles or requirements for all teachers seeking to transfer licenses to teach in its state.
Research rationale
Evidence of effectiveness is far more important than transcript review.[1] 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.[2] This practice holds true even for experienced teachers who are trying to transfer from another state, regardless of their prior success. The application of these often complex state rules results in unnecessary obstacles to hiring talented and experienced teachers.[3] Evaluation systems 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 some states have historically imposed burdensome coursework requirements, many have simultaneously failed to impose minimum standards for licensure testing. Instead, some states have offered 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. It is all too common for states to develop 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 variance in quality can be found in traditional programs.[4] If a teacher comes from another state with a standard license and a clean criminal record, has demonstrated evidence of effectiveness, and can pass the state's licensure tests, whether the preparation was traditional or alternative should be irrelevant.[5]
[1] Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w11844.pdf?new_window=1
[2] See review an investigation into teacher effectiveness and certification processes, see: Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 615-631. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12155.pdf?new_window=1
[3] 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. In fact, teacher preparation might be able to take a page from their book. By balancing the testing of core functions of teaching that remain the same across states, while also holding instructors responsible for local-specific regulations, reciprocity might be able to be more efficient, while still holding educators to high standards, as the Bar is able to do in the field of law. See: National Conference of Bar Examiners and American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. (2017). Comprehensive guide to Bar admissions requirements 2017. Retrieved from http://www.ncbex.org/pubs/bar-admissions-guide/2017/mobile/index.html
[4] National Council on Teacher Quality. (2014, June). 2014 Teacher Prep Review. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher_Prep_Review_2014_Report
[5] On the similarity in effectiveness between graduates of traditional and alternative programs, see: Constantine, J., Player, D., Silva, T., Hallgren, K., Grider, M., & Deke, J. (2009). An evaluation of teachers trained through different routes to certification. Final Report. NCEE 2009-4043. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094043/pdf/20094043.pdf; For a review of different paths into teaching in North Carolina, see: Henry, G. T., Thompson, C. L., Bastian, K. C., Fortner, C. K., Kershaw, D. C., Purtell, K. M., & Zulli, R. A. (2010). Portal report: Teacher preparation and student test scores in North Carolina. Carolina Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from http://publicpolicy.web.unc.edu/files/2014/02/Portal_TeachPrep-TestScore_June2010_Final.pdf; For information on Teach for America's alternate certification programming, see: Decker, P. T., Mayer, D. P., & Glazerman, S. (2004). The effects of Teach for America on students: Findings from a national evaluation. University of Wisconsin—Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty.