1. State Board Presentation Review of Teacher Preparation Regulations Proposal June 2014

2. The Department is prepared to adopt regulatory changes to teacher preparation. Today we will revisit the background and context of these regulatory changes. We will also provide a summary of the proposed regulations, as well as an explanation of any adoption-level changes. Overview 2

3. Background and Context: Impetus for Change 3 Only 23% of all teachers, and only 14% of teachers in high-poverty schools, come from the top third of college graduates. 1 More than three in five education school alumni report that their education school did not prepare them for “classroom realities.” 2 Despite this, in 2011, only 37 institutions across the country (out of approximately 1,400) were identified as low-performing. 3 2 Arthur Levine, Educating School Teachers (Washington, D.C.: The Education Schools Project, 2006), 32, http://www. edschools.org/teacher_report.htm 3 Chad Aldeman, et al., A Measured Approach to Improving Teacher Preparation (Washington, DC: Education Sector, 2011), 4 – 16, http://www.educationsector.org/publications/measured-approach-improving-teacher-preparation 1. Byron Auguste, Paul Kihn, Matt Miller, Closing the talent gap: Attracting and retaining top-third graduates to careers in teaching (Washington, DC: McKinsey & Company, 2010), 5,http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/Social_Sector/our_ practices/Education/Knowledge_Highlights/~/media/Reports/SSO/Closing_the_talent_gap.ashx Teacher preparation is a national issue that has become a focus for reform across the country.

4. Background and Context: National Movement 4 In Sept 2011, USED published the report, Our Future, Our Teachers, calling for states the federal government to work together to improve teacher recruiting and preparation. In late 2012, CCSSO published Our Responsibility, Our Promise: Transforming Educator Preparation and Entry into the Profession, calling for states to increase licensure requirements, and utilize stronger program approval and accountability measures for educator preparation providers. CAEP (the national accrediting body for colleges of education) recently proposed new accreditation standards for teacher preparation providers, which include the use of student achievement data for accreditation, and call for higher entry requirements into teacher preparation programs. The American Federation of Teachers concluded that teaching programs should require candidates to have a cumulative GPA of 3.0 and earn a minimum grade on college- or graduate-school-entry exams, such as a 24 on the ACT. In concert with AACTE (American Association of Teachers Colleges) and Stanford University, Pearson developed a “teacher performance assessment” that assesses teacher candidates’ pedagogical effectiveness prior to entering the classroom; more than 1,000 educators from 29 states and the District of Columbia, and more than 430 institutions of higher education participated in test development. In light of this challenge, several states, national organizations, and the federal government, have recently prioritized reforming teacher preparation.

5. Background and Context: Feedback and Support from NJ 5 Our Approach to Stakeholder Engagement An Educator Preparation Working Group met four times during 2013 to provide feedback on our priorities and key initiatives; This group included deans and directors from New Jersey schools of education, alternate route providers, as well as representatives from NJEA, NJPSA, and NJASA Our team attends monthly New Jersey Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (NJACTE) meetings to provide updates and gather feedback Feedback and Support Representatives from NJ Colleges and Universities, and the NJEA expressed broad support for increasing the entry standards for teacher preparation programs, while recognizing that this is one early step in improving the quality of the teacher workforce The President of NJACTE supported the new requirement for a performance-based assessment We received recommendations from NJACTE to delay the implementation of these changes, and we have listened and are proposing changes accordingly

6. Background and Context: Theory of Action 6 There is no “silver bullet” to improve the quality of the teaching workforce; Any single proposed regulation, in isolation, is not enough to enact meaningful change; however, we believe the actions proposed by the Department in this round of regulations in combination with future proposals will collectively improve the quality of entrants into the profession Teacher preparation is not closely enough connected to K-12 education; It needs to be deeply embedded into multiple aspects of the educator lifecycle, including: ‒Pre-service preparation ; ‒Certification ‒Mentoring / induction ‒Ongoing professional development ‒Evaluation The Department’s theory of action is two-fold: 1.Improve the training and quality of teachers entering the profession 2.Utilize data to strengthen support and accountability for preparation programs These regulatory changes are part of a broader vision for educator preparation

