contact us: gse-csail@gse.upenn.edu
State Instructional Practice Support Systems and the Policies that Support Them
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
1. The link below leads to the forms required for Alabama’s IEP process. http://www.alsde.edu/sec/ses/Pages/forms-all.aspx?tab=IEP. 2. The link below leads to Alabama’s Curriculum Guides, aligned to the Alabama courses of study, which provides prerequisite and enabling skills that lead to learning grade-level academic standards. https://www.alsde.edu/sec/ses/pages/curriculumguides-all.aspx 3. Teaching and Learning Guides are being developed as a resource to aid teaches in instruction by providing a purposeful sequencing of the teaching and learning expectations for English Language Arts and math alternate achievement standards. 4. The link below leads to Standards-Based IEPs FAQ which provides questions and answers regarding standards-based IEPs for the state standards and alternate achievement standards. http://www.alsde.edu/sec/ses/Documents/FAQ%20Standards%20Based%20IEPS%20Sept%202016.pdf 5. The link below leads to a one-pager on Standards-Based IEPs which provides teachers the information needed to write individualized and appropriate goals. http://www.alsde.edu/sec/ses/One%20Pagers/Standards-Based%20-IEPs-AppropriateGoals.pdf |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
1. Alabama implements evidence-based co-teaching models and instructional coaching within a network of demonstration sites. The link below leads to information regarding Alabama’s State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). http://www.alsde.edu/sec/ses/Pages/reports-all.aspx?navtext=Data/Reporting 2. The link below leads to resources for professional development and instructional initiatives for Alabama’s State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG). http://www.alspdg.org/staffdevelopment.html 3. The link below leads to the Alabama High School Diploma Credit Checklist for the General Education Pathway, the Essentials Pathway, and the Alternate Achievement Standards Pathway for educators and parents to ensure students are meeting the requirements for graduation. http://www.alsde.edu/sec/ses/Diploma/Diploma%20Checkklists%20for%20All%20Three%20Pathways.pdf |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Alabama partners with the following organizations: 1. National Association of State Directors of Special Education 2. Council for Exceptional Children—Council of Administrators in Special Education 3. National Technical Assistance Center on Transition 4. Learning Resource Publications 5. IRIS Center 6. National Center for Systemic Improvement 7. Transition Coalition 8. Alabama Parent Education Center 9. Center for Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education 10. Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Alabama began implementing the SSIP in 2015 with instructional supports for students with disabilities. http://www.alsde.edu/sec/ses/Pages/reports-all.aspx?navtext=Data/Reporting |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
This information is not publicly available. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The state provides compliance guidance through a handbook for special education personnel, though there is no equivalent document for instructional supports. |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers |
The state directs funding to Stone Soup Group, which provides support for parents, though not for educators. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There is no publicly accessible information on changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
No reference to CCR standards in recommendations: http://www.azed.gov/specialeducation/resources/iep-practical-suggestions/ |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The state website provides a link to the AZ Promising Practices site: http://www.azpromisingpractices.com/ This site offers guidance to administrators, paraprofessionals, parents, related service providers, special education directors, and teachers of SWDs. |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
According to the state website, “The Special Education Learning Experiences for Competency in Teaching (SELECT) program, is available through a collaboration between ADE/ESS/PLS and the Northern Arizona University, Institute for Human Development. This program enables Arizona educational professionals to complete courses in special education through free online training. SELECT courses provide training to persons seeking to expand their skills in working with children with disabilities and are recommended for general and special education teachers, administrators, special education directors, related service personnel, and paraeducators.” |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The process for developing IEPs was revised in August of 2017: https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=59ce6b003217e11164cae4b9 |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Arkansas has required templates for standards-based IEPs. Training guides and other technical assistance resources are available to support the development of Standards-based IEPs, and a digital course is under development. http://www.arkansased.gov/divisions/learning-services/special-education/curriculum-assessment/standards-based-ieps |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
ADE provides an array of state-developed and external supports for RTI: http://www.arkansased.gov/divisions/learning-services/curriculum-and-instruction/rti Arkansas provides guidance to local education agencies on special education curriculum development and statewide assessment guidelines. http://www.arkansased.gov/divisions/learning-services/special-education/curriculum-assessment ADE consultant groups assist in meeting the challenges of providing 21st century special education services. The statewide professional development system is designed to build the capacity of local special education personnel and, to the extent appropriate, that of general educational professionals, as well. The state’s professional development system is focused on increasing online and blended learning opportunities to ensure professional development meets the needs of all educators. The Arkansas Co-Teaching Project assists districts in ensuring students are accessing and progressing in the general education curriculum. The Arkansas Co-Teaching Project provides support to schools interested in implementing a new co-teaching program or improving an existing one. Support is provided through comprehensive training, technical assistance, and informational resources. The Arkansas Collaborative Consultants provide schools, teachers, parents, and students with specific services and resources through a coordinated system of supports to maximize outcomes for all students, especially students with disabilities. |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The Arkansas Department of Education has accessed technical assistance from numerous Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded technical assistance centers, other national groups, and outside consultants to improve general supervision to local programs with the ultimate goal of building local capacity to increase results for students with disabilities. ● National Center for Systemic Improvement ● State Implementation Scaling-up Evidence-based Practices Center ● American Institute of Research ● National Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports Center ● Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center ● National Technical Assistance Center on Transition ● State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (CCSSO) ● South Central Comprehensive Center ● National Center on Deaf-Blindness ● National Center for Educational Outcomes
|
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
● Standards-based IEPs were implemented in 2013. ● Two dedicated positions to support curriculum and instruction have been added to the ADE Special Education Unit. ● Arkansas has developed Dyslexia guidance and supports specific to students with disabilities. http://www.arkansased.gov/divisions/learning-services/curriculum-and-instruction/dyslexia ● Arkansas has implemented the Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) Alternate Assessment. DLM provides instructional resources for teachers who teacher students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
California has some resources for aligning IEPs to the Common Core standards: http://cde.videossc.com/archives/032114/ |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
California utilizes a Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI2) model, with some criteria and guidelines written here: https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/sr/issforswd.asp |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
There are no known state partners. However, there is a plethora of links to internal and external Common Core Resources for Special Education: https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/cc/ |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
In 2014, the state published a lot of new content regarding the implications of the Common Core for SWDs: https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/cc/index.asp |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Colorado maintains a guidebook to support standards-aligned IEPs. This document was first introduced in 2014 and was revised in 2017: https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/guidance_ieps |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
Colorado uses a Five-Step Process for all educational teams to |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
There are no partners listed on the state website. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Colorado revised their guidebook document for standards-based IEPs in 2017. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The state website links to sources (not created by the department) for standards based IEP development: http://portal.ct.gov/SDE/Special-Education/Planning-and-Placement-Team-PPT-Process-and-Individualized-Education-Program-IEP-Forms |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
In Connecticut, Planning and Placement Teams (PPTs) are responsible for monitoring the placement and growth of students. While there are no detailed accommodation models that the state recommends, they indicate that they follow a "least restrictive" model: https://portal.ct.gov/SDE/Special-Education/Least-Restrictive-Environment |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
There are no partners listed on the state website. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Connecticut has an action plan that was started in 2012 in order to address the reading achievement of students with disabilities by the third grade. This action plan is in its third revision, most recently updated in 2017: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SDE/Special-Education/CT_Partb_SSIP_Phase3_Report.pdf?la=en |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The state supports the development of Standards Based IEPs through the WRITES initiative. This initiative focuses on aligning student IEP goals and assessments to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). https://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/2335 |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
There is no publicly accessible information on state guidelines for instructionally supporting SWDs. |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
There are no partners listed on the state website. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Though IEP documents are not available online, DCPS’ Special Education Programs and Resource Guide mentions that services in general education environments need to align with grade-level standards. The guide is found here: https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/ |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The state’s Least Restrictive Environment Toolkit provides guidelines for inclusion, inclusive environments, and providing access to the general education curriculum: https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/ |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
There are no mentions of state partners on the state or local website. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Information on changes to SWD policies are not available on the website. |
|
* Information on curriculum, SWD supports, and EL supports came from both the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) website and from the D.C. Public Schools website (DCPS).
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Florida's most recent individual educational plan (IEP) development guide describes the need for instructional supports, evaluations, and IEPS to be aligned with Florida standards: http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7690/urlt/0070122-qualityieps.pdf. PEER, our online IEP platform, supports a process approach to educational planning and IEP development. The student’s postsecondary goals in the areas of education/training and employment/career are identified at the start of the IEP development process. These goals are based on the student’s strengths, interests, and preferences that have been identified through all available data sources, including age-appropriate transition assessments. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
SWDs in Florida are supported through classroom accommodations, which are extensively outlined in their Accommodations: Assisting Students with Disabilities handbook: http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7567/urlt/0070069-accomm-educator.pdf. Access Points with Essential Understandings were completed in 2014 to support students with significant cognitive disabilities in the general education curriculum. Educators have no-cost professional learning opportunities available to them on topics that include: Universal Design for Learning, Differentiating Instruction (including Reading, Math and Science), Accommodations, Multi-Tiered System of Support, Making Reading Instruction Explicit, Reading Difficulties, Disabilities and Dyslexia, Access to the General Curriculum, Collaborative/Co-Teaching, Explicit Instruction, Florida Standards and ACCESS Points, Instructional Strategies, Strategic Instruction Model Content Enhancement Routines and Learning Strategies, Accessible Educational Materials, and The Responsive Classroom: Universally Designed and Differentiated. Professional learning in classroom management and behavioral interventions are also provided, including Positive Behavior Supports, CHAMPs, Discipline in the Secondary Classroom and Non-violent Crisis Prevention and Intervention. |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state collaborates with the University of South Florida on the “Student Support Services Project,” which supports the implementation of a statewide MTSS system: http://sss.usf.edu/aboutus/abouttheproject.html The state has a grant from the Collaboration for Effective Educator Development and Reform (CEEDAR) to work in partnership with educator prep programs with the goal of curriculum enhancement and reform. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There have been several significant statutory changes: Section (s.) 1003.438, F.S., which allowed the special diploma, was repealed and s. 1003.4282 F.S. amended to allow all students, including those with significant cognitive disabilities, the opportunity to work toward a standard diploma. S. 1003.57, F.S., requires that once every three years each school district and school must complete the Best Practices In Inclusive Education and develop short and long term goals related to increasing inclusion. S. 1012.585, F.S., requires all educators to take 20 hours of in-service credit focusing on instruction for students with disabilities to renew their certificates. S. 1001.215, F.S., requires Just Read Florida to work with teacher preparation programs approved pursuant to ss.1004.04and1004.85, F.S., to integrate effective, research-based and evidence-based reading instructional and intervention strategies, including explicit, systematic, and sequential reading strategies, multisensory intervention strategies, and reading in content area instructional strategies into teacher preparation programs. S. 1003.55, F.S., required the development of a model communication plan to be used to create IEPs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. S.1003.575, F.S., amended to include home and community as settings in which a student may need to use assistive technology: include assistive technology devices issued to a student be included in their individualized plan for employment and include the Office of School Choice in interagency agreements to ensure the transition of assistive technology devices. S. 1003.5715, F.S., requires parental consent for placement in a center school or administration of alternate assessments. S. 1002.20, F.S., prohibits school personnel from objecting to the attendance of any adult, or discouraging parents from inviting another person of their choice to the IEP meeting. S. 1003.572, F.S., Collaboration between public and private schools. Private instructional personnel hired by the parent must be permitted to observe the student and provide services in the educational setting. S. 1012.585, F.S., A new requirement mandating 40 hours of in-service training for teaching reading to students with reading difficulties/dyslexia/disabilities will be take effect July 2020. An increased emphasis on differentiating instruction and universal design for learning has permeated instruction and inclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The state expects Individual Education Program (IEP) goals to be written to support access to the general education curriculum and provides technical assistance to support this expectation. These guidance documents are located at, http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-Services/Pages/IEP-Webinars.aspx |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
Students with disabilities (SWD) are supported through instructional and testing accommodations, and the implementation of these accommodations are described here http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-Services/Documents/Sp%20Ed%20Implementation%20Manual%20Part%201_8-12.pdf. Testing accommodations for the Georgia Milestones End of Course and End of Grade tests are provided through online test administration or by other means according to the students IEP. Descriptions of these accommodations are provided in Assessment Resources and are listed at http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Pages/Information-For-Educators.aspx. Additionally, Georgia supports the Georgia Instructional Materials Center (GIMC) where Georgia’s public-school teachers are provided with accessible materials (AEMS) to enable SWDs to access their curriculum. http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-Services/GIMC/Pages/default.aspx. Instructional curriculum standards have been selected for students with severe cognitive disabilities These extended standards are listed here: http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Pages/GAA_Extended_Content_Standards.aspx. An instructional tool to support teaching extended standards is provided to Georgia’s public schools through the Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS). These resources are aligned and vetted with the extended standards. |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state website provides links to Accessible Educational Materials developed by external organizations: http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-Services/GIMC/Pages/default.aspx. The state DOE partners with the Georgia Department of Corrections and volunteer organizations to produce materials in accessible formats. Textbooks and curriculum units can be obtained by registered GIMC patrons at no cost to local districts. Public school teachers can request assistance producing open educational resources (OER) from volunteer braille transcribing organizations using the GIMC website, http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-Services/GIMC/Pages/default.aspx. The state also administers the American Printing House Quota funds for students who are blind. Teachers of the blind and visually impaired can request vision resources, i.e., supplies and equipment from the GIMC. http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-Services/GIMC/Pages/default.aspx |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
