Certification committee backs flexible, evidence‑based pathways for minimum content knowledge and forwards proposal to full board

An ad hoc committee of the Connecticut Educator Preparation and Certification Board voted to forward proposed legislative amendments to the full board that would allow the certification board to establish flexible, evidence‑based alternative pathways for demonstrating minimum content knowledge for initial teacher certification, with guidelines to be released no later than July 1, 2025.

The committee said the change is intended to preserve the board’s authority to review and update minimum content knowledge standards periodically while keeping subject‑area assessment as the mandatory first step. Proponents said the language would let the board develop rigorous, feasible, valid and reliable alternatives without forcing specific pathways into law before the board has completed its review.

Kristen Basijak, chair of the ad hoc committee, said the group is charged with developing ways to make alternative pathways available and with reviewing those pathways every two years under the public act that created the certification board. “We want to have evidence based, rigorous, feasible, valid and reliable means of assessing minimum content knowledge,” Basijak said, adding that the board intends to require satisfactory performance on an appropriate State Board of Education–approved subject‑area assessment as the initial step.

Basijak and other committee members said the proposed statutory language in the draft bill replaces references to a single standardized test with language that defers to standards established by the Connecticut Educator Preparation and Certification Board for demonstrating minimum content knowledge. The committee reported it has met three times and is on track to issue its guideline by July 1, 2025, a date the committee chose to give educator preparation programs, candidates and certification bodies time to prepare before other regulatory changes take effect on July 1, 2026.

Committee members raised concerns about a separate placeholder bill that had been introduced in the legislature. According to committee testimony summarized at the meeting, an earlier placeholder version would have prescribed two specific alternative pathways (a portfolio rubric to be developed and approved by the State Department of Education and acceptance of a content‑area bachelor’s degree in lieu of a standardized subject test) and would have taken effect in July, potentially bypassing the certification board’s authority and limiting EPPs’ ability to collect CAEP accreditation data. In a later substitute version, the placeholder bill added a teacher residency pathway but removed State Board of Education oversight of some certification functions, the committee said.

Jennifer Rodriguez, chair of the full Connecticut Educator Preparation and Certification Board, said the board had testified in opposition to the original language and that a substitute bill was drafted after committee and board meetings and has since been voted out of the House/Senate education committee and sits with the Senate. “They voted — we received notification on a Sunday, and they voted on it on a Tuesday,” Rodriguez said, describing the swift committee action on the substitute language.

Chloe (Deputy Commissioner and administrator for the certification board) told the committee the substitute bill currently on the floor “does remove any State Board of Education oversight,” a change the ad hoc committee and certification board view as significant because the original statute set up reciprocal review between the two boards. Members also reminded the group that the statute gives the affected board 60 days to review and respond to legislative proposals affecting certification; Aaron Zimmerman noted that 60‑day period during the meeting.

After discussion, a member moved to forward the proposed legislative amendment to the full board with a request that the summary and explanation of the amendment be revised to place the changes in the context of the broader certification process; the motion was seconded by Seth (surname not specified) and approved by voice vote. The committee directed staff and department representatives to prepare a more precise overview for the full board meeting and indicated they would provide edits before that meeting.

The committee emphasized that the legislation under consideration addresses only one component of initial certification — minimum content knowledge — and does not change course‑work, practicum or student‑teaching requirements that are also required for certification.

The proposal will go to the full certification board at its next meeting for additional review and possible formal action.