ERIC ED515698: Blueprint for Change in North Dakota: State Teacher Policy Yearbook, 2010

2010·0.58 MB·English

by  ERIC

Blueprint
for Change in
North Dakota
2010
State Teacher
Policy Yearbook
National Council on Teacher Quality
Acknowledgments
STATES
State education agencies remain our most important partners in this effort, and their exten-
sive experience has helped to ensure the factual accuracy of the final product. Although this
year’s Blueprint for Change did not require the extensive review typically required of states,
we still wanted to make sure that states’ perspectives were represented. As such, each state
received a draft of the policy updates we identified this year. We would like to thank all of
the states for graciously reviewing and responding to our drafts.
FuNDErS
The primary funders for the 2010 Yearbook were:
n Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation n The George Gund Foundation
n Carnegie Corporation of New York n The Joyce Foundation
n Gleason Family Foundation
The National Council on Teacher Quality does not accept any direct funding from the
federal government.
STAFF
Sandi Jacobs, Project Director
Sarah Brody, Project Assistant
Kelli M. Rosen, Lead Researcher
Trisha M. Madden, Pension Researcher
NCTQ BoArD oF DirECTorS
Stacey Boyd n Chester E. Finn, Jr. n Ira Fishman n Marti Watson Garlett n Henry L. Johnson
Donald N. Langenberg n Clara M. Lovett n Barbara O’Brien n Carol G. Peck n John Winn
Kate Walsh, President
Thank you to Bryan Gunning and the team at CPS Inc. for their design of the 2010
Blueprint for Change. Thanks also to Colleen Hale and Jeff Hale of EFA Solutions for the
original Yearbook design and ongoing technical support.
About the Yearbook
The 2010 Blueprint for Change is the National Council on Teacher Quality’s fourth annual review of state
laws, rules and regulations that govern the teaching profession. This year’s Yearbook takes a different
approach than our past editions, as it is designed as a companion to the 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook,
NCTQ’s most recent comprehensive report on state teacher policies.
The comprehensive Yearbook, a 52-volume state-by-state analysis produced biennially, examines the align-
ment of states’ teacher policies with goals to improve teacher quality. The 2009 report, which addressed key
policy areas such as teacher preparation, evaluation, alternative certification and compensation, found that
states had much work to do to ensure that every child has an effective teacher. Next year we will once again
conduct a comprehensive goal-by-goal analysis of all aspects of states’ teacher policies.
In 2010, an interim year, we set out to help states prioritize among the many areas of teacher policy in need
of reform. With so much to be done, state policymakers may be nonplussed about where to begin. The 2010
Yearbook offers each state an individualized blueprint, identifying state policies most in need of attention.
Although based on our 2009 analyses, this edition also updates states’ progress in the last year, a year that
saw many states make significant policy changes, largely spurred by the Race to the Top competition. Rather
than grade states, the 2010 Blueprint for Change stands as a supplement to the 2009 comprehensive report,
updating states’ positive and negative progress on Yearbook goals and specifying actions that could lead to
stronger policies for particular topics such as teacher evaluation, tenure rules and dismissal policies.
As is our practice, in addition to a national summary report, we have customized this year’s Blueprint for
Change so that each state has its own edition highlighting its progress toward specific Yearbook goals.
Each report also contains charts and graphs showing how the state performed compared
to other states. In addition, we point to states that are leading
the way in areas requiring the most critical attention across
the country.
We hope that this year’s Blueprint for Change serves as an important
guide for governors, state school chiefs, school boards, legislatures and
the many advocates seeking reform. Individual state and national ver-
sions of the 2010 Blueprint for Change, as well as the 2009 State Teacher
Policy Yearbook—including rationales and supporting research for our
policy goals—are available at www.nctq.org/stpy.

