Licensure Advancement: Utah

Retaining Effective Teachers Policy


The state should base licensure advancement on evidence of teacher effectiveness. This goal was consistent between 2015 and 2017.

Meets a small part of goal
Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2017). Licensure Advancement: Utah results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from:

Analysis of Utah's policies

Evidence of Effectiveness: Utah requires some evidence of teacher effectiveness in licensing and advancement policies.

Advancing to a Professional License: Utah requires teachers to complete the Entry Years Enhancement (EYE) program, which requires collaborating with a trained mentor, passing a pedagogical exam, completing three years of employment and evaluation, and compiling a working portfolio. Under the EYE program, evaluations must occur twice during the first three years of teaching with a satisfactory final evaluation. This evaluation, however, does not require objective measures of student growth. To move from a Level 2 to a Level 3 license, teachers must acquire a doctorate in an education-related field or have National Board Certification.

Renewing a Professional License: Utah requires Level 2 teachers to renew their licenses every five years and Level 3 teachers every seven years. Level 2 and 3 teachers develop and maintain a professional learning plan, which takes into account "feedback from the educator's yearly evaluation." This professional learning plan must also document that teachers have acquired at least 200 license renewal points during each period. Teachers may earn points for years with satisfactory performance evaluations, as well as for college coursework, professional learning activities, educational research and workshops. 


Recommendations for Utah

Require evidence of effectiveness as a part of teacher licensing policy. 
Utah should require evidence of teacher effectiveness to be a factor in determining whether teachers may renew or advance to a higher-level license.

Discontinue license renewal requirements with no direct connection to classroom effectiveness. 
Although targeted requirements may potentially expand teacher knowledge and improve teacher practice, Utah's general, nonspecific professional development point requirements for license renewal merely call for teachers to complete a certain amount of seat time. These requirements do not correlate with teacher effectiveness.

End requirement tying teacher advancement to doctoral degrees. 
Utah should remove its mandate that teachers obtain a doctorate degree for any level of license advancement. Research is clear that advanced degrees generally do not have any significant correlation with classroom performance. Rather, advancement should be based on evidence of teacher effectiveness. 

State response to our analysis

Utah recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.

Updated: December 2017

How we graded

9A: Licensure Advancement

  • Evidence of Effectiveness for Advancement: The state should:
    • Require evidence of effectiveness to be considered as a factor for advancement from a probationary to a nonprobationary license.
    • Not require teachers to earn an advanced degree as a condition of professional licensure.
  • Evidence of Effectiveness for Renewal: The state should ensure that any coursework requirements tied to advancing from a probationary to a nonprobrationary license address the specific needs of an individual teacher, rather than a need that is generic and unspecified.
Evidence of Effectiveness for Advancement
One-half of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-half credit: The state will earn one-half of a point if it bases licensure advancement exclusively on evidence of effectiveness.
  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it bases licensure advancement on evidence of effectiveness in addition to other requirements not linked to effectiveness (e.g., teachers obtain an advanced degree).
Evidence of Effectiveness for Renewal
One-half of the total goal score is earned based on the following: 

  • One-half credit: The state will earn one-half of a point if it exclusively bases licensure renewal on evidence of effectiveness.
  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it partially bases licensure renewal on evidence of effectiveness.

Research rationale

The reason for probationary licensure should be to determine teacher effectiveness. Most states grant new teachers a probationary license that must later be converted to an advanced or professional license. A probationary period is sound policy as it provides an opportunity to determine whether individuals merit professional licensure. However, very few states require any determination of teacher performance or effectiveness in deciding whether a teacher will advance from the probationary license. Instead, states generally require probationary teachers to fulfill a set of requirements to receive advanced certification. Therefore, ending the probationary period is based on whether a checklist has been completed rather than on teacher performance and effectiveness.

Most state requirements for achieving professional certification have not been shown to affect teacher effectiveness.[1] Unfortunately, not only do most states fail to connect advanced certification to actual evidence of teacher effectiveness, but also the requirements teachers must most often meet are not even related to teacher effectiveness. The most common requirement for professional licensure is completion of additional coursework, often resulting in a master's degree. Requiring teachers to obtain additional training in their teaching area would be meaningful; however, the requirements are usually vague, allowing the teacher to fulfill coursework requirements from long menus that include areas having no connection or use to the teacher in the classroom.[2] The research evidence on requiring a master's degree is quite conclusive: with rare exceptions, these degrees have not been shown to make teachers more effective.[3] This is likely due in no small part to the fact that teachers may not attain master's degrees in their subject areas.

In addition to their dubious value, these requirements may also serve as a disincentive to teacher retention. Talented probationary teachers may be unwilling to invest time and resources in more education coursework. Further, they may well pursue advanced degrees that facilitate leaving teaching.

[1] For studies observing various trends in student achievement and licensure requirements, see: Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2004). Teacher sorting, teacher shopping, and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Duke University manuscript., which is the previous draft of the current paper entitled: Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006). Teacher-student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of human Resources, 41(4), 778-820. Retrieved from; Ladd, H. F., Clotfelter, C. T., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). How and why do teacher credentials matter for student achievement? (NBER Working Paper 142786). Retrieved from; Ehrenberg, R. G., & Brewer, D. J. (1994). Do school and teacher characteristics matter? Evidence from high school and beyond. Economics of Education Review, 13(1), 1-17.; Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2007). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? National Board Certification as a signal of effective teaching. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 134-150.; Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1997). Why don't schools and teachers seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity. Journal of Human Resources, 505-523. Retrieved from; Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129-145.; Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2006). Teacher quality. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 2, 1051-1078. Retrieved from; Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458. Retrieved from; Harris, D., & Sass, T. R. (2006). Value-added models and the measurement of teacher quality (Unpublished manuscript). Retrieved from; Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7), 798-812. Retrieved from; Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2009). The effects of NBPTS‐certified teachers on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(1), 55-80. Retrieved from; Jepsen, C. (2005). Teacher characteristics and student achievement: Evidence from teacher surveys. Journal of Urban Economics, 57(2), 302-319.; Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125-145.; Riordan, J. (2006, April). Is there a relationship between No Child Left Behind indicators of teacher quality and the cognitive and social development of early elementary students? In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from; Schneider,B. (1985). Further evidence of school effects. Journal of Educational Research, 78(6), p. 351-356.
[2] For evidence on the lack of correlation between education coursework and teacher effectiveness, see: Allen, M. B. (2003). Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the research say? Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from
[3] For a meta-analysis of the research on the relationship between advanced degrees and teacher effectiveness, see: Doherty, K., Walsh, K., Jacobs, S., & Neuman-Sheldon, B. (2010). Arizona's race to the top: What will it take to compete? Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from; For secondary math teachers however, a relevant master's degree is associated with greater teacher effectiveness, see: Walsh, K., Lubell, S., & Ross, E. (2017, August). Backing the wrong horse: The story of one state's ambitious but disheartening foray into performance pay. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from