No major changes seem to have taken place since 2010: http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-Services/Pages/Special-Education-Rules.aspx |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Hawaii does not provide publicly accessible IEP resources aligned to their Common Core standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
While Hawaii has highlighted the benefits of co-teaching models on their Special Education page, they do not detail what this model should look like. There are no other publicly accessible curricular or instructional resources for SWDs on their website. |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state offers links to local organizations who can provide additional information primarily for parents. These organizations do not seem to provide instructional assistance for SWDs. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
According to the 2017 Special Education Handbook, specially designed instruction needs to be provided to ensure “access of the child to the general curriculum so that he or she can meet Idaho Content Standards” http://www.sde.idaho.gov/sped/sped-manual/ |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
Idaho provides a list of math and ELA interventions that districts can implement for their SWDs. These documents provide detailed information on each resource (e.g., notes on the pros and cons of the materials, key features of the materials, appropriate grade levels). Math interventions: http://www.sde.idaho.gov/academic/curricular/files/adoption-guide/math/intervention-math-k-12.pdf K-5 reading interventions: http://www.sde.idaho.gov/academic/curricular/files/adoption-guide/ela/intervention-programs/Intervention-Grade-K-5-Programs.pdf 6-8 reading interventions: http://www.sde.idaho.gov/academic/curricular/files/adoption-guide/ela/intervention-programs/Intervention-Grade-6-8-Programs.pdf |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state Special Education office funds the Idaho Training Clearinghouse, which provides special education professionals with trainings and resources: https://idahotc.com/ In addition, the state Special Education office funds the Special Education Support and Technical Assistance (SESTA) project that provides supports to special education personnel statewide. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Idaho's SWD special education manual is currently under review http://www.sde.idaho.gov/topics/admin-rules/ |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Illinois’ IEP form requires current academic performance to be assessed against the state standards, and for IEP goals to correlate to a certain standard: https://www.isbe.net/Documents/34-54-iep-forms.pdf |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
RtI supports are provided by the Illinois I-RtI Network. RtI responsibilities are generally described here: http://www.illinoisrti.org/i-rti-network/for-educators The state developed a guidance document to support determining special education eligibility within an RtI framework, though this is more regulatory than instructionally-focused: https://www.isbe.net/Documents/sped_rti_framework.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
In 2003, Illinois released a memorandum where they list the SWD office partners and the different projects they are involved in: https://www.isbe.net/Documents/lre_guidance.pdf. In 2011, the state partnered with nine universities to incorporate RtI content into pre-service program curricula and to collaborate with school districts: https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Response-to-Intervention.aspx |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
IDE supports the Indiana IEP Resource center, which provides a variety of resources for special education teachers. One resource is the IEP goal writing checklist, which ensures that goals are aligned to the standards: https://www.indianaieprc.org/images/lcmats/iepprocess/sagoals/GoalsCriteriaChecklist.pdf |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
Indiana uses the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework and provides short trainings and videos on how to implement this framework in the teaching of students with disabilities: https://www.doe.in.gov/specialed Additionally, the Indiana Resource Network, funded by the state’s special education grants, is comprised of a variety of organizations who do provide some tools for SWDs. One example is Project SUCCESS, which “strives to support teams of teachers and administrators in Indiana as they work to implement academic standards into instruction for students with disabilities. Project SUCCESS provides current, research-based resources related to content standards, instructional design, and student outcomes and is specifically designed to meet the needs of students with disabilities”: http://www.projectsuccessindiana.com/ Another example is the Indiana Center for Accessible Materials, which helps districts secure accessible books and materials: http://www.patinsproject.org/icam/icam |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state collaborates with at least 10 state organizations dedicated to SWDs through the Indiana Resource Network: https://www.doe.in.gov/specialed/indiana-resource-network |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Iowa provides an IEP template that includes drop-down menus of Iowa Core Content Standards to be used in the development of IEPs. https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/special-education/iowas-guidance-quality-individualized-education-programs-ieps/goal-page |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The state advocates for the use the least restrictive environment but does not have a specific curriculum or program model for SWD. https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/special-education/guidance-quality-ieps/special-education-services-activities-and-supports The Iowa Guidelines for the Use of Accommodations describes how/why to select, administer, and evaluate effective instructional and assessment accommodations for SWDs: https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/special-education/guidance-quality-ieps/special-education-services-activities-and-supports The state also issued a memo in 2006 outlining guidelines for teacher collaboration in a least restrictive environment for SWDs: https://educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/Collaborative%20Teaching%20Guidance.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The Iowa Department of Education partners with nine Area Education Agencies (AEAs) to provide additional supports for teachers and to exercise general supervision responsibilities of IDEA. Iowa has focused the State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) and the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) on the effectiveness of specially designed instruction to increase the reading proficiency of 3rd graders with IEPs. This is a collaborative effort of the Department of Education, Area Education Agencies, Local Education Agencies, Iowa’s Parent Training Information Center, University of Northern Iowa and national content experts and organizations. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Revisions to the Iowa Special Education Administrative code in 2010 and 2011 do not indicate changes to assessment, identification, or placement. https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/special-education/administrative-rules-special-education |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The KSDE partners with the Kansas Technical Assistance System Network, which provides webinars specifically focused on developing standards-based IEPs. https://ksdetasn.org/ksde/iep-trainings They also provide a handbook with activities to help educators practice creating standards-based IEPs: https://ksdetasn.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/resource/upload/52/IEP_Webinar_ |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The KSDE has developed a Multi-Tier System of Supports model to serve its SWDs. This system utilizes a feedback loop and provides research-based interventions for SWDs: https://www.ksdetasn.org/mtss/overview They have a detailed implementation guide for reading instruction (https://www.ksdetasn.org/mtss/overview) and for math (https://ksdetasn.org/resources/2004) |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The Kansas Technical Assistance System Network (TASN) supports districts’ implementation of evidence-based practices in the areas of Special Education, Early Childhood, and Title Services: https://www.ksdetasn.org/tasn/about-tasn |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The Special Education handbook was updated in 2017 but no major changes to SWD policies are apparent. http://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/SES/misc/iep/EligibilityIndicators.pdf |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The state’s Guidance Document for Individual Education Program Development walks educators through creating standards-based IEPs: https://education.ky.gov/specialed/excep/forms/Documents/IEP_Guidance_Document.pdf |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The state’s IEP and Lesson Plan Development Handbook outlines explicit instruction, scaffolded instruction, strategy instruction, direct instruction, structured overview, tiered instruction, concrete representational-abstract instructional approach, multiple means for practice opportunities, mnemonics, etc. It also describes strategies for supporting student access to the KY Academic Standards: https://education.ky.gov/specialed/excep/forms/Pages/IEP-Guidance-and-Documents.aspx The KDE requires implementation of the IDEA, which includes districts to have a continuum of educational settings for students with disabilities. The continuum includes full time general education and co-teaching environments. Placement decisions of students with disabilities is made by each student’s Admissions and Release Committee in accordance with each student’s least restrictive environment. |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state collaborates with the University of Kentucky on their parent involvement initiative, though this does not seem to be an instructionally focused partnership: https://www.hdi.uky.edu/spdg/parents KDE also utilizes KY Special Involvement Network (KY-SPIN) as its Parent Training Information (PTI) Center. PTI is required under the IDEA. Their primary purpose is to provide parents with timely information about special education, including state specific information, so that they may participate effectively in meeting the educational needs of their children. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018 |
The KY Administrative Regulations (KAR) have not been updated since 2008. These are KY’s implementing regulations for the IDEA. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The LDE provides step by step instructions to take to ensure that IEPs are standards based: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/assessment/2016-2017-ser-iep-user-guide.pdf?sfvrsn=4 Modules for developing IEPs are here: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/assessment/2016-2017-ser-iep-user-guide.pdf?sfvrsn=4 |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The Louisiana Connectors for SWDs, especially those with significant disabilities, outlines learning expectations across grade levels and content areas aligned to the standards: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/students-with-disabilities/k-12-louisiana-connectors-for-students-with-significant-disabilities.pdf?sfvrsn=16 In the math planning toolkit, teachers have access to K-8, Algebra I, and Geometry remediation guides and tools for Tier I instruction: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/k-12-math-year-long-planning In the ELA guidebooks, there are resources for students who need extra support with content and texts in advance of the unit. Finally, Strategies for Success: A Guidebook for Supporting Students with Disabilities resource provides strategies for providing high quality specialized instruction: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/students-with-disabilities/strategies-for-success-a-guidebook-for-supporting-students-with-disabilities.pdf?sfvrsn=10 |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The SWD website provides additional disability related resources: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/academics A variety of partnerships are outlined here: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/students-with-disabilities/louisiana-based-disability-resources.pdf?sfvrsn=2 |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Several of the resources listed above were updated in 2016 and 2017. In 2017-18, Louisiana began identifying schools that are persistently low performing with SWDs for targeted intervention. In 2017-18, districts had the option to submit a plan for improvement; beginning in 2018-19, intervention plans are required. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Maine’s IEP documents do not mention the standards or indicate alignment to the standards-based system. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
There are no instructional resources specific to SWDs found on the state website. |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The RtI resources website contains links to a variety of external organizations with resources, compiled by WestEd, University of South Maine, the Maine Principal’s Association, and the state department of education. No current partners that provide SWD instructional expertise are listed on the state website. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Guidance and resource materials from the MSDE DSE/EIS emphasize the critical importance of aligning IEPs to the MD College and Career Ready Standards (MDCCRS). These resources include: Technical Assistance Bulletin: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment: Improving Outcomes for Students with Disabilities (http://marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Documents/Special-Ed/TAB/MarylandTABImprovingOutcomesforSWD.pdf). On-line IEP learning modules: http://olms.cte.jhu.edu/olms2/moiep. “Present Levels of Academic and Functional Performance wizard” and “Goal wizard” tools within the on-line IEP system offer prompts and guiding questions to assist the team to develop an IEP that is aligned to the MDCCRRs. Online Reflection Tool that allows school and district leaders to review IEPs to assess their alignment to the MCCCRS and inclusion of characteristics of highly effective IEPs in order to plan professional learning and coaching of staff. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The MDOE generally describes program models for students with a range of disabilities. http://marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Documents/Special-Ed/IEP/MarylandIEPProcessGuide.pdf Almost 70% of school-age students with IEPs receive their instruction in the general education setting at least 80% of the day. The expectation is that all students with disabilities are taught the MDCCRS through the use of specially designed instruction to address needs resulting from their disabilities. These standards are part of a continuum of standards to include Developmental Guidelines for our youngest learners and Alternate Academic Standards for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Maryland’s model of special education service delivery is an integrated tiered system of supports in which all students receive “tier one” or “core” instruction based on the MDCCRS delivered using effective, evidence-based instructional strategies delivered with fidelity and supported by coaching. More intensive interventions are provided to small groups or individual students based on data. Across all “tiers,” specially designed instruction, based on the needs identified by the IEP, is provided to address the specific challenges and barriers created by the student’s disability and narrow the gap between the student’s performance and grade-level expectations. The intervention and progress monitoring features of the on-line IEP system Student Compass allow teams to capture the evidence-based intervention strategies selected to meet the student’s needs and to track the student’s response to the intervention and progress on IEP goals. For students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, the DSE/EIS has developed sample lessons aligned to the Core Content Connectors to support teachers in implementing rigorous, standards-aligned instruction. |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Maryland has partnered with national resource centers (such as Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation [SWIFT]), the National Center for Systemic Improvement, The Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, the Accessible Educational Materials Center, and the national Technical Assistance Center on Transition) to develop and disseminate resources and supports. Currently, Maryland has been the recipient of an intensive technical assistance grant award through the National Technical Assistance Center on Transition (NTACT) that aims to foster coordination and collaboration of state agencies that promote positive outcomes for youth in transition. In addition, Maryland is initiating an intensive technical assistance partnership with the Time, Inclusive Instruction, Engagement and State Support (TIES) Center to increase engagement in general education instruction and environments for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Locally, Maryland partners with the University of Maryland College Park and School of Social Work, Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Technology in Education, the Maryland Assistive Technology Network, the Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education, Parents’ Place of Maryland, and other organizations to develop and disseminate tools and resources for teachers and families. Discretionary grants from the DSE/EIS which focus on specially designed instruction support the local school systems to contract with experts to provide professional learning, utilize coaches to promote fidelity of implementation, and develop other supports based on local needs. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The Maryland State Department of Education, Division of Early Intervention/Special Education Services Strategic Plan, introduced in 2016, maintains a clear focus ensuring that all students are college, career, and community ready by narrowing opportunity and achievement gaps. To achieve this vision, activities are defined in three Strategic Action Imperatives: Early Childhood, Access Equity and Progress, and Secondary Transition. The three Action Imperatives are supported by five key strategies: strategic collaboration, family partnerships, evidence-based practices, data-informed decisions, and professional learning. The DSE/EIS is committed to Results Driven Accountability (RDA) to improve the results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities and their families. Each LSS is assigned to one of four supervision tiers: Universal, Targeted, Focused or Intensive—and provided a corresponding tier of customized support, differentiated based upon the level of need. In its effort to increase equity across student groups, Maryland adopted a new methodology, with tightened criteria, to identify the disproportionality, with a focus on placement, identification, and suspension/expulsion. Supports and policies that have been implemented to advance the Division’s goals include: Maryland annually issues a local performance Report Card with three-year trend data to impact and provide root cause analysis around compliance and outcome Indicators for students with disabilities. Indicators that are not met, require the development of an Improvement Plan which indicates the root cause and identifies local actions for improved outcomes. The local results indicate a specific tier of support, which includes a state-level regional liaison and national experts assigned to each Local School System based on its level of need. Each Local School Systems is given directed discretionary funds to support implementation of efforts around the three Strategic Imperatives. Local Implementation for Results plans are created to include data-identified needs, evidence-based practices delivered with fidelity and professional learning with supporting coaching to improve outcomes. The Division, then, conducts differentiated monitoring based on an LSS’s tier of support. Consolidation of eight Branches within the Division to five in order to streamline implementation of the Division’s Strategic Plan. Enhanced the Secondary Transition infrastructure at the State level to include regional liaisons, State and national content experts, strengthened relationships with partner organizations. Continued refinement and expansion of the online IFSP and IEP systems (including the supports for standards-aligned IEPs described above). Implementation of the extended IFSP option to the beginning of the school year following the child’s fourth birthday to promote a comprehensive, integrated birth – K system of supports for children with disabilities and their families. Training, coaching, and monitoring on the implementation of evidence-based instructional practices with fidelity from birth – age 21. Implementation of the requirement for parental consent for students’ participation in the Alternate Education Framework and/or Alternate Assessment and for the inclusion of restraint or seclusion in the IEP. Inclusion of the provision of integrated work experiences and other transition-focused activities in the evaluation of secondary school’s provision of a well-rounded curriculum in the State’s ESSA accountability plan for students who exit school with a Certificate of Program Completion. This may include entering the world of work through gainful employment, post-secondary education and training, supported employment, and/or other services that are integrated into the community. Training and monitoring around the appropriate use of text-to-speech and human reader accommodations on the State assessment and on eligibility for and appropriate administration of the alternate assessment. Identify differentiated career pathway program options that foster employment training opportunities for students with disabilities. Creation of The Center for Transition and Career Innovation through University of Maryland, College Park to promote research, innovations, and professional development opportunities that improve college and career outcomes for students and youth with disabilities. Partnered to create the University of Maryland Center for Early Childhood Education and Interventions. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Massachusetts provides a skill-based, not standards-based, IEP process guide that includes guidelines and suggested practices for creating and implementing IEPs that reflect skills a student needs to develop in order to access, participate and make progress in the general curriculum and the learning standards set forth in the curriculum frameworks http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/iep/proguide.pdf |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
