Licensure Advancement: Georgia
Identifying Effective Teachers Policy
Analysis of Georgia's policies
Georgia bases both licensure advancement and renewal on some evidence of teacher effectiveness.
To advance from an induction certificate to a performance-based professional certificate, teachers must receive either proficient or exemplary annual performance ratings on Georgia's statewide evaluation system, Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES), for at least two of the three most recent years of experience. Teachers with only two years of qualifying experience must have received ratings of proficient or exemplary for both years.
A standard professional certificate is available for teachers not evaluated by the statewide evaluation system.
Teachers in Georgia must renew their teaching licenses every five years. To renew the performance-based professional teaching certificate, teachers must earn a minimum of two proficient or exemplary TKES annual performance ratings within five years of the renewal date. They are also required to complete one of the following: six semester hours of college course work, 10 credits of Georgia Professional Learning Units (PLUs) or 10 credits of Continuing Education Units (CEUs).
(For additional information about TKES, see "Evaluation of Effectiveness" analysis).
Recommendations for Georgia
Require at least a proficient rating for each year of the renewal period.
Although Georgia requires a minimum of two proficient or exemplary TKES annual performance ratings within five years of the renewal date, the state does not ensure that teachers who receive ineffective ratings are ineligible for renewal. The state should strengthen its policy and require teachers to earn at least proficient ratings for each year during the renewal period.
Discontinue licensure requirements with no direct connection to classroom effectiveness.
While some targeted requirements may potentially expand teacher knowledge and improve teacher practice, Georgia's general, nonspecific coursework requirements for license renewal merely call for teachers to complete a certain amount of seat time. These requirements do not correlate with teacher effectiveness.
State response to our analysis
-
Georgia
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
- Early Childhood
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science and Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Special Education Preparation in Reading
- 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
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. Thus, 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: These degrees have
not been shown to make teachers more effective. This is likely due in no small
part to the fact that teachers generally do not attain master's degrees in
their subject areas. According to the National Center for Educational
Statistics, less than one-fourth of secondary teachers' master's degrees are in
their subject area, and only 7 percent of elementary teachers' master's degrees
are in an academic subject.
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.
Licensure Advancement: Supporting Research
For
a meta-analysis of the research on the relationship between advanced degrees
and teacher effectiveness, see M. Ozdemir and W. Stevenson, "The Impact of
Teachers' Advanced Degrees on Student Learning" which has been published
as an appendix in Arizona's Race to the Top: What Will It Take to Compete? (NCTQ, 2009).
Studies
in the analysis include: Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L., 2004, Teacher sorting, teacher shopping, and the assessment of teacher effectiveness, which is the previous draft of the current paper entitled C. Clotfelter, H. Ladd, and J. Vigdor, Teacher-student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness, January 2006 from the National Bureau
of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 11936, web site: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11936; C. Clotfelter, H. Ladd, and J. Vigdor, How and why do teacher credentials matter for student achievement?, January 2007 from the NBER, Working Paper 12828, web site: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12828. R. Ehrenberg and D. Brewer, Do school and teacher characteristics matter? Evidence from high school and beyond. Economics of Education Review, Volume 13, No. 1, March 1994, pp. 1-17; D. Goldhaber and E. Anthony, Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? National board certification as a signal of effective teaching. Review
of Economics and Statistics, Volume 89, No, 1, February 2007, pp. 134-150; D. Goldhaber and D. Brewer, Why don't schools and teachers seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity. The Journal
of Human Resources, Volume 32, No. 3, Summer 1997, pp. 505-523; D. Goldhaber and D. Brewer, Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, Volume 22, No. 2, June 20, 2000, pp. 129-145; E. Hanushek, J. Kain, D. O'Brien, and S. Rivkin, (2005) The market for teacher quality. Retrieved February 2005 from the National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 11154 from web site: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11154.pdf; E. Hanushek, J. Kain, and S. Rivkin, Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Retrieved August 1998 from the National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 6691 from web site: http://www.nber.org/papers/w6691.pdf; D. Harris and T. Sass, Value-added models and the measurement of teacher quality. Unpublished paper, Florida State University; D. Harris and T. Sass, What makes for a good teacher and who can tell?, Calder Institute, September 2009, Working Paper 30; Harris, D. and T. Sass, Teacher training, teacher quality, and student achievement; Calder Institute, March 2007, Working Paper 3; D. Harris and T. Sass, The effects of NBPTS-certified teachers on student achievement, Calder Institute, March 2007, Working Paper No. 4; C. Jepsen, Teacher characteristics and student achievement: Evidence from teacher surveys. Journal of Urban Economics, Volume 57, No. 2, March 2005, pp. 302-319; D. Monk, Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, Volume 13, No. 2, June 1994, pp. 125-145; J. Riordan, Is There a Relationship Between No Child Left Behind Indicators of Teacher Quality and The Cognitive and Social Development of Early Elementary Students? April 8, 2006, Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA; B. Schneider, Further evidence of school effects, Journal of Educational
Research, Volume 78, No. 6, Jul.-Aug., 1985, pp. 351-356.
For
evidence on the lack of correlation between education coursework and teacher
effectiveness, see M. Allen, "Eight Questions on Teacher Preparation: What Does the Research Say?" Education Commission of the States, 2003