ERIC ED515717: Blueprint for Change in Oklahoma: State Teacher Policy Yearbook, 2010

2010·2.2 MB·English

by  ERIC

Blueprint
for Change in
Oklahoma
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 Oklahoma
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 the Oklahoma’s Teacher Policy
In the 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, Oklahoma had the following grades:
D+ Area 1: Delivering Well Prepared Teachers C-
Area 2: Expanding the Teaching Pool C-
Area 3: Identifying Effective Teachers d+
Overall Grade
Area 4: Retaining Effective Teachers C-
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
following recent policy changes in Oklahoma:
Teacher Evaluation:
Recent legislation has established a teacher evaluation system that bases 35 percent of a teacher’s score on stu-
dent academic growth using multiple years of standardized test data, and an additional 15 percent on other aca-
demic measurements. Teachers will be evaluated at least once a year and scored as “superior,” “highly effective,”
“effective,” “needs improvement” or “ineffective.” Tenured teachers rated “ineffective” for two consecutive years
will be terminated; those rated as “needs improvement” for three years will be terminated; and those who do not
average at least an “effective” rating over a five-year period will be terminated. S.B. 2033
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2010 : 3
bluepriNT for ChaNge iN OklAhOmA
OSantakdt leaasl hswooe rmteo a asc koRemed mstope ornetnv isoeenw tpNooCl iTPcQyo ’lsci hcidayen ngUteifisp edtdha uattpe dh:aatvees 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
occurred in the last year, other pending changes or alabama
teacher quality in the state more generally. alaska
arizona
arkansas
California
Oklahoma was helpful in providing NCTQ with ad- Colorado
ditional information about recent policy changes. Connecticut
Delaware
The state added that its new policy regarding the
District of Columbia1
dismissal of ineffective tenured teachers is subject
florida
to the provisions of the Teacher Due Process Act of
georgia
1990. Also, the state’s new evaluation system will
hawaii
not go into effect until the new criteria are adopt-
idaho
ed by December 15, 2011, and schools are not re-
illinois
quired to use it until the 2013-2014 school year. indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland2
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New york
NORTh CAROliNA
North Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
pennsylvania
rhode island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
4 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2010 16 10 4
bluepriNT for ChaNge iN OklAhOmA
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 connecting teacher evaluation, tenure and dismissal to teach-
er effectiveness and elementary teacher preparation to teach reading, Oklahoma should turn
its immediate attention to the following six issues.
Critical Attention: Oklahoma policies that fail
to ensure that teachers are well prepared
1. ENSURE ThAT ElEMENTARY TEAChERS 2. ENSURE ADEQUATE SUBJECT-MATTER
KNOW ElEMENTARY CONTENT MATh: PREPARATiON FOR MiDDlE SChOOl
TEAChERS:
Aspiring elementary teachers must begin to acquire a
deep conceptual knowledge of the mathematics they Middle school grades are critical years of schooling, yet
will teach, moving well beyond mere procedural under- too many states fail to distinguish the knowledge and
standing. Leading mathematicians and math educators skills needed by middle school teachers from those
have found that elemen- needed by elementary teachers. Whether teaching a
tary teachers are not well single subject in a departmentalized setting or teach-
Preparation to teach served by mathemat- ing multiple subjects in a self-contained setting, mid-
mathematics is a critical ics courses designed for dle school teachers must be able to teach significantly
attention area in
a general audience and more advanced content than elementary teachers do.
49
that methods courses To ensure adequate content preparation of its middle
states.
do not provide suffi- school teachers, Oklahoma is urged to no longer per-
cient content prepara- mit middle school teachers to teach on a K-8 gener-
A state on the right track
tion. Although the stan- alist license and instead adopt for all teachers mid-
is massachusetts.
dards Oklahoma relies dle-grades licensure policies that are distinguishable
on for teacher prepara- from elementary teacher
tion as well as its own subject-matter test address certification. Such poli-
areas such as algebra, geometry and data analysis, cies should ensure that
middle school licensure is a
the state should specifically articulate that prepara- middle school teachers
critical attention area in
tion programs deliver mathematics content geared to know the content they
22

the explicit needs of elementary teachers. Oklahoma will teach by requiring states.

should also adopt a rigorous mathematics assessment, that they pass a subject-
such as the one required by Massachusetts. At the very matter test in every core States on the right track
least, the state should consider requiring a mathemat- area they intend to teach include Georgia, kentucky
ics subscore on its general content knowledge test, not prior to licensure. and louisiana.
only to ensure that teacher candidates have minimum
mathematics knowledge but also to allow them to test
out of coursework requirements.
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2010 : 5
bluepriNT for ChaNge iN OklAhOmA
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
arizona 3. ENSURE ThAT TEAChER PREPARATiON
arkansas
PROGRAMS ARE ACCOUNTABlE FOR
California 1
ThE QUAliTY OF ThE TEAChERS ThEY
Colorado
Connecticut PRODUCE:
Delaware
States should consider factors related to program per-
District of Columbia
formance in the approval of teacher preparation pro-
florida 2
grams. Although the quality of both the subject-matter
georgia
preparation and profes-
hawaii
sional sequence is crucial,
idaho
Teacher preparation
illinois there are also additional
program accountability is a
indiana measures that can provide
critical attention area in
iowa the state and the public
30
kansas with meaningful, readily states.
kentucky understandable indicators
louisiana of how well programs are States on the right track
Maine
doing when it comes to include Colorado and
Maryland
preparing teachers to be louisiana.
Massachusetts
successful in the class-
Michigan
room. Oklahoma should
Minnesota
make objective outcomes that go beyond licensure
Mississippi
pass rates, such as graduates’ evaluation results, reten-
Missouri
Montana tion rates and students’ academic achievement gains,
Nebraska a central component of its teacher preparation pro-
Nevada gram approval process, and it should establish precise
New hampshire standards for program performance that are more use-
New Jersey ful for accountability purposes.
New Mexico
New york
North Carolina
North Dakota
ohio
OKlAhOMA
oregon
pennsylvania
rhode island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia 1 Although California has a standalone test of reading
pedagogy, the ability of this test to screen out candidates
Wisconsin who do not know the science of reading has been questioned.
Wyoming 2 Florida’s licensure test for elementary teachers includes a
strong focus on the science of reading but does not report a
6 2 29 separate subscore for this content.
Critical Attention: Oklahoma policies
that license teachers who may lack
subject-matter knowledge
4. ClOSE liCENSURE lOOPhOlES TO 5. ENSURE ThAT ElEMENTARY
ENSURE ThAT TEAChERS KNOW ThE CONTENT TESTS ADEQUATElY
CONTENT ThEY TEACh: ASSESS CONTENT KNOWlEDGE iN
EACh SUBJECT AREA:
All students are entitled to teachers who know the
subject matter they are teaching. Permitting individuals Oklahoma requires that all new elementary teachers
who have not yet passed state licensing tests to teach must pass its own Certification Examination for
neglects the needs of students, instead extending Oklahoma Educators general subject-matter test.
personal consideration to adults who may not be able Although this Oklahoma Subject Area Test consists
to meet minimal state standards. Licensing tests are an of two separate subtests—one that includes reading
important minimum benchmark in the profession, and and language arts and one that includes social studies,
states that allow teachers to postpone passing these mathematics, science, health, fitness and the arts—it
tests are abandoning one of the basic responsibilities of does not report teacher performance in each subject area,
licensure. meaning that it may be possible to pass the test and still
perform poorly in some subject areas. The state should
Oklahoma should ensure
require separate passing scores for each area because
that all teachers pass all
without them it is impossible to measure knowledge of
licensure loopholes are a required subject-matter
individual subjects, especially given the state’s current
critical attention area in licensure tests before they
low passing score for the elementary content test.
34 enter the classroom so

states. According to published test data, Oklahoma has set its
that students will not be

passing score for this test so egregiously below the mean,
at risk of having teachers
States on the right track the average score of all test takers, that it is questionable
who lack sufficient or
include mississippi, Nevada whether this assessment is indeed providing any
appropriate content-area
and New Jersey. assurance of content knowledge. NCTQ is aware that
knowledge. However, the
Oklahoma is in the process of setting new passing
state allows teachers who
scores based on changes
have not met licensure
to its subject-matter
requirements to teach under an emergency certificate,
which is valid for an unspecified duration. If conditional tests and encourages Elementary licensure
or provisional licenses are deemed necessary, then the state to ensure that tests are a critical
its scores actually reflect attention area in
Oklahoma should only issue them under limited and
an assurance of content 50
exceptional circumstances and for no longer than a
states.
knowledge.
period of one year.
A state on the right track
is massachusetts.
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2010 : 7
bluepriNT for ChaNge iN OklAhOmA
figure 3
Where do states set the passing score on
elementary content licensure tests?1
Colorado
50th Percentile
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Alabama Indiana
Alaska Kansas
Idaho Kentucky
Maryland Louisiana
Mississippi Maine
Arkansas Nebraska Missouri Pennsylvania Massachusetts
Iowa Nevada New Hampshire
OKlAhOMA New Jersey Rhode Island
North Dakota South Carolina
Ohio Texas
South Dakota Utah
Tennessee Vermont
Virginia Wisconsin
West Virginia Wyoming
State sets score far State sets score well State sets
below mean below mean passing score
(at or near two standard deviations (at or near one standard deviation at the mean
~2nd percentile) ~16th percentile) (average score of
all test takers)
1 Data not available for Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
Oregon, and Washington. Montana does not require a content test.
Colorado cut score is for Praxis II, not PLACE.
8 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2010
bluepriNT for ChaNge iN OklAhOmA