Massachusetts has developed a Systems for Student Success (SfSS), which is their MTSS to support all students. Information form students’ IEPs is supposed to be incorporated into the design and implementation of SfSS. General guidelines for SfSS are here: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sfss/blueprint.html Math protocols for specially designed instruction are here, though a few of these protocols can be applied across content areas: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sfss/math-protocols/ More publications and presentations on MTSS are here: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sfss/presentations-pubs/ |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state lists the following partners, who assist districts with supporting MTSS implementation in districts: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sfss/partnerships/approved-priority-partners.html In addition, SEPP partners with many other organizations to provide professional development, technical assistance, etc. These include organizations such as: Mass Advocates for Children (MAC) (co-author of AAC guidance), WestEd, Federation for Children with Special Needs, Carroll Center, MSHA, MSPA, Pyramid Consortium. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known instructional changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Michigan does not provide IEP resources directly aligned to the state standards. https://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6598_36168-236252--,00.html |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
There are no curricular, instructional guidelines found on the state website. There is a “Practice Profile” for the state MTSS system on the website, where they lay out guiding principles, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the essential components of the system. However, no specific interventions are included in the document: https://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-28753_65803_86454---,00.html |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state funds a variety of initiatives to enhance supports for SWDs: https://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6598-158118--,00.html |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The Minnesota Department of Education does not provide IEP resources aligned with CCR standards. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
There are no instructional resources or tools available on the state website for SWDs accessing the standards. General descriptions of the state MTSS are here: https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/mtss/ |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
There are no partners listed on the state website that provide instructional expertise for SWDs. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The state’s Individualized Education Program Development Guidance outlines steps for creating standards-based IEPS: http://mdek12.org/sites/default/files/Offices/MDE/OAE/OSE/Info-and-Publications/iep-guidance-doc-2014-07-02.pdf |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The state provides detailed guidelines for RtI: |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state provides a variety of links to external organizations who offer supports for SWDs: http://mdek12.org/OSE/links |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
A search on 6/25/18 did not yield IEP resources aligned to Missouri's CCR standards. https://dese.mo.gov/special-education/compliance/individualized-education-program-iep |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The state offers general RtI guidelines from 2008: https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/RtIGuidance08.pdf The state also provides general instructional accommodations guidelines from 2009: https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/Missouri%20Accommodations%20Manual%20%202010.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state provides links to external resources: https://dese.mo.gov/special-education/effective-practices/related-links |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
While the Special Education in Montana resource document states that IEP goals must be aligned with the academic content standards, Montana does not provide IEP resources aligned to CCR standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
Montana uses RTI as a model to identify and support student with disabilities, though not much detail is provided regarding the implementation of this model. http://opi.mt.gov/Portals/182/Page%20Files/Special%20Education/Guides/One%20guide%20Updat |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
No national or local organizations were cited as partners. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
No changes were found on the state website. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The state’s IEP technical assistant document notes that IEPs should relate to the standards and provides guidance for writing IEP goals based on students’ mastery of the standards: https://www.education.ne.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Setting-Goals-Achieving-Results-3-11-14.pdf |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
One of the statewide supports that Nebraska has implemented is the "Improving Learning for Students with Disabilities" program, which ensures that all districts review their SWD programs to ensure consistent high-quality education for students with disabilities in the state. Teams of district and school level employees form committees to target their needs in a three-stage process. This three stage-process is founded on the RTI process, which is generally described on the state website. http://rtinebraska.unl.edu/learn_about_rti_why_implement.php |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state collaborates with the University of Nebraska by establishing the RtI Consortium, which provides PD to Nebraska’s schools. The Nebraska Department of Education references various state and national organizations to provide resources for educators of students with disabilities. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Special Education Exchange, Nebraska Youth Leadership Council, and First Five – Nebraska are among their partners. https://www.education.ne.gov/sped/resources/ |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Changes to SWD policies have been made to reflect the requirements of IDEA including criteria for alternative assessments and clarification on shortened day modifications. https://www.education.ne.gov/sped/ |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Nevada’s standards for developing IEPs do not mention alignment to the state content standards: http://www.doe.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/ndedoenvgov/content/Special_Education/IEPrevision.pdf |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
Nevada utilizes the RTI model, though there are specific instructional frameworks mentioned on the state website. http://www.doe.nv.gov/Special_Education/Response_to_Intervention/ |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
There are some external organizations listed for early childhood special education supports: http://www.doe.nv.gov/Special_Education/Early_Childhood__Special_Education_(ECSE)/ECSE_Resources/ |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
New Hampshire’s standards for SWDs do not include resources or guidelines for aligning IEPs with the CCR standards: https://www.education.nh.gov/instruction/special_ed/documents/pic_guide_ed1100.pdf |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
New Hampshire uses the "NH Responds RTI" model to ensure facilitate strategic decision making for the education of students with disabilities. https://www.education.nh.gov/nhresponds/index.htm Their document outlining the RtI model explains what ideal practice, emerging practice, and unacceptable practice looks like in each domain of the model: https://www.education.nh.gov/nhresponds/documents/nhresponds_model_rti_behavior_literacy_final.pdf |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The Bureau of Special Education has contracted with CAST [Center for Applied Special Education Technology], which supports educators in implementing Universal Design for Learning for all students, including SWDs. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
An archive of memorandums indicates that changes to SWD policy have taken place. These include updates and revisions to complaint manuals, IEP documents, and some procedures as detailed in the Special Education handbook. https://www.education.nh.gov/instruction/special_ed/memos/index.htm#leareportingrequirements |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The model IEP form on the state website requires goals to be related to the Common Core standards: https://www.nj.gov/education/specialed/form/ |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
New Jersey follows the New Jersey Tiered Systems of Support (NJTSS) framework to improve student achievement. This framework follows the "three tier prevention logic of Response to Intervention (RTI)" as cited in the special education webpage. The state provides at least three external resources per component of the NJTSS framework to support the implementation of these components: https://www.nj.gov/education/njtss/comp/ |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state provides links to external organizations who provide instructional resources for SWDs: https://www.nj.gov/education/specialed/resources/#top The department has partnered with the SPAN Parent Advocacy Network to support parents through their START program: http://www.spanadvocacy.org/content/start-engaging-parents-students-disabilities. Their regional Learning Resource Centers provide PD on implementing high quality services for SWDs. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
While no specific resources for standards-based IEPs are available, the IEP form used by educators in New Mexico references the state's content standards throughout the document and in their "Developing Quality IEPs" resource document. https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Developing-Quality-IEPs.pdf |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The use of RTI is part of New Mexico's Administrative Code, and is intended to support local education agencies in meeting the needs of students with disabilities. https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/NM-TEAM-Technical-Evaluation-and-Assessment-Manual.pdf |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state website provides some instructional guidance from external organizations here: https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/bureaus/special-education/laws-rules-guidance/ |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The New York State Department of Education references standards in their IEP guidance documents but does not provide specific resources to align IEPs to the Common Core Standards. In their lists of references they cite resources available for purchase through private parties that focus on this process. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/techassist/CSE-IEP.htm |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
In addition to statewide RTI procedures, the state also provides a variety of supporting documents and webinars for differentiating instruction for SWD. https://www.engageny.org/search-site?search=special+education |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The NY State Department of Education has partnered with the Metropolitan Center for Urban Education at NYU to provide professional development related to disproportionality. Additionally, the department has a list of national and regional resources for teachers and parents alike. They do not, however, endorse the resources provided on the links they provide: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/resources.htm#endorse |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Reference is made to the standards used (regular or alternative) in North Carolina's IEP template. A search on 7/12 did not yield results of resources aligned to the CCR standards. https://ec.ncpublicschools.gov/policies/forms/state-forms-directions/english-directions/directions-iep.pdf/view |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction appears to have a multi-tiered system of support for its students with disabilities. Their page was deactivated on 7/12 making the components of this plan unclear. |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction does not list organizational partners that support the state's SWD. They do offer a list of non-affiliated organizations that parents may refer to in the need of additional support: https://ec.ncpublicschools.gov/parent-resources/other-resources Upon request the office of Exceptional Children also provides in-school consultation on curriculum modifications for low-incidence disabilities. Broader disability supports are provided in the form of conferences, webinars, and quarterly institutes. https://ec.ncpublicschools.gov/conferences-profdev/training-materials |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Updates to SWD policies do not appear to have affected the processes of identification, placement and assessment for high incidence SWDs. Some modifications were made to students with particular low-incidence disabilities: https://ec.ncpublicschools.gov/policies/nc-policies-governing-services-for-children-with-disabilities/ncdpi-communication/2017-2018/ec-division-memos |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The North Dakota Department of Public Instruction provides a guidance document that assists in the process of writing standards-based IEPs for both ELA and Math. https://www.nd.gov/dpi/uploads/6/TransitiontotheCommonCoreStateStandardsIEPr1.pdf |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The North Dakota Department of Public Instruction follows the North Dakota’s Multi-tiered System of Supports (NDMTSS) framework to support the needs of SWDs in the state. This multi-tiered system includes procedures, including RTI, constant monitoring, and instructional interventions. https://www.nd.gov/dpi/uploads/60/GuidelineswithRTI.2.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
While the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction does not affiliate themselves with national organizations they provide a list of national and regional organizations in their Exceptional Children handbook. https://www.nd.gov/dpi/uploads/60/GuidelineswithRTI.2.pdf |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
While not official policy, the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction issued a Q&A document clarifying IEP, Evaluations and Revaluations based on IDEA in 2011. https://www.nd.gov/dpi/uploads/86/OSEPQA_IEPsEvaluationReevaluationSeptember2011.pdf |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
There are no explicit guidelines for creating standards-based IEPs, though there was one mention of creating IEP goals that support students in meeting the state’s educational standards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmkx3UDYC7M&list=PLDB1C5-YO_jiXo3RP-xIrJB5dwYSfuAtE&index=5 |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The Ohio Department of Education provides various tools for meeting the needs of SWD including instructional tools. These tools include general strategies as well as unit, lesson and assessment supports. http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Special-Education/Ohios-Learning-Standards-Extended/Instructional-Resources-for-Teachers-of-Diverse-Le Moreover, strategies for “struggling students” are embedded into each grade-level model curriculum document. |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Ohio partners with the Ohio Center for Autism and Low Incidence. http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Special-Education/Students-with-Disabilities/Resources-for-Autistic-Children/Ohio-Center-for-Autism-and-Low-Incidence-OCALI Other resources are included here: https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/English-Language-Art/Resources-for-English-Language-Arts/Tips-and-Tools-for-Diverse-Learners-in-English |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The state’s Special Education Process Guide stipulates that IEP goals must be aligned to the content standards and that accommodations should support students’ access to the standards: http://sde.ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/documents/files/OK%20Process%20Guide.pdf |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