Blueprint for Change in North Dakota
The 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook provided a comprehensive review of states’ policies that impact the teaching profes-
sion. As a companion to last year’s comprehensive state-by-state analysis, the 2010 edition provides each state with an
individualized “Blueprint for Change,” building off last year’s Yearbook goals and recommendations.
State teacher policy addresses a great many areas, including teacher preparation, certification, evaluation and compensation.
With so many moving parts, it may be difficult for states to find a starting point on the road to reform. To this end, the follow-
ing brief provides a state-specific roadmap, organized in three main sections.
n Section 1 identifies policy concerns that need critical attention, the areas of highest priority for state policymakers.
n Section 2 outlines “low-hanging fruit,” policy changes that can be implemented in relatively short order.
n Section 3 offers a short discussion of some longer-term systemic issues that states need to make sure stay on the radar.
Current Status of North Dakota’s Teacher Policy
In the 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, North Dakota had the following grades:
D Area 1: Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D
-
Area 2: Expanding the Teaching Pool F
Area 3: Identifying Effective Teachers D-
Overall Grade
Area 4: Retaining Effective Teachers D
Area 5: Exiting Ineffective Teachers D+
2010 Policy Update:
In the last year, many states made significant changes to their teacher policies, spurred in many cases by the Race
to the Top competition. Based on a review of state legislation, rules and regulations, NCTQ has identified the fol-
lowing recent policy changes in North Dakota:
No recent policy changes were identified.
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2010 : 3
bluepriNT for ChaNge iN NorTh DAkoTA
North Dakota Response to Policy Update:
States were asked to review NCTQ’s identified updates and also to comment on policy changes that have occurred
in the last year, other pending changes or teacher quality in the state more generally.
North Dakota confirmed that there are no recent policy changes to report.
4 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2010
bluepriNT for ChaNge iN NorTh DAkoTA
Section 1: Critical Attention Areas
This section identifies the highest priority areas as states work to advance teacher quality. These are
the policy issues that should be at the top of the list for state policymakers. While other states need
also to address licensure loopholes that allow teachers in the classroom with inadequate subject-
matter knowledge, North Dakota should turn its immediate attention to the following nine issues.
Critical Attention: North Dakota policies that
need to better connect to teacher effectiveness
1.
ENSURE ThAT TEAChER EVALUATIONS 2. CONNECT TENURE DECISIONS TO
ASSESS EFFECTIVENESS IN ThE TEAChER EFFECTIVENESS:
CLASSROOM:
The point at which a teacher’s probationary period
The fundamental purpose of teachers’ formal evalu- ends, commonly referred to as tenure, should be a sig-
ations should be to determine whether the teachers nificant milestone. Although the awarding of tenure
are effective in the classroom. To achieve this pur- is a local decision, state
pose, evaluations must be based primarily on teachers’ policy should reflect the
Tenure is a critical
impact on students. While it is certainly appropriate to fact that tenure should
attention area in
include subjective factors, only be awarded to
46
such as classroom obser- teachers who have con-
states.
Evaluation is a critical vations, North Dakota sistently demonstrated
attention area in
should adopt a policy that their effectiveness. North
States on the right track
42
states. requires objective evi- Dakota should require a include Colorado, Delaware
dence of student learn- clear process, such as a and rhode island.
ing—including but not hearing, for districts to
States on the right track
limited to standardized use when considering
include Colorado, Louisiana
test scores—to be the whether a teacher advances from probationary to per-
and rhode island.
preponderant criterion of manent status. Such a process would ensure that the
teacher evaluations. local district reviews the teacher’s performance before
making a determination. North Dakota should also
In addition, to ensure that the evaluation instrument
ensure that evidence of effectiveness is the preponder-
accurately differentiates among levels of teacher per-
ant criterion for making tenure decisions. In addition,
formance, North Dakota should require districts to uti-
the current policy of granting tenure after just two
lize multiple rating categories, such as highly effective,
years does not allow for the accumulation of sufficient
effective, needs improvement and ineffective. A binary
data on teacher performance to support meaningful
system that merely categorizes teachers as satisfac-
decisions. Extending the probationary period––ideally
tory or unsatisfactory is inadequate.
to five years––would prevent effective teachers from
being unfairly denied tenure based on too little data
and ineffective teachers from being granted tenure
prematurely.
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2010 : 5
bluepriNT for ChaNge iN NorTh DAkoTA
fIcedsioveg caunclrlisauesisi da1oset rnioroseo?ndms i na en tfdefea tccethniveuerr nee sevasluata icohnise ivneclmuednet sdtautdaent evidentche e ofp rsettpeuaodcnehdnete rrl aeenvatra lnciurinattgie irois nosn in evidenisc e tohf e sctprirutedepreionont nld ieerna artnneit nnugr e decisions
alabama
alaska
3. PREVENT INEFFECTIVE TEAChERS
arizona
FROM REMAINING IN ThE arkansas
CLASSROOM INDEFINITELY: California
Colorado
North Dakota should
Connecticut
Dismissal is a critical explicitly make teacher Delaware
attention area in ineffectiveness grounds District of Columbia1
for dismissal so that dis- florida
46

