Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Teacher Preparation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays rules on alternative teacher preparation after university deans press for parity and quality safeguards
Summary
The board paused a vote on rules implementing a new state law that allows private and alternative teacher-preparation organizations, after deans from several universities urged parity of faculty and quality standards, and called for cost and outcome comparisons. The board asked staff to gather data and return with a proposed rule set and cost
The State Board of Education deferred action on draft rules for alternative teacher preparation programs after a lengthy exchange with university deans, certification officers and board members who raised concerns about quality, faculty qualifications and unintended consequences for existing college-based teacher-preparation programs.
The Legislature this year authorized alternative organizations to offer pathways that can recommend candidates for teacher certification; the board—93level rulemaking is intended to set operational standards, approval criteria and oversight. Several university deans and certification officers told the board that the draft rules lacked parity with existing higher-education requirements: they urged the board to require comparable faculty qualifications, program accountability, and outcome monitoring so that alternative providers would not operate on a lower-cost, lower-quality basis.
Deans cited research and examples from other states indicating that for-profit alternative certification programs sometimes produce candidates who do not remain in teaching at the same rates as graduates of traditional programs. They also asked the board to require program evidence of quality from other states and to make sure that traditional institutions could offer similar low-cost or flexible pathways for working adults.
Board members and staff said the department had successfully lobbied to retain board oversight in the enabling statute, but that the law requires the board to adopt implementing rules. Given the concerns raised, the board chose to delay action and asked staff to collect cost comparisons, faculty and program standards, and outcomes data from colleges, alternative providers and other states. The board asked staff to return at the next work session with recommended language, including stronger faculty/quality requirements. No interim certifications or approvals were granted during the meeting.
Ending: The board postponed action and directed staff to solicit written input and return with proposed rule language, cost comparisons and outcome metrics at the December work session.