OTISS, the Oklahoma Tiered Intervention System of Support, is the system Oklahoma uses to meet the needs of its SWD. The framework's webpage includes resources for implementation as well as professional development supports. http://www.otiss.net/pd-training-modules/ The state moreover provides a framework and resources for co-teaching (http://sde.ok.gov/sde/co-teaching) and multiple resources for UDL (http://sde.ok.gov/sde/universal-design) |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state provides links to externally developed curricular resources: http://sde.ok.gov/sde/special-education-instruction |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The Oregon Department of Education's required IEP document is supported by guidance documents indicating the need to specify particular standards. However, districts are allowed to decide how they want the standards to be specified; i.e., as clusters, individual standards, domains. https://www.oregon.gov/ode/students-and-family/SpecialEducation/publications/Pages/Oregon-Standard-IEP.aspx |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The Oregon Department of Education adopted the "Oregon Response to Instruction and Intervention (ORTIi) initiative" that encompasses a multi-tiered system of support, including RTI, in 2005. In the 2018-2019 school year it will begin an RTI initiative in elementary math. General resources for core instruction in an RtI framework are here: https://www.oregon.gov/ode/students-and-family/SpecialEducation/RegPrograms_BestPractice/Pages/ortiimathcadre.aspx |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The Oregon Department of Education does not list organizational partners but does list some national and regional organizations as resources. These include the OSEP's National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, and the NW PBIS Network. https://www.oregon.gov/ode/students-and-family/SpecialEducation/RegPrograms_BestPractice/Pages/PBIS-Resources.aspx |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Annotated IEP samples include many references to standards. The state also provides guidance documents for creating standards-based IEPs. https://www.pattan.net/forms/individualized-education-program-(iep)-(annota-(3)/ |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The Pennsylvania Department of Education uses a multi-tiered system of support the instructional needs of its SWD. Additionally, the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network provides instructional supports for the teaching of SWDs. Some of these supports include: Optimized Inclusive Practices in Pennsylvania Framework (http://pattan.net-website.s3.amazonaws.com/images/instructional/2017/04/07/OIP%20Framework%202016-17%20revised.pdf) |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The Special Education webpage does not list state partners. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The Rhode Island Department of Education provides resources for creating standards-based IEPs. http://www.ride.ri.gov/StudentsFamilies/SpecialEducation/IEP%E2%80%93IndividualEducationProgram.aspx |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The Rhode Island Department of Education provides and multi-tiered system of support, including RTI, to meet the needs of their SWD. Additionally, the department provides guiding resources for standards application to SWD for most content areas. This online module explains how to support SWDs in Tier 1 instruction in the RI MTSS model: http://www.ric.edu/sherlockcenter/rimtss/15/story_html5.html Supporting Tier 2: http://www.ric.edu/sherlockcenter/rimtss/13/story_html5.html |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
It is unclear if the state partners with national or local organizations to provide instructional supports for SWDs. The webpage does provide links to national and local organizations based on particular disabilities. One example is: |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policy. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The South Carolina Department of Education IEP system is housed in their Enrich IEP portal. No standards-based IEP resources were publicly available. https://ed.sc.gov/districts-schools/special-education-services/oversight-and-assistance-o-a/south-carolina-enrich-iep-system/ |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
A search on 7/13 did not yield specific curriculum, instructional, or program models recommended by the South Carolina Department of Education. |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state partners with some national and regional offices to provide additional resources to educators and parents. These organizations include the Centers for the Re-Education and Advancement of Teachers in Special Education and Related Services Personnel and the South Carolina Council for Exceptional Children. https://ed.sc.gov/districts-schools/special-education-services/programs-and-initiatives-p-i/ |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
In 2013, the South Carolina Department of Education revised its Education Process Guide. In 2016, it clarified some interpretations to comply with IDEA. https://ed.sc.gov/districts-schools/special-education-services/state-regulations/ |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The IEP Technical Assistance Guide stipulates that student goals on the IEP should be linked to the content standards: http://doe.sd.gov/sped/IEP.aspx |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The state offers an RTI Implementation Guide that outlines an overview of the different tiers of instruction: https://doe.sd.gov/sped/documents/RtI-ImplementationGuide.pdf The state was also awarded a State Personnel Development Grant focusing on literacy: http://doe.sd.gov/grants/SPDG.aspx |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The Department does partner with the state Center for Disabilities (the federal funded UCEDD project) information on training can be found at https://www.usd.edu/medicine/center-for-disabilities and in Special Ed program monthly newsletters and webinars: http://doe.sd.gov/sped/directors.aspx |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
Tennessee's guidelines for writing Instructionally Appropriate IEPs ensure that educators are aligning IEP goals with the standards. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
Tennessee provides a long list of resources for math and reading educators assessing SWDs and writing IEP goals. Moreover, their Special Education Framework (https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/special-education/sped_framework.pdf) offers detailed guidelines for evaluating students, writing their IEPs, and providing accommodations and modifications. Finally, they have a whole section of their website dedicated to extremely detailed RTI implementation resources for educators, administrators, and families: https://www.tn.gov/content/tn/education/instruction/tdoe-rti2.html |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
There are no partners that provide instructional expertise for SWDs listed on the state website. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Tennessee revised their Special Education Framework in the past year. Moreover, according to their website, "Tennessee has been implementing RTI2 in elementary schools since 2014-15 and middle schools since 2015-16. Beginning in the 2016-17 school year, implementation of Tennessee’s RTI2 Framework will be mandatory for all K-12 public schools, in all grade levels." |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The state provides a model IEP form, though it does not specify alignment to the state's content standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The state offers a booklet, Instructional Decision-Making Procedures for Ensuring Appropriate Instruction for Struggling Students, created by the University of Texas in Austin in 2014. The purpose of the booklet is to support educators' use of evidence-based interventions to prevent over-referrals to special education. There are no publicly accessible guidelines for instructing SWDs. |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state partners with the University of Texas in Austin, which provides coursework in RtI for special education teachers. Though not partners, organizations such as Childrens Learning Initiative and Reading Rockets are featured on the state website: The state also collaborated with the Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts (VGCRLA) to create special education materials for students accessing the general education curriculum. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
According to the website, "Since June of 2017, work has been underway at TEA to identify areas of strategic importance for improving special education programming in Texas." |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
There is no mention of explicit alignment between IEP documents and the state standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
Utah offers an extensive list of implementation tools to support MTSS, which can be found here: https://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/umtss. They also offer online modules related to MTSS, included more recent modules on effective literacy and math instruction for struggling learners, and a module for English learners with disabilities. |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
This MTSS site provides links to a variety of organizations throughout the country with MTSS/RTI resources: https://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/umtss |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
IEP forms changed in 2016. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The state's IEP forms specify that the student's present levels of educational performance need to be aligned to the standards or grade-level expectations. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The state website provides a list of resources specifically for educators, including a memo for co-teaching, a guide for determining whether ELs have disabilities, etc: http://education.vermont.gov/student-support/special-education/educator-resources#co-teaching. Resources that offer instructional guidelines for struggling students are found on their MTSS site: http://education.vermont.gov/student-support/multi-tiered-system-supports Resources that offer guidelines for students with disabilities who are English learners: http://education.vermont.gov/student-support/special-education/family-resources Resources that offer general resources for all educators: http://education.vermont.gov/student-support/special-education/educator-resources |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
There are 10 SWD partners listed on the state website, and these partners assist teachers and families with supports for SWDs. There are a few national organizations who work with VT, including SWIFT, NCSI, and various vendors. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no recent significant changes to instructional supports for SWDs. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The state website has multiple resources to assist teachers in writing a standards-based IEP. The state offers online training modules titled "Standards-based IEP Online Training", standards-based skills inventory worksheets, and a guide book to assist teachers in developing student IEPs. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
Virginia offers an RTI handbook titled "Responsive Instruction: Refining Our Work of Teaching All Children - Virginia's 'Response to Intervention' Initiative". http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/virginia_tiered_system_supports/response_intervention/ The document was developed to provide school divisions guidance for several reasons including but not limited to RTI's benefits and various ways the RTI model could be implemented. Additionally, the state provides resources to support literacy interventions for struggling students: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/iep_instruct_svcs/academics/index.shtml |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state provides a variety of outside resources for SWDs: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/index.shtml |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
There is no mention of alignment between IEP documents and the state standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The state website provides some general resources for Response to Intervention (RTI) procedures. http://www.k12.wa.us/RTI/ Access Point Frameworks in ELA and math with three levels of complexity are intended for students with significant cognitive disabilities: http://www.k12.wa.us/Assessment/WA-AIM/Frameworks.aspx |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state provides links to a multitude of external organizations with instructional resources and modules for teachers of SWDs: http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/ResourceLibrary/default.aspx |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to SWD policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The state provides resources with instructions for developing a standards-based IEP document. Additionally, the state provides an Online IEP Helpdesk if assistance is needed in developing an IEP document. https://wvde.us/special-education/individualized-education-program/idea-forms/ https://wvde.us/special-education/individualized-education-program/ |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
West Virginia provides a list of resources for tiered instruction in ELA and math that briefly outline instructional content, grouping, assessments, staffing, and other details: https://wvde.us/special-education/initiatives/ Some guidelines for instructionally supporting students with Specific Learning Disabilities, the most common type of disability for students in general education settings, are here: https://wvde.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sld_guidance_2015final.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state website provides links to external organizations that offer a variety of resources related to special education topics. http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/RtIResources.html |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Policy 2419: regulations for the Education and students with exceptionalities effective August 14, 2017. https://wvde.us/special-education/policies-and-compliance/policy-2419/ Policy 2520.16 West Virginia Alternate Academic Achievement Standards - Effective July 1, 2018: https://wvde.us/special-education/policies-and-compliance/policy-2520-16/ |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The state website provides several resources on its "College and Career Ready IEPs" page intended to help educators create IEPs aligned with the state’s focus on college and career readiness. https://dpi.wi.gov/sped/college-and-career-ready-ieps |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
The state offers robust guidance and implementation supports for an "Equitable Multi-Level Systems of Supports" framework booklet, focusing on system-wide improvement (https://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/). A detailed list of resources is available within the "Entry Points" pages. https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/rti/pdf/rti-emlss-framework.pdf The state is developing resources on co-teaching (https://dpi.wi.gov/sped/educators/consultation/co-teaching) and inclusive practices, and provides grant funding to support LEAs in implementing more robust inclusive practices. The state provides grant funding for Universal Design for learning demonstration sites, resources, and implementation supports (https://dpi.wi.gov/universal-design-learning). |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state collaborates with the Collaborative Educational Services Agency Network to create/maintain the federally funded Wisconsin RtI Center a robust network of discretionary grant projects focused on changing educational systems to positively impact outcomes for students with IEPs (https://dpi.wi.gov/sped/educators/discretionary-grants/summaries). The state partners with statewide professional organizations (special education leadership, building and district leadership, advocacy groups) to ensure consistent and aligned supports. The state also partners with national TA Centers and organizations, such as the State Implementation and Scaling up of Evidence-Based Practices Center (SISEP) (OSEP-funded), the National Center for Systemic Improvement (NCSI) (OSEP-funded), the IDEA Data Center (IDC) (OSEP-funded), NASDSE, and CCSSO. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
IEP forms were updated in May 2018. With Wisconsin’s focus on literacy outcomes for student’s with IEPs, multiple grant projects, supports to special education leadership, continuous improvement supports, and compliance foci have greatly shifted to more acutely focus on supports to increase outcomes for students with IEPs, particularly in the area of literacy. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for SWDs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards. |
The state does not mention standards in its IEP documents. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education. |
Wyoming's Department of Education, Division of Individual Learning, has a project called Wyoming Instructional Network. The project "provides information about special education resources, evidence-based instructional practices, professional development and other events." This information includes an overview of their MTSS framework from the National Center on RTI. Additionally, a guidance document on MTSS is "coming soon" according to the state website. http://wyominginstructionalnetwork.com/mtss/what-is-mtss/ |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state department contracts with the Wyoming Institute of Disabilities to provide accessible materials for students with print disabilities: http://www.uwyo.edu/wind/nimas/ |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
As part of the implementation of a new assessment system in 2017-18, Wyoming updated their Accommodations Manual, which includes supports SWDs can use in the summative assessment: https://edu.wyoming.gov/downloads/assessments/2018/WY-TOPP-Accomodations-Guide.pdf. |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Alabama Professional Learning Standard #11 states: “Effective professional development deepens educators’ content knowledge, provides them with research-based instructional strategies to assist students in meeting rigorous academic standards, and prepares them to use various types of classroom assessments appropriately.” |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The Alabama state website contains Power Point presentations, webinars, and documents that explain components of standards through a literacy lens (e.g., text complexity, writing, literacy standards for mathematics). The Alabama Insight Tool contains unpacked standards for systems, schools, and teachers. AMSTI Training in math and science is standards-based and provides kit resources with manipulatives and lab equipment to support math and science instruction. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The state website indicates that opportunities for teacher PD are listed in the Professional Learning Gateway, and that their Regional In-service Centers also provide professional development. AMSTI has created Professional Studies for administrators that is aligned with the initiative’s work in each region of the state. Each Professional Study can award a Professional Learning Unit toward the administrator’s recertification upon successful completion of the course. The Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) designs on-going professional learning for local reading specialists who support Grade K-3 teachers with implementing instruction aligned with reading and literacy standards found in the Alabama English Language Arts Course of Study. The ARI also designs professional learning for district and school leadership aligned with the literacy standards found in the Alabama Courses of Study and the reading and literacy goals described in each district’s ARI Professional Learning Support Plan (PLSP). |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Some teachers are not required to complete PD to renew teaching certificate. Alabama state’s policy specifies that teachers must obtain credit in an education preparation program, complete an academic course, or hold a doctoral degree in teaching field to renew license. Current requirements for the continuation of a valid renewable certificate are provided on page 213 of the document accessible via this link: http://www.alsde.edu/ofc/otl/Admin%20Code/290-3-2%20Educator%20Certification%20Chapter%20Effective%204-24-16.pdf Recently, a Professional Learning Commission was appointed to examine all aspects of professional development and to recommend enhancements as deemed appropriate. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
There are no publicly accessible standards for professional development aligned to the CCR standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
There is no publicly accessible information on PD pertaining to the standards. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