states. tricts do not feel they lack georgia
the legal basis for termi- hawaii
States on the right track nating consistently poor idaho
include oklahoma and performers, and it should illinois
rhode island. steer clear of euphemis- indiana
iowa
tic terms that are ambig-
kansas
uous at best and may be
kentucky
interpreted as concerning dereliction of duty rather
louisiana
than ineffectiveness. In North Dakota, the process is
Maine
the same regardless of the grounds for dismissal, which Maryland2
include immoral conduct, insubordination, conviction Massachusetts
of a felony, unbecoming conduct, failure to perform Michigan
duties, gross inefficiency and continuing physical or Minnesota
mental disability. Mississippi
Missouri
Nonprobationary teachers who are dismissed for any
Montana
grounds, including ineffectiveness, are entitled to due
Nebraska
process. However, cases that drag on for years drain Nevada
resources from school districts and create a disincen- New hampshire
tive for districts to attempt to terminate poor perform- New Jersey
ers. Therefore, in the best interest of both the teacher New Mexico
and the district, North Dakota should ensure that a New york
conclusion is reached in a reasonable time frame. The North Carolina
NORTh DAkOTA
state should also ensure that appeals are made before
ohio
a panel of educators and not in a court of law.
oklahoma
oregon
pennsylvania
rhode island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
1 The District of Columbia has no state-level policy, but District Texas
of Columbia Public Schools requires that student academic
achievement count for 50% of evaluation score. utah
2 Legislation articulates that student growth must account for a Vermont
significant portion of evaluations, with no single criterion count- Virginia
ing for more than 35% of the total performance evaluation.
However, the State Board is on track to finalize regulations that Washington
limit any single component of student growth, such as standard- West Virginia
ized test scores, to 35%, but add other measures of student
Wisconsin
progress for a total of 50%.
Wyoming
16 10 4
Critical Attention: North Dakota policies
that fail to ensure teachers are well prepared
4. ENSURE ThAT ELEMENTARY TEAChERS 5. ENSURE ThAT ELEMENTARY TEAChERS
kNOW ThE SCIENCE OF READING:
kNOW ELEMENTARY CONTENT MATh:
Scientific research has
Aspiring elementary teachers must begin to acquire a
Preparation to teach shown that there are five
deep conceptual knowledge of the mathematics they
reading is a critical essential components of
will teach, moving well beyond mere procedural under-
attention area in effective reading instruc-
standing. Leading mathematicians and math educa-
43 tion: explicit and system- tors have found that elementary teachers are not well
states.
atic instruction in phone-
served by mathematics courses designed for a general
mic awareness, phonics,
audience and that methods courses do not provide suf-
States on the right track
fluency, vocabulary and
include Connecticut, ficient content preparation. Although North Dakota’s
comprehension. This sci-
Massachusetts and Virginia. standards address areas such as algebra, geometry
ence of reading has led
and statistics, the state should specifically articu-
to breakthroughs that
late that preparation programs deliver mathematics
can dramatically reduce the number of children des-
content geared to the explicit needs of elementary
tined to become functionally illiterate or barely liter-
teachers. North Dakota should also adopt a rigorous
ate adults. Whether through standards or coursework
mathematics assessment, such as the one required by
requirements, states must ensure that their prepara-
Massachusetts. At the very least, the state should con-
tion programs graduate only teacher candidates who
sider requiring a math-
know how to teach children to read. Not only should
ematics subscore on its
North Dakota require that its teacher preparation pro- Preparation to teach
general content knowl-
grams prepare their teacher candidates in the science mathematics is a critical
edge test, not only to
of reading, but the state should also require an assess- attention area in
ensure that teacher can-
49
ment prior to certification that tests whether teachers didates have minimum states.
indeed possess the requisite knowledge in scientifi- mathematics knowledge
cally based reading instruction. Ideally this would be
but also to allow them A state on the right track
a stand-alone test (such as the excellent assessments
to test out of coursework is Massachusetts.
required by Massachusetts, Connecticut and Virginia),
requirements.
but if it were combined with general pedagogy or ele-
mentary content, the state should require a separate
subscore for the science of reading.
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2010 : 7
bluepriNT for ChaNge iN NorTh DAkoTA
fDtpeirgoaeu cpsretha a2erte resds a? erne swuerell that ensureks neloew mtehne tsacriye tnecae cohf errse ading ensureks neloew meleentmareyn ttaeray cchoernst ent math Differebnettiawteeesm ni pdreldelepe amsrecatnhitooaornl y taenacd hers
alabama
alaska 6. ENSURE ADEQUATE SUBJECT-MATTER
arizona
PREPARATION FOR MIDDLE SChOOL
arkansas
TEAChERS:
California 1
Colorado
Middle school grades are critical years of schooling, yet
Connecticut
too many states fail to distinguish the knowledge and
Delaware
skills needed by middle school teachers from those
District of Columbia
needed by elementary teachers. Whether teaching a
florida 2
single subject in a departmentalized setting or teach-
georgia
hawaii ing multiple subjects in a self-contained setting, mid-
idaho dle school teachers must be able to teach significantly
illinois more advanced content than elementary teachers do.
indiana To ensure adequate content preparation of its middle
iowa school teachers, North Dakota is urged to no longer
kansas permit middle school teachers to teach on a K/1-8
kentucky
generalist license and instead adopt for all teachers
louisiana
middle-grades licensure policies that are distinguish-
Maine
able from elementary teacher certification. Such poli-
Maryland
cies should ensure that middle school teachers know
Massachusetts
the content they will
Michigan
teach by requiring that
Minnesota
Middle school licensure is a
Mississippi they pass a subject-mat-
critical attention area in
Missouri ter test in every core area
22
Montana they intend to teach prior states.
Nebraska to licensure.
Nevada
States on the right track
New hampshire
include Georgia, kentucky,
New Jersey
and Louisiana.
New Mexico
New york
North Carolina
NORTh DAkOTA
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
pennsylvania
rhode island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
utah
Vermont
1 Although California has a standalone test of reading
Virginia
pedagogy, the ability of this test to screen out candidates
Washington who do not know the science of reading has been questioned.
West Virginia 2 Florida’s licensure test for elementary teachers includes a
strong focus on the science of reading but does not report a
Wisconsin
separate subscore for this content.
Wyoming
6 2 29