7. Background and Context: Primary Pathways 7 The proposed regulations take into consideration the two primary pathways into teaching Traditional route: candidates complete a preparation program prior to entering the classroom, and then receive a Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing (CEAS) Alternate route: candidates meet requirements to earn a Certificate of Eligibility (CE) and then complete a preparation program during their first years of teaching

8. Our goals for these proposed regulations stem from our first theory of action – to improve the training and quality of teachers entering the profession. Specifically these regulations will: Raise the bar for entrance into the teaching profession, ultimately ensuring every teacher in NJ meets a threshold of quality for cognitive ability, content knowledge, and pedagogy To the best of our ability, ensure NJ requirements for entry into the teaching profession are not significantly different from states that share reciprocity and significant mobility with our state Proposed Changes 1.Require a standardized assessment of basic skills for entry into a traditional preparation program and to obtain a CE 2.Raise GPA requirements – Raise the GPA required to enter a traditional program from 2.5 to 3.0 – Raise the GPA required for certification from 2.75 to 3.0 3.Require a performance assessment for a CEAS Overview of Proposed Regulations 8

9. Flexibility 9 Flexibility has been built into proposed regulatory changes to allow a diverse set of candidates, who otherwise demonstrate high potential, to enter the profession. TopicFlexibility Basic Skills Assessment Candidates are waived from this requirement if they have at least: 1 1660 combined critical reading, writing, and mathematics score on the SAT 23 on the ACT 4.0 on the analytical writing section and a combined score of 310 on the quantitative and verbal sections of the GRE Program Entry GPA Cohort average (note: no individual can fall below 2.75) Certification GPA Candidate can have as low as 2.75 GPA and receive cert, if he/she scores at least 10% above the passing score on content knowledge assessment (Praxis II) Alt route candidate can have as low as 2.75 if he/she is sponsored by alt route provider (provider can only “sponsor” up to 10% of each cohort) Performance-based assessment NA 1. The Department reviewed requests for two other flexibility measures - Praxis II and Accuplacer - but denied requests for those assessments

10. Summary The Department is proposing three changes at adoption level for the Board’s consideration The proposed changes do not amend the requirements put forth in earlier version, but rather represent changes to implementation dates to better reflect current student’s matriculation timeline The proposed changes came as a result of public stakeholder input, specifically from our teacher preparation programs Adoption-Level Changes 10

11. Adoption-Level Changes 11 TopicN.J.A.C.Proposed at First Discussion Proposed at Adoption Level Rationale Basic Skills Assessment 6A:9-8.1(a)3 6A:9-8.1(b)7 6A:9-10.1(d)2 “After September 1, 2014, achieve a minimum score…” “Formal admission…granted only if…as of September 1, 2014 all accepted candidates shall have achieved minimum score…” “After September 1, 2015, achieve a minimum score…” “Formal admission…granted only if…as of September 1, 2015 all accepted candidates shall have achieved minimum score…” Feedback through public comment and stakeholder engagement indicated preparation programs required additional time to implement changes and amend recruiting practices; Amending these proposed regulations more cleanly aligns with other proposed regulations as the changes impact one class (current freshmen in college) Trad. Program Entry GPA 6A:9-10.1(d)1“The average cumulative GPA of the accepted cohort of candidates as of September 1, 2015, is at least 3.00…” No change Certification GPA 6A:9-8.1(a)2 6A:9-8.1(a)2i 6A:9-8.1(a)2iii “Colleges and universities shall recommend for certification…only students [who] have…achieve(d) a cumulative GPA of at least 3.00…for students graduating after September 1, 2014…” “Colleges and universities shall recommend for certification…only students [who] have…achieve(d) a cumulative GPA of at least 3.00…for students graduating after September 1, 2016…” Performance- based assessment 6A:9-10.1(g)3“…students who graduate after September 1, 2015, shall pass…” “…students who graduate after September 1, 2016, shall pass…”