Alaska has an extensive list of eLearning courses available for school leaders and educators in Alaska. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Alaska requires all teachers complete six credit hours. At least three of the credit hours must be graduate credits, and the remaining three credits can be a mixture of varying levels of academic credit and non-academic credit. Additionally, Alaska mandates teachers complete four trainings to renew certificate. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Arizona provides a link to Learning Forward's professional learning standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
In the Event Management System, workshops tied to components of the content standards are offered throughout the year. An example of one of these workshops is: Arizona English Language Arts Standards Implementation and Planning Workshop. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
In the K-12 Standards Section of their website, Alaska has a form where teachers can RSVP for webinars in ELA and math. They also offer ELA and math workshops, which educators can sign up for in the Events Management System. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers are required to complete PD to renew teaching license. Arizona’s state website state teachers may complete 15 PD clock hours or complete one semester of college coursework for each term of certification to renew license. Additionally, teachers may choose among a list of other PD activities with set criteria to satisfy PD requirements. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
The Arkansas Department of Education has adopted the 2011 Model Core Teaching Standards developed by Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC). InTASC is a product of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). These Arkansas Teaching Standards are used in identifying competencies for all teachers and for advising teacher preparation programs in all Arkansas colleges and universities. Competencies for all teachers are not only aligned to the Arkansas Teaching Standards but are also aligned to the Arkansas Academic Standards, which meet the expectations for college and career readiness; therefore, the evaluation of programs in institutions of higher education must address the identified competencies, which align to college and career readiness standards. The expectations for in-service teachers continue the alignment to college and career readiness standards. For example, Arkansas Department of Education Rules Governing Professional Development state the following in section 8.01 Professional Development Criteria: All approved professional development shall be aligned to the standards developed by the State Board of Education. The purpose of the Rules Governing Professional Development is described in section 2.02: The purpose of professional development is to improve knowledge and skills in order to facilitate individual, team, school-wide, and district-wide improvement designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state academic standards. Since the state academic standards meet the expectations of college and career readiness, and professional learning must align to the Arkansas academic standards, there is a direct alignment of the standards for professional learning and the academic college and career readiness standards. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The Arkansas Department of Education offers a variety of professional learning opportunities for English language arts, math, and other disciplines that focus on understanding the college and career ready Arkansas Academic Standards. Statewide professional development provides model lessons and supports teachers to develop lessons that are aligned to the Arkansas Academic Standards. Some examples include the following: online learning modules housed on Arkansas IDEAS, lessons developed around artifacts created by teachers participating in the Arkansas Declaration of Learning, Inquiries created by Arkansas social studies teachers that focus on College, Career, & Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards, lessons modeled and practiced in the Reading Initiative for Student Excellence (R.I.S.E.), formative assessment tasks developed by teachers that support investigation of phenomena in Grasping Phenomenal Science (GPS) professional learning, and Math professional learning opportunities on topics such as Quantitative Literacy, Illustrative Math, Cognitively Guided Instruction, and formative assessment in mathematics. Each example aligns to the Arkansas academic standards and provides explicit examples of how the standards should be broken down and used to develop lessons for the classroom. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The Arkansas Department of Education provides approved courses on the Professional Development Submission & Management system. An additional system, ArkansasIDEAS, connects K-12 educators with quality, ADE-approved professional development and educational opportunities, as well as a wide range of trainings on multiple platforms, thousands of classroom resources, and state and national initiatives, such as STEM and TESS. The Arkansas Department of Education provides grants to support math, English language arts, and science specialists who provide professional development for districts across the state through regional educational cooperatives and university STEM centers. In addition to statewide training initiatives, these specialists provide targeted professional learning related to curriculum and instruction. Arkansas provides many professional learning opportunities that support teachers in the areas of curriculum and instruction. The following are examples: English Language Arts The Reading Initiative for Student Excellence (R.I.S.E) provides intensive, multi-day trainings for K-2 and 3-6 teachers through regional educational cooperatives around the science of reading that addresses curriculum and instruction. The Arkansas Department of Education website houses resources specific to reading curriculum and instruction. http://www.arkansased.gov/divisions/learning-services/r.i.s.e.-arkansas Math: Quantitative Literacy This course addresses personal and business finance as well as modeling, numerical reasoning, statistics, and probability. Participants spend time unraveling the standards and discovering how Quantitative Literacy is different from other math courses. Participants spend time diving into rich activities and tasks designed to stimulate discourse and mathematical thinking. Participants receive guidance on differentiation, formative assessment, and implementation. Activities and resources are shared. This is a Smart Core and 4th year math course.http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Curriculum%20and%20Instruction/Frameworks/ The Arkansas Inquiry Toolkit The Arkansas Inquiry Toolkit provides teachers with access to curriculum materials opportunities to learn more about using inquiry in Arkansas social studies classrooms. The instructional materials available here feature the Inquiry Design Model, an innovative approach to teaching and learning emphasizing teacher knowledge and expertise. The Toolkit project was funded by the Arkansas Department of Education. The College, Career, & Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards was used as the guidance document for the development of the Social Studies Curriculum Framework Documents. http://www.c3teachers.org/arkansas-c3-hub/ Arkansas Declaration of Learning This prestigious program is open to Arkansas school librarians and teachers of English language arts, fine arts, and social studies in grades 6-12. Selected participants will learn about historic art, objects, and resources from the Butler Center for Arkansas Studies, Clinton Foundation, Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Reception Rooms, and the William J. Clinton Presidential Library. At a summer workshop and during the 2018-19 school year, participants will work with representatives from these organizations and ADE to develop innovative units and lesson plans. Using historic objects and artwork, educators will also develop a student civic engagement project that addresses an issue in the community, state, nation, or world. The units and lesson plans are built around the Arkansas Academic Content Standards for the targeted discipline. Fine Arts Summer Professional Development In partnership with the Arkansas Arts Council and Arkansans for the Arts, the Arkansas Department of Education offered Taking It to the Schools: Community Experiences in Fine Arts professional development workshop series. Teachers, teaching artists, and community arts participants attended one-day trainings which focused on the potential collaborations between school arts programs and community arts organizations. Participants took away a series of instructional modules developed by the team of trainers. These modules will provided arts educators with rich resources that are specific to the artistic discipline they teach and aligned to the Arkansas Fine Arts Academic Standards. Disciplinary Literacy Standards The Arkansas Department of Education has funded and facilitated committees of educators to develop content-specific guidance documents for implementation of the Arkansas Disciplinary Literacy Standards. The documents address history/social studies, science, and fine arts (visual arts, music, and theater). Regional Educational Cooperatives and STEM Centers The Arkansas Department of Education grants funds to support content specialists at regional educational cooperatives and university-based STEM centers who not only provide professional development to support statewide initiatives but also develop professional learning opportunities around curriculum and instruction to meet learning needs of teachers in the districts they serve. http://www.arkansased.gov/contact-us/education-service-cooperatives Depth of Knowledge (DOK) and Formative Assessment (FA) Each summer specialist from the Arkansas Department of Education provide professional development through the education cooperatives. In the summer of 2018, specialists provided Depth of Knowledge (DOK) and Formative Assessment (FA) training focusing on how to use DOK and FA to plan and implement aligned curriculum that addresses the intended rigor of the content standards. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers are required to complete 36 PD annually to renew their teaching licenses. Arkansas Department of Education Rules Governing Professional Development Section 5.01 describe the professional development requirements: |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
California adopted their Quality Professional Learning Standards in 2014: http://cacompcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CA-Quality-Professional-Learning-Standards_Revised-March-2015.pdf In the 3 areas of Content and Pedagogy, teachers are expected to prepare students for colleges and careers. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The State Board of Education (SBE) has approved standards for English Language Arts (ELA), English language development (ELD), mathematics, science, career technical education, health education, history-social science, model school library, physical education, visual and performing arts, world language, and computer science. California’s curriculum frameworks serve as the cornerstone for the state’s efforts to improve the skills of teachers, principals, and other school leaders to address the specific learning needs of students and improve student outcomes. The SBE-adopted frameworks provide guidance to K–12 educators for implementing California’s academic content standards by outlining the scope and sequence of the learning trajectory across grade levels. They contain guidance on content and pedagogy, access and equity, and strategies for professional learning and leadership. Currently, state-level professional learning activities to support the dissemination of standards and frameworks are designed collaboratively by the CDE, SBE, county offices of education (COEs), the California Subject Matter Project (CSMP), and other entities as appropriate. California’s Standards Implementation Steering Committee, Collaboration Committees, and Communities of Practice support implementation through collaborative and coordinated efforts at the state, regional, and local levels in the areas of curriculum, instruction, and professional learning. In addition, the CSMP is an essential component of California’s professional learning infrastructure. With more than 90 regional sites statewide, the CSMP is a network of nine discipline-based communities of practice that promote high-quality teaching and leadership. CSMP activities are designed by university faculty, teacher leaders, and teacher practitioners to improve standards-based instructional practices that lead to increased achievement for all students. The CSMP encompasses the course content represented in California’s K–12 standards and frameworks, and covers all of the academic disciplines required to meet college entrance (“a–g”) requirements. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
In addition to the face-to-face activities described above, the state offers a variety of web-based resources to support professional learning of teachers related to curriculum and instruction. The CDE has made available a set of 14 professional learning modules that support educators to understand and implement the California standards for mathematics and ELA/ELD. The modules are housed on the Digital Chalkboard web site and are available online at no cost. The modules were developed for independent use or for use in local professional learning communities. Topics include mathematics, literacy across the content areas, assessment literacy, and instructional leadership. In addition, the CDE has curated a large collection of resources to support educator professional learning regarding the standards for mathematics and ELA/ELD. Finally, the CDE, the Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation, and the technology company Declara, Inc. have partnered to develop Collaboration in Common, an online professional learning community and resource exchange platform for all California educators. Thousands of California educators currently use this platform to share resources and ideas regarding curriculum and instruction. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
A Preliminary Credential is a teaching or service credential that is valid for five years. Preliminary credentials require the holder to complete additional specific requirements based on the preparation pathway and documentation submitted with the initial application for certification. Additional academic requirements, which depend upon where the preliminary credential was earned, must be completed to qualify for and upgrade to the Clear Credential. Teachers holding Clear Credentials are not required to participate in professional development to renew their credentials. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
While the authority over general professional learning standards are under the authority of local education agencies in Colorado, the state does have standards for the induction of new educators in statute and rule. Those standards are provided to programs and educators in user-friendly program evaluation rubrics available on CDE’s website. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
A search through Colorado's PD resources on March 1, 2018 yielded no PD specific to the CCR standards. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
On Colorado's state website, they provide a calendar with PD events, a library of on-demand resources, information about funding for school districts who align their PD with their improvement plans, teacher evaluation results, and student/community needs, and a yearly survey that educators can fill out to report on the quality of their induction/mentoring experiences. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers must complete PD activities. Colorado’s teachers must complete 90 PD clock hours or 6 college semester hours for a renewal of a 5-year certificate. Effective September 1, 2018 and every year thereafter, Colorado educators endorsed in elementary, math, science, social studies, or English seeking a renewal of their professional license must complete or demonstrate completion of professional development activities equivalent to 45 clock/contact hours or three semester hours in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Education within a full five year renewal period that meets or exceeds the standards outlined in section 5.12-5.15 of 1 CCR 301-37. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Connecticut's Professional Learning Standards require outcomes that aligned to the content standards: http://www.cea.org/assets/includes/shared/getFile.cfm?type=pdf&getFile=PL-Definition-Standards&loc=/professional/learning/standards/ |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
There is no publicly available information. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
For teachers, Colorado has the TEAM Program, which is a two-year induction program for new teachers including mentorship and professional development. Beginning teachers are also required to complete professional development modules aligned to their rubric for effective teaching. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
According to the state website, “Successful completion of the TEAM Program is required for eligibility to move from an Initial Educator Certificate to a Provisional Educator Certificate.” Additionally, teachers who possess a professional certificate are required to complete 18 PD hours annually each year. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Delaware adopted Learning Forward's Professional Learning standards and made them their Delaware Professional Development Standards. The reference to the standards is in regulation 9.1: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all students aligns its outcomes with educator performance and student curriculum standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Delaware provides an extensive list of ELA online courses, video series, and modules around text complexity, writing, academic vocabulary, close reading, and other components of ELA instruction. There are fewer math professional learning resources, as their state website says that online courses reflecting CCR math concepts are "coming soon." |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
For professional development providers, Delaware's website includes links to professional learning toolkits to support the implementation of CCR standards found on Alabama's, Arkansas', Florida's, and Louisiana's state websites. For teachers, they offer a wide range of professional learning modules on their website: https://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/2427. Finally, in 2017, "Delaware Department of Education awarded 21 elementary, middle, and high schools across the state a collective total of $320,390 to aid in their efforts to redesign professional learning around improved student achievement." |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers must complete PD. Teachers are required to complete 90 PD clocks hours within 5 years or complete activities outlined in the “Continuing License Option’ charts. Additionally, educators holding an Initial License or needs development must also complete a year of mentoring. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
There are no publicly accessible professional learning standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
They provide school leaders and teachers with modules that show how educators implement the Common Core standards in action. D.C. Public Schools' LEAP program supports teachers on a weekly basis with designing Common Core-aligned curriculum. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The Office of the State Superintendent for Education provides a catalogue of professional development offerings that are both in person and online. D.C. Public Schools has also built a program of weekly, content-based professional learning for educators called LEAP: https://dcps.dc.gov/page/leap-teacher-professional-development |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers must complete PD activities to renew teaching license. The district’s website states that teacher must complete 120 PD clock hours within the 4-year term or 8 college credits; or teachers may complete a combination of PD hours and college credits to satisfy the PD requirement. |
2 |
* Information on curriculum, SWD supports, and EL supports came from both the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) website and from the D.C. Public Schools website (DCPS).
