The state should base licensure advancement on evidence of teacher effectiveness. This goal was consistent between 2015 and 2017.
Evidence of Effectiveness: Vermont's requirements for licensure advancement and renewal are not based on evidence of teacher
Advancing to a Professional License: Vermont requires teachers to be recommended by the local or regional standards board; practiced in an endorsement area for three years; provided evidence of three credits or 45 hours of professional learning, with at least one credit or 15 hours addressing the specific knowledge and performance standards of the advancing endorsement; and documented a self-assessment in relation to the Core Teaching Standards.
Renewing a Professional License: To renew a Level II professional license, Vermont requires teachers to complete a minimum of six credits or 90 hours in the endorsement area and documentation of a self-assessment in relation to the Core Teaching Standards.
Rules Governing the Licensing of Educators and the Preparation of Educational Professional, effective April 12, 2017 http://education.vermont.gov/sites/aoe/files/documents/edu-educator-quality-licensing-rules_0.pdf
Require evidence of effectiveness as a part of teacher licensing policy.
Vermont 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, Vermont's general, nonspecific professional development credit requirements for license advancement and renewal merely call for teachers to complete a certain amount of seat time. These requirements do not correlate with teacher effectiveness.
Vermont recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.
9A: Licensure Advancement
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. 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. 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. 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.