Progress on this goal since 2011
- Improved
- Stayed the same
- Regressed
How long do states permit new teachers to teach under emergency or provisional licenses without passing content licensing tests?
Do states mitigate risk associated with emergency or provisional licenses?
Yes. State maintains no emergency or provisional licenses.: AK, CO, IL, MS, MT, NJ, NM, NV, SC
Partially. State maintains nonrenewable emergency or provisional licenses.: AL, AR, CA, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, KS, KY, MA, MD, NC, ND, NH, NY, OH, OK, OR, RI, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY
No. State maintains renewable emergency or provisional licenses.: AZ, HI, IN, LA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NE, PA, SD, TN, TX, WI
Footnotes
AK: Alaska does not require subject-matter testing for initial certification.
MT: Montana does not require subject-matter testing for certification.
ND: License is renewable, but only if licensure tests are passed.
OH: License is renewable, but only if licensure tests are passed.
RI: License is renewable, but only if licensure tests are passed.
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Pensions
Research rationale
Teachers who have not passed licensing subject-matter tests place students at risk.
While states may need a regulatory basis for filling classroom positions with a few people who do not hold full teaching credentials, many of the regulations permitting this put the instructional needs of children at risk, often year after year. For example, schools can make liberal use of provisional certificates or waivers provided by the state if they fill classroom positions with instructors who have completed a teacher preparation program but have not passed their state licensing tests. These allowances are permitted for up to three years in some states. The unfortunate consequence is that students' needs are neglected in an effort to extend personal consideration to adults who cannot meet minimal state standards.
While some flexibility may be necessary because licensing tests are not always administered with the needed frequency, the availability of provisional certificates and waivers year after year signals that even the state does not put much value on its licensing standards or what they represent. States accordingly need to ensure that all persons given full charge of children's learning are required to pass the relevant licensing tests in their first year of teaching, ideally before they enter the classroom. Licensing tests are an important minimum benchmark in the profession, and states that allow teachers to postpone passing these tests are abandoning one of the basic responsibilities of licensure.
Extended Emergency Licenses: Supporting Research
Research has shown that "the difference in student performance in a single academic year from having a good as opposed to a bad teacher can be more than one full year of standardized achievement." See E. Hanushek, "The Trade-Off between Child Quantity and Quality," The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 100, No. 1, February 1992, pp. 84-117. Hanushek has also found that highly effective teachers can improve future student earnings by more than $400,000, assuming a class of 20. "The Economic Value of Higher Teacher Quality", National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 16606, December 2010.