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
In 2003, Florida passed legislation that "sets forth that the purpose of professional development systems is to increase student achievement, enhance classroom instructional strategies that promote rigor and relevance throughout the curriculum, and prepare students for continuing education and the workforce," while ensuring that the focus of professional development must be on teachers and leaders helping students to achieve Florida’s rigorous content standards. Florida established professional development standards that were in alignment with national standards and a protocol for evaluating professional development in 2002, and revised the standards and protocol in 2010. These same standards are currently in place, although Florida will soon propose changes to its professional development standards that may lead to significant changes in the protocol for evaluating professional development. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The Florida School Leaders website offers professional learning supports (i.e., 100+ online courses, resources from other teachers) about quality instruction related to the academic standards, and these resources are intended for school leaders, teachers, coaches/mentors, and aspiring educators, Additionally, PD for standards implementation topics is provided on CPALMS website: http://www.cpalms.org/Public/search/ProfessionalDevelopment |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
From the website: "Section 1012.98, Florida Statute, School Community Professional Development Act, states that the Department of Education, public postsecondary educational institutions, public school districts, public schools, state education foundations, consortia, and professional organizations in this state shall work collaboratively to establish a coordinated system of professional development." Additionally, every year the state reviews districts' professional development systems on a 4-point scale and publishes their findings. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Florida requires all teachers to complete PD hours to renew teaching certification. Teachers to complete college credits consisting of six semester hours, and one semester hour must entail instructing students with disabilities. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards |
Georgia utilizes the Learning Forward professional learning standards, and the state website indicates that the frameworks in their online professional learning system offer guidelines for districts and schools creating curricular materials aligned to the standards. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Georgia’s Competency and Academic Standards Exchange contains professional learning pathways to help teachers design standards-aligned instruction. Other publicly accessible professional learning resources include webinars on Universal Design for Learning, a link to "All Things PLC," and a link to their Georgia Professional Standards Commission, which has videos, guidelines, and other materials to assist with the implementation of Georgia's professional learning model. These videos allow educators to watch how professional learning communities use student test data, how they use protocols for collaborative work, etc. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
Georgia houses their professional learning in their Competency and Academic Standards Exchange, which stores "machine-readable data- rather than a 'stack of PDFs'- [that] will assist Georgia districts, schools, and those creating curricula materials and open educational resources in ensuring tight alignment to our state's academic standards" (State School Superintendent Richard Woods). |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Georgia requires employed educators to participate in professional learning for certification renewal. Educators must work with their direct supervisor to develop a Professional Learning Plan (PLP) or Professional Learning Goals (PLGs) and must satisfy the PLP/PLG, as verified by the employer, for certification renewal. Educators not employed at the time of renewal or in positions not requiring certification fulfill renewal requirements by completing a combination of six semester hours of college credit, ten Georgia Professional Learning Units; ten Continuing Education Units; 100 clock hours of Bright From the Start approved-training, or by retaking the GACE content area assessment in the field(s) of certification held and earning a passing score. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
There are no publicly accessible PD standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Hawaii's state website does not specify how the professional development helps teachers understand the specifics of the content standards. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
Hawaii offers a Teacher Leadership Initiative, which was established with the NEA and National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and the Center for Teaching Quality. New teachers receive 3 years of intensive induction and mentoring through the New Teacher Center. For current teachers, the Hawaii state website lists a variety of opportunities for teacher learning spanning content areas and disciplines: http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/EducatorEffectiveness/ |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Teachers are not required to earn PD to renew certificate. In order to renew certification, teachers must receive a satisfactory rating in each area of their professional development plan and most recent teacher evaluation conditional on the plan and evaluation aligning with Hawaii Teacher Performance Standards, but it is not specified how teachers must meet the ten standards to renew certificate. Teachers could also satisfy the requirements by receiving a National Board Certification in their subject area field. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
There are no publicly accessible PD standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Some examples of existing PD course offerings pertain to Gifted and Talented Students, College/Career advising in elementary grades, maximizing school counselor impact, an elementary teacher institute for science/literacy/inquiry, and strategies for English Learners. The PD catalog did not offer anything specific to the ELA and math standards. However, the website for the Idaho Coaching Network states that they offer "opportunities for teachers to gain further experience and expertise in the development of Idaho Content State Standards lesson, units, and assessments." The websites provide links to Google resources unpacking the standards and content areas. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
For all educators, Idaho offers an Educational Resource Library, which contains a PD catalog, external PD resources, a portal for suggesting PD topics, etc. Additionally, the Idaho Coaching Network assigns coaches to districts as classroom teachers, and they provide PD to support the key shifts in the standards. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers are required to complete six PD hours to renew certificate. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
There are no publicly accessible PD standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The Illinois Literacy in Action website, developed by the Illinois Classrooms in Action program, targets teachers, literacy leaders, curriculum directors, and administrators across grade levels. The site contains resources unpacking literacy tasks, different aspects of the standards, what counts as evidence, etc. The Math Teachers in Action site similarly provides resources for K-8 Math teach & talk (http://www.ilteachandtalk.org/), toolkits that explain the shifts in the math standards, links to videos, lessons, units, etc. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
For teachers, Illinois' Classrooms in Actions team, comprised of content specialists, develops K-12 resources relevant to each of the content areas. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers are required to complete PD. For teachers who hold a bachelor’s degree, they are required to complete 120 PD hours; 80 hours for teachers who hold one advanced degree; 40 PD hours for teachers who hold two or more advanced degrees within the 5-year term. In 2019, all educators will be required to complete 120 PD hours regardless of degree type. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
There are no publicly accessible PD standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
In 2014, Indiana posted PowerPoints from their breakout sessions explaining the shifts in the revised ELA and math standards. The PowerPoint presentations are specific to elementary math and ELA educators, and secondary math and ELA educators. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
Indiana's site includes a variety of personal learning opportunities for administrators and educators targeting digital learning or personalized learning. Their Learning Connection database helps educators "collaborate with others across the state." |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All levels of certification require PD. Teachers holding an Initial Practitioner’s license or 2-year license must provide a 90-point professional growth points (PGP) or take a test before a third renewal; Teachers holding a Proficient Practitioner’s or 5-year license must complete 6 hours of coursework, 90 PGP, or possess a National Board Certification. Teachers possessing an Accomplished Practitioner’s or 10-year license can renew with coursework, a 90- point PGP, or National Board Certification. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Iowa's guidelines for districts and schools establishing professional development models reference the need to align professional development around an analysis of student performance on the standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The ELA PD resources- some of which are developed by Iowa teachers, and some of which are links to external resources such as EngageNY, IES, and the Teaching Channel- are designed to help teachers create CCR-aligned lessons. The math PD resources on Iowa's site are mostly developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, EngageNY, and Achieve the Core, and they help teachers think through effective practices for teaching to the math CCR standards. There are professional learning modules, and networks (Core Advocates) found on Iowa AEA PD Online. Specifically modules entitled standards based professional learning opportunity will be released early 2019. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
Iowa's website provides a wealth of resources (i.e. steps and tools) to support districts in designing and implementing professional development: https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/educator-quality/iowa-profesional-development-model They also provide videos, blog posts, and coaching resources for literacy and math instruction, many of which are links to nationally developed and vetted resources: https://iowacore.gov/content/professional-learning-resources-literacy. Statewide voluntary PD around the standards are offered on a ongoing rotation. In addition, there are ELA and Mathematics Statewide Leadership Teams to help provide feedback, identify/create resources, and deliver instructional resources. The members of these teams receive professional learning from national experts annually. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers are required to complete PD activities. A standard renewal requirement requires six credits and mandatory reporter training. A master’s educator renewal requirement requires four credits and mandatory reporter training. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
The state adopted Learning Forward's professional learning standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The state offers literacy PD that unpacks topics on disciplinary literacy and problem-based learning, while their math site includes session descriptions on "moving to procedural fluency from conceptual understanding" in various mathematical domains. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The website for Kansas' College and Career Readiness Standards offers links to multiple PD workshops for literacy and math instruction as well as dates for Regional Math Professional Learning days, topics for math-specific District Trainings, and names of state-trained math specialists. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers are required to complete PD activities. To renew teacher certification, teachers who possess a graduate degree must have 120 PD points, and teachers who do not possess a graduate degree must have a 160 PD points. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
The Professional Learning Standards "provide a framework for professional growth" so "students can meet the expectations needed to be college, career and civic ready." |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Kentucky's partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation offers specific support around implementing ELA and math standards through the Literacy Design Collaborative and Math Design Collaborative The state also offers specific guidelines and rubrics for districts and schools designing professional learning plans. SB 1 (2017) also requires that the KDE provide professional learning around the implementation of revised Kentucky Academic Standards. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The state's Educator Development and Equity website provides links to over 10 opportunities for professional learning and support, including links to the Instructional Transformation project that "advances implementation of the Kentucky Academic Standards." The Continuous Instructional Improvement Technology System contains learning modules developed by Kentucky's teachers. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Teachers are required to complete 15 graduate hours or half of Continuing Education Option (CEO) requirements during their initial 5-year renewal of certification. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
The state adopted National Staff Development Council’s 2001 Standards for Staff Development, which were created before the shift to CCR standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The annual teacher leader summit offers trainings on literacy and math pedagogy related to the standards, and the state posts materials online. The state website also contains Common Core aligned videos to support teacher practice. Finally, the state offers guidebooks for districts and school leaders in designing and implementing PD. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The state trains content leaders in content, pedagogical content knowledge, and implementing the curriculum, and they are training mentor teachers to support pre-service, new, and struggling teachers. These trained leaders help advise the state. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Some teachers are required to earn PD to renew teaching certificate. Teachers who have a Level 1 certificate or Type C certificate can lengthen their certificate for 3 more years at the request of their school district. Contrastingly, teachers who hold a Level 2 or Level 3 certificate must earn 150 Continuing Learning Units (CLUs). |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
The state provides a menu of approved professional practice models. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The state website offers resources for mentoring models and train-the-trainer models and modules to help educators understand the ELA and math standards. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The state website provides online modules that explain the shifts in ELA and math standards and training modules for coaches and mentors. They also have a link to a survey asking teachers what their PD needs and interests are. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers must show that they completed six renewal credits within 5 years to renew certificate. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Maryland is transitioning from the 2011 Maryland standards to the National Learning Forward Standards. The national standards are in use at the state level and in most of the Maryland districts. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Maryland's Blackboard website for educators contains links to a few videos on ELA and math Common Core modules. Maryland has provided extensive in-person and virtual professional learning on implementing the standards, unpacking the standards, using data to meet student needs aligned to the standards, and instructional practices that align to the fidelity and rigor of the standards. This professional learning includes annual summer conferences and academies; ongoing workshops and webinars; use of CoPs and peer coaching; use of formative assessment; online courses; follow-up sessions and site visits. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The state website links to a Blackboard website with a few announcements for professional learning opportunities. The state provides a list of all approved Maryland Continuing Professional Development courses (https://msde.blackboard.com/webapps/portal/execute/tabs/tabAction?tab_tab_group_id=_104_1) In addition to the activities listed above, Maryland has a professional learning program that ties professional learning to teacher and student needs. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers are required to complete six semesters of approved credits to renew teacher certification. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
The Massachusetts Standards for High Quality Professional Development does not mention students' college and career readiness, though it requires alignment with state, district, school, or educator goals/priorities. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Instructional support networks across the state are geared towards district leaders, content leaders, and educators across grade levels and subject areas. The networks meet several times a year and they focus on implementing core instructional components of the standards. The state also offers guidelines and case studies of districts successfully implementing high quality PD. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The state hosts content network meetings throughout the state. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Individuals with Massachusetts' professional licensure must engage in sustained professional development. Professional development activities must be identified by the educator and supervisor during the development of, and review of, the educator’s Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP) required for license renewal. IPDPs must include at least 150 PDPs that break down as follows: At least 15 PDPs in content (subject matter knowledge); At least 15 PDPs in pedagogy (professional skills and knowledge); At least 15 PDPs related to Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) or English as a Second Language (ESL); and At least 15 PDPs related to training in strategies for effective schooling for students with disabilities and the instruction of students with diverse learning styles. The remaining required 90 PDPs may be earned through either "elective" activities that address other educational issues and topics that improve student learning, or additional content, and/or pedagogy. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Michigan uses the Learning Forward professional learning standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Michigan's Strengthening Tomorrow's Education in Measurement Project supplies a multitude of links to PD presentations on understanding and teaching math standards related to measurement. Additionally, their Early Literacy Initiative provides a few links to videos supporting teachers in understanding and delivering literacy pedagogy. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction |
The state website provides a few video PD resources on mathematical measurement and early literacy. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers holding a Standard certificate and Professional certificate must earn 150 PD hours within five-year term to renew certification. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Minnesota provides many tools to assist with the professional development of teachers, with the ultimate goal of making their students college- and career-ready. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The state website offers one learning module providing an overview of the K-12 ELA standards, a module on the writing standards more specifically, and a handful of math webinars on mathematical practices that connect to the standards. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
According to their website, "The Minnesota model for teacher development and evaluation was developed by a group of educators and community members who consulted with the commissioner in 2011." The state has created a handbook, a rubric for local districts designing their own teacher development and evaluation models, a rubric for professional teaching standards, and a rubric for student learning goals to aid the implementation of the state's professional development model. Their website also contains resources to help school leaders observe classrooms and have coaching conversations to professionally develop their teachers. Finally, there are a multitude of partnerships to support ELA (Leadership in Reading Network, Minnesota Writing Project, Higher Education Literacy Partnership) and Math Leadership Network meetings and webinars. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Teachers are not required to complete PD hours to renew their teacher certification. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Mississippi adopted the Learning Forward professional learning standards in 2012. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The Office of Professional Development coordinates state-wide trainings and face-to-face and online trainings on demand. The professional learning opportunities supported by the Office Professional Development focus on the state standards, supplemental resources, as well as evidence-based best practices. The 15 regional professional development coordinators offer an extensive Menu of Services that delves deeply into the ELA and mathematics CCR standards: An Online Professional Development Catalog is also available to educators at https://districtaccess.mde.k12.ms.us/curriculumandInstruction/Professional%20Development/ |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
Through a partnership with the University of Mississippi, the MDE provides professional learning through a regional service model and an on-demand professional development model. The regional service model is comprised of six regional service centers that disseminate MDE professional learning throughout the state. The MDE collaborates with the University of Mississippi to employ 15 professional development coordinators to deliver on-demand training in the areas of English Language Arts mathematics, science, and special education." Both face-to-face and online trainings are available to educators. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
The state of Mississippi offers teachers various options for engaging in targeted professional learning activities for the purpose of licensure/certificate renewal. While the credits earned through specific professional learning activities teachers engage in are not referred to as PD hours, teachers are required to complete either a required number of clock hours or course credit hours or successfully complete the National Board certification process to renew a certificate based on the Class Level of the certification held. Teachers holding a Class A (Bachelor’s level) certificate are required to complete ten (10) (100 clock hours over a five year period) “continuing education units” in their content/job-related area; or three (3) semester hours of coursework and five (5) (50 clock hours over a five year period) continuing education units; or six (6) semester hours of coursework; or complete the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards process to renew certificate. Additionally, teachers who hold a Class AA (Master’s Level), AAA (Specialist Level), AAAA (Doctorate Level) certificate are required to complete three (3) semester hours of coursework in content/job-related area; or five (5) continuing education units; or complete the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards process to renew certificate. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Missouri’s Professional Learning Guidelines for Student Success use Learning Forward’s professional learning standards, aligned to the Missouri Learning Standards as a framework to ensure that students graduate from high school college- and career-ready. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The State of Missouri provides financial support and leadership for 10 Regional Centers across the state. Year-long programs are provided to beginning teachers as well as those that are more advanced in their career. The state provides research-based statewide opportunities focused on student engagement, effective teaching practices, standards and assessment, classroom culture and management, and curriculum development. The state opportunities bring together teachers from across the state to learn and grow in collaboration with peers. The Regional Centers then follow up with monthly regional meetings to dig deeper into the content. In addition to these year-long programs, the Regional Centers provide targeted learning opportunities such as: Unpacking the Standards, Literacy, Math Coaching, Writing Strategies, Standards-based learning, Missouri Standards-Science, Missouri Standards-Math, STEM, Critical Thinking, Arts Integration, Deconstructing the Standards, Technology, etc. Missouri curriculum directors lead content collaboratives and colloquia in ELA, math, science, social studies, English language development, health and physical education, fine arts and dyslexia. Each group focuses on specific standards implementation. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The Teacher Academy and Teacher Academy Grads -each a year-long program focus on instructional strategies aligned to the standards. In addition, the state-wide Beginning Teacher Assistance Program and Mentor Training provide support for new teachers around standards, effective instructional strategies, classroom culture and climate and also behavior management. The state website provides links to regional professional development, standards and recommended texts and videos. Missouri also provides a New Teacher Institute (NTI) for Career and Technical Education (CTE) teachers entering the profession directly from industry. This institute introduces new teachers to learning theory, curriculum design, unit and lesson planning, formative and summative assessments, instructional strategies, online instruction, classroom management, development of a course syllabus, legal and safety issues and information on working with students with special needs. All Missouri teachers are required to participate in a district-provided mentoring program during their first two years of teaching. A comprehensive one-year mentoring program is available to all CTE teachers in the state. This program may supplement, or take the place of, one year of district-supported mentoring. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Teachers must complete 30 hours of PD in years 1-4 for reactivation of their certificate. Teachers in year 5—99 must complete 15 hours annually until they complete two of the three of the following are met: 1) 10 years of experience; 2) Next higher degree; and 3) National Board Certification. Career and Technical Education teachers entering the profession directly from industry must complete six specific bachelor-level courses during their first three years of teaching to earn their initial certification. The state’s New Teacher Institute (NTI) for CTE teachers is aligned to the University of Central Missouri’s (UCM) undergraduate CTE program and counts as the initial education foundations course. Participants have the option of earning college credit through UCM, as well as earning a certificate from the state, indicating completion of the initial course requirement. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
There are no publicly accessible PD standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Montana's Teacher Learning hub has math courses, called STREAM courses, which "are collaborative and relevant with the goal of increasing teachers’ knowledge and skills in Common Core mathematics content, Mathematical Practices, and STEM experiences in student learning." For ELA, the currently available courses are deep dives into writing standards and close reading strategies. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
Resources for teacher professional development are located in their Teacher Learning Hub. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers are required to complete 60 OPI (Office of Public Instruction) renewal units or any mixture of renewal units or college semester credits or quarter credits to renew teaching certification. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Nebraska has not adopted professional learning standards. The Learning Forward Professional Learning Standards are most commonly used and referenced. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Nebraska’s Content Area Standards Implementation Framework identifies the roles and responsibilities for NDE, ESUs, District Administration, School Administration, and Teachers across five categories of work for four stages of implementation (https://www.education.ne.gov/contentareastandards/content-area-standards-implementation/). When content area standards are approved by the State Board of Education, an implementation framework/toolkit is provided as support for implementation of the revised standards. For example, an implementation toolkit was developed for Nebraska’s College and Career Ready Standards for Science. Another example of content-specific PD is Nebraska's Write Way workshops, in which "participants will learn a number of [writing] strategies aligned with the 2014 Nebraska ELA standards, including a special emphasis on text-dependent analysis (TDA)." They additionally offer free "Make it Stick" webinars that highlight key reading and writing strategies applicable to all disciplines: https://sites.google.com/a/education.ne.gov/nde-standards-instructional-tool/ela/making-it-stick |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
In addition to offering free reading and writing workshops and webinars spanning multiple disciplines and the copies of PD presentations shown at math conferences, Nebraska offers links to a variety of national and state resources, partnerships, and organizations that support mathematical and literacy teaching. They also offer guidelines for parents who may want to reinforce the elementary math standards at home. In addition to these resources, Nebraska offers a variety of tools and rubrics to assist local practitioners with the develop of educators' professional development plans. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Teachers are not required to complete PD to renew license. To renew teaching certificate, teachers are required to have current teaching experience for one year of the previous five years or earned six graduate semester hours. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Nevada utilizes Learning Forward's professional learning standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Each regional program offers their own PD related to the ELA and math standards—there are no, publicly accessible statewide PD opportunities specific to the standards. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
Professional development for teachers and administrators is legislatively funded through the Regional Professional Development Programs. According to their state website, Nevada also has an "Advisory Task Force on Educator Professional Development to study certain issues relating to professional development of teachers, school administrators and other educational personnel." |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers are required to complete 6 PD credits to renew teaching license. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
There are no publicly accessible PD standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
There are no statewide PD topics specific to the content standards that can be publicly found on the state website. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
New Hampshire has a Professional Standards Board, which consists of 9 teachers, 9 administrators or higher education representatives, 2 community members, and the Director of Division of Program Support, advises the state board on professional growth opportunities. Their website does not include references to statewide PD supports, but they are creating virtual networks for teachers and principals to collaborate around their problems of practice. They also require each local district to develop a 5-year PD master plan. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers are required to complete PD activities: 30 hours for every endorsement and 45 hours to meet professional education requirements to renew teaching license. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
New Jersey's Professional Standards for Teachers were updated in 2014 to align with the 2011 content standards, and to support students in becoming college- and career-ready. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
There are no statewide PD topics specific to the content standards that can be publicly found on the state website. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
For teachers, the state department mandates PD in reading disabilities, protecting students from harm, health, and other areas not directly related to curriculum, and they surveyed districts and charter schools in 2015 to 2016 to determine how they handle these PD requirements. One finding is that 91% of surveyed districts allow teachers to count this state mandated PD towards their annual PD requirements, with 79% of these respondents reporting that state mandated PD limited time spent on instruction or leadership in PD. According to their 2013 revisions to their PD regulations, they have a 16-member State Professional Learning Committee comprised of educators and education stakeholders to advise the Commissioner on PD policies and supports. These revisions also call for each district, school, and individual teacher to develop their own professional learning plans on a yearly basis. Finally, in addition to funding six higher education institutions to partner with districts in supporting new teachers and their teacher mentors. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Teachers are not required to earn PD to renew teaching certificate. According to teacher-certification.com, teachers who have a 2-year provisional certificate are required to complete the Provisional Teacher Program during their first year to renew certificate. Certificate can be renewed up to two time. On the other hand, Standard Certificates are permanent and does not need to be renewed. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
There are no publicly accessible professional learning standards for New Mexico. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
There is summer professional learning available for math teachers interested in deepening their conceptual understanding and skills related to the math standards. There are no publicly accessible opportunities for ELA PD specific to understanding the standards. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The New Mexico Public Education Department website (https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/) redirects to a different website (http://teachreachnm.us/) when the "Teacher Resources" link is clicked. On this teachreachnm.us website, there are links to virtual learning sessions on general teaching skills (lesson planning, reflecting on classroom practice, applying feedback from observations). Additionally, the 4 domains of New Mexico's teaching practices were developed by New Mexico's teachers. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Educators are not required to complete PD hours to renew teacher certificate. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
New York's 10 standards for high quality professional development mentions that PD must be grounded in the state's Learning Standards for students and ensure that educators know how their subjects and assessment data connect to the standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
For each grade level and unit in ELA and math, EngageNY provides a wealth of detailed PD resources. They also provide learning materials from each of the Network Team Institutes held to help teachers understand how to implement the standards through their curriculum. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
NY has funding for districts to develop a mentorship program for beginning teachers, funding for higher education institutes to develop PD partnerships with high need districts, and funding for Educational Leadership Program enhancement. They also offer PD through their EngageNY initiative, with 305 resources for ELA PD and 211 for math PD. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers in New York are required to complete 100 clock hours of approved Continuing Teacher and Leader Education (CTLE) to be renew certificate. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
NC uses the Learning Forward Professional Learning Standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The online webinars and PD modules seem to focus on the Teaching Standards and leadership development and not necessarily on understanding and implementing the content standards in specific ways. There is one module on understanding how to apply the literacy standards to other disciplines. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
Each region of the state has a state-appointed PD coordinator, who is also involved in developing a Statewide System of Support. Their annual PD opportunities include regional collaborative meetings between institutes of higher education and districts, and beginning teacher summits. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
North Carolina requires all teachers to complete PD hours to renew teaching certification. Teachers to complete college credits consisting of six semester hours, and one semester hour must entail instructing students with disabilities. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
There is no publicly accessible information on professional learning standards on the state website. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
There is no publicly accessible information on statewide PD on the state website. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
There is no publicly accessible information on statewide PD on the state website. PD is provided through regional service centers. |
0 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers are required to complete PD to renew certificate. North Dakota has a six semester credits of coursework “re-education requirement” for teachers who hold a five year-license. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Ohio's Standards for Professional Development were based on the Learning Forward professional learning standards, and outcomes of professional learning must align with curriculum standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The Learning Management system for Ohio educators offers free courses and PD on Ohio's standards. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The Learning Management system for Ohio educators offers free courses and PD on Ohio's standards. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers are required to complete some form of PD to renew certificate, such as coursework covering classroom teaching and/or the licensure subject to renew certificate. Coursework must total six semester hours. Alternatively, teachers could complete 18 continuing education units (CEUs), which amounts to “180 contact hours”. Additionally, teachers may complete approved comparable activities that cover classroom teaching and/or licensure subject. Comparable activities are approved by the Local Professional Development Committee. Courses, CEUs, or comparable approved activities can be combined to fulfill requirements. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Oklahoma uses the Learning Forward standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Beginning in 2016, the state provides each teacher the autonomy to create their Professional Learning Focus each year that aligns with a qualitative component of their evaluation framework. The focus does not necessarily need to address the specifics of the standards. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
From Oklahoma's website: During the 2016-2017 school year, the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) worked with the educational community to develop individualized programs of professional development (Professional Learning Focus or PL Focus) as described in HB 2957. The mission of the working group was to provide a structure that offers educators autonomy to develop professional growth focused on the key strategies/behaviors that impact student learning and teacher mastery. The TLE office has actively engaged educators across the state to help redefine professional development through five regional stakeholder advisory groups with this vision. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
According to teaching-certification.com, all teachers must have completed 75 hours of PD during the five-year certificate, along with other requirements, to renew certificate. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Oregon adopted the Learning Forward professional learning standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The Oregon ELA and Math Teachers Update site provides links to information on ELA content-specific PD offered by other organizations throughout the state, Oregon Math Network conferences to support the implementation of CCR standards, and math webinars. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The Oregon In-service Bulletin highlight workshops that include "reaching troubled students" and integrating math and art. The state also offers professional learning for mentor teachers and a calendar of professional development offered through the Oregon Educator Network. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All educators are required to complete 125 professional development units (PDUs) to renew 5-year professional certificate. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
The state uses the Learning Forward professional learning standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The state Standards Aligned System offers several modules explaining core components of the ELA and math standards: http://www.pdesas.org/Page/Viewer/ViewPage/14 |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The state formed a Collaborative Coaching Board that meets quarterly to support instructional coaching across the state. One instructional coaching initiative is the Pennsylvania Institute for Instructional Coaching, which provides PD around coaching and mentoring teachers. Finally, professional learning on ELA and math instruction is available through their Standards Aligned System. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Some teachers are required to complete PD to renew certification. Teachers who hold Level 1 (provisional) certificates and are applying for a Level II certificates are required to complete 24 post-baccalaureate credits, and six of those credits must be related to licensure area and/or must advance professional methods. Also, teachers must have at least three years of satisfactory service on Level certificate, confirmed by chief school administrator, and teachers must have completed PDE induction program. Certificates “are valid for six years of service.” State website does not state PD requirements for teachers who hold a Level II certificate. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Rhode Island's professional teaching standards available online are dated 2007, before their adoption of the CCR standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The ELA PD modules provide a variety of interactive learning tools to support teachers' understanding and implementation of academic vocabulary, close reading, analyzing text complexity, and writing arguments. The math PD modules on the state website unpack what the standards say about fractions, ratios/proportional reasoning, geometric transformations, functions, general math instructional shifts in the Common Core standards, and how to implement these standards. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
For teachers, the state site has professional learning modules on math and ELA instruction, and links to a variety of other resources developing by nationally recognized organizations. The state offers several other PD opportunities (e.g., data use, formative assessments) that educators can sign up for online. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Some teachers are required to complete PD to renew certificate. Professional five-year certificates are renewed if the following requirements are met: a teacher meets or exceed Effective rating on evaluation system across five years. However, teachers who receive at least one rating of Developing over the past five years must submit specified PD plan for all Developing and Ineffective areas (if applicable) for renewal. Procedure and standards are developed by Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE). |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
The South Carolina department of education has adopted the Learning Forward professional development standards. https://learningforward.org/standards-for-professional-learning |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
According to the website, “the virtual and in-person PD sessions are intended to offer ""the opportunity to deepen...knowledge and understanding of the South Carolina College- and Career-Ready Standards" through a variety of ELA and math learning objectives related to core shifts in the state standards. However, the math PD is specific to elementary and middle school educators. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The state offers virtual and in-person PD on ELA and math instructional shifts. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers must complete at least 120 “renewal credits” during the validity period of their professional five-year certificate to renew certificate. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
There are no publicly accessible professional learning standards for South Dakota. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Sessions in the annual math conference have minimal connection to the math content standards. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The state website provides links to PD resources (e.g., an annual conference, workshops) for math educators; there are no publicly accessible PD opportunities for ELA educators. |
0 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Teachers are not required to complete PD to renew certificate. To renew a five-year professional teaching certificate, educators have an option to choose from four different options, one of which is to complete six credits related to education—three credits have to be coursework credits or “specialized learning experience hours”, and the other three credits must be continuing education or coursework credits. Moreover, teachers who hold an Advanced Teaching Certificate have three options to renew certificate, one of which is to complete six coursework credits, continuing education, or “specialized learning experience hours.” |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Tennessee offers professional learning guides for districts that align with the state's strategic plan, which is integral to their CCR standards-based reform implementation. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Tennessee provides a link to a microcredentialing site that offers a variety of ELA and math professional learning modules that help educators understand and implement their standards, including how to create standards-aligned lessons. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
Teachers have access to a variety of PD opportunities, notably through their microcredentialing program (https://bloomboard.com/topics). The Read to be Ready Coaching Network offers coaching in K-3 literacy instruction. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All educators must complete 60 professional development points (PDPs) to renew certificate. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Texas offers a Continuum for Professional Development that indicates expectations for high quality PD. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The Texas Gateway offers over 80 resources for professional development in the areas of ELA and math instruction based on the TEKS. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
Texas' Education Service Centers provide ongoing PD to teachers, including one collaborative Lesson Study project to help educators design and assess their TEKS-aligned lessons. Texas Gateway houses PD modules as well, and teachers also have access to Reading and Math academies. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers who hold a standard teaching certificate must complete 150 continuing professional education (CPE) hour during the five-year validity period to renew certification. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Utah utilizes Learning Forward's professional learning standards, with the addition of an eighth standard, Technology. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
According to state officials, professional learning opportunities for teachers are always specific to the standards. Specific tools for unpacking mathematics are available through UEN. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
Utah's Professional Learning Series offers coursework in math and secondary ELA State level professional learning opportunities are driven by data (e.g., surveys, student assessments, stakeholder feedback) and vary annually by need and area of focus. In general, professional learning activities are offered for a diverse group of stakeholders including, but not limited to, instructional coaches, building administrators, and classroom teachers. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers are required to create “Professional Growth Plans” with their supervisors annually and complete “professional learning points”. Teachers holding a Level 1 certificate must complete 100 professional learning points, and teachers holding a level 2/3 certificate must complete 200 professional learning points to renew certificate. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
As Steven John, the chair of the Vermont Standards Board for Professional Educators wrote in 2013, "Together the Core Teaching and Leadership Standards for Vermont Educators form a blueprint for the performances and essential knowledge that every educator should strive toward to ensure that all preK12 students are college and career ready." |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
According to the Vermont Professional Learning Network site, their self-paced PD courses are "designed to address the implementation of Education Quality Standards with fidelity." They furthermore provide specific guidelines for districts and schools implementing coaching as professional learning. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
Vermont’s Professional Learning Network, which combines expert courses, collaborative learning groups, and self-paced courses, "is a statewide system to address the need for a coordinated, cohesive, and consistent approach to professional learning across the state with an emphasis on geographic equity and comparable quality articulated in one specific scope of work." |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All educators are required to complete PD to renew certificate. Educators who hold a Level 1 license must complete three credits (or 45 hours) of new PD to renew certificate. Additionally, educators who hold a seven-year Level II certificate must complete nine credits (or 135 hours) of new PD to renew license. Teachers who hold a 5-year Level II license must complete six credits (90 hours) of PD to renew license. Thus, all teachers are required to complete PD activities to renew certificate. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
There are no publicly accessible PD standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Virginia's yearly math and ELA Institutes focus on unpacking and demonstrating the teaching of their Standards of Learning, and their website includes the resources provided through these PD sessions. According to their professional development calendar, the state also offers content-based PD workshops throughout the year. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
Virginia provides PD institutes focused on the math and ELA standards. On top of this, the state's professional learning calendar includes workshops on math and ELA pedagogy, and they encourage educators to participate in their Professional Learning Network, which allows schools to collaborate around specific topics (e.g., Personalized Learning, High School Redesign). |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Teachers are not required to complete PD activities. Teachers have eight options to meet their required 180 PD points to renew certificate. However, it is possible for teachers to meet 180 PD points by a combination of publishing a book, article publications, or serving as a mentor to renew certificate. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Washington's Standards for Professional Learning indicate that the content of PD needs to align with the state's standards. The state has a regionalized professional development approach based on the work of nine Educational Service Districts. OSPI content leads provide direction and guidance for the professional learning. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
There are no publicly accessible statewide PD opportunities--resources provided on the state website indicate a reliance on PD workshops and modules developed outside the agency. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction |
The state website provides links to ELA and math professional learning offered by national and state organizations, including links to specific Educational Service Districts found throughout the state |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All teachers must complete 100 hours or comparable college credits or Professional Growth Plans (PGP) to renew Continuing Certificate. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
The expectation of the West Virginia Professional Teaching Standards, which should be supported by opportunities for continuous learning, is that teachers design instruction aligned to the standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
The WV Teacher Resources for Educational Excellence (TREE) "is a one stop, grade specific site highlighting WV College- and Career-Readiness Standards and resources that are essential to the classroom teacher." This resource offers modules and resources for each grade level and content area. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The West Virginia Center for Professional Development provides PD for principals and teachers. The WV Teacher Resources for Educational Excellence is a warehouse of professional learning resources for each grade level and content area. |
1 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Some teachers re required to earn PD to renew certification. Teachers who hold an initial teaching certificate and are applying for renewal must complete six hours of coursework to renew certificate. However, teachers who are 60 years of age or older are not required to complete six semester hours of coursework. Teachers who wish to convert a three-year certificate to a five-year certificate must complete several tasks, which includes six semester hours of coursework. After the five-year validity period, teachers have the option to apply for a Permanent Teaching Certificate. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
Wisconsin utilizes the Learning Forward professional learning standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Wisconsin offers professional learning modules and facilitator guides for understanding text complexity, the speaking and listening ELA standards, effective writing instruction, and the 4 standards of mathematical practice. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction. |
The state website shares professional learning that is subject specific, and professional learning offered by external organizations. |
2 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
Wisconsin State Statutes govern educator licensure. Educations are not required to complete PD to renew certificate. Educators who hold a provisional license must complete three years of service or six semester hours to receive a lifetime license. A lifetime license does not require renewal. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Professional Development (PD) |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards. |
The state website does not contain information on professional learning standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards. |
Wyoming develops a three-year professional development plan for new or changed standards. Currently, the state website provides one module on fractions progressions for grades 2-6 and links to 4 external websites for ELA professional learning. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to curriculum and instruction |
The state website does not make publicly accessible professional development opportunities for educators beyond a few conferences on learning disabilities, project based learning, and Native American education. Wyoming also offers professional development on assessment literacy and formative assessment as part of its statewide system of support: https://edu.wyoming.gov/educators/district-assessment/district-assessment-system-professional-development/. |
0 |
|
Power |
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
All educators must complete PD/Renewal credit to renew certificates. Requirements are based on the type of educator license the applicant has. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Alabama provides curriculum guides aligned to their standards. These guides sequentially categorize the standards by instructional units. http://www.alsde.edu/sec/ses/Curriculum%20Guides/cglanguagearts-draft%20removed.pdf#search=curriculum%20frameworks |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The Alabama website provides links to open educational resources such as Learn Zillion, Achieve the Core, and the Teaching Channel, and links to some ELA unit ideas for select elementary, middle, and high school grade levels. The Alabama Learning Exchange (ALEX) also has teacher-developed lessons tied to ELA and math course of study standards posted on their website. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The state provides the Alabama Insight online curriculum tool to each district in Alabama, educators can explore and map the standards, including lesson/unit plans and learning activities across content areas. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The curriculum guide was updated in 2014; there are no other known curricular changes as of 7/2/18. The content standards are up for review in 2018-2019. The ALSDE website contains the most updated versions of the ELA and Math standards in the corresponding Courses of Study. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Alaska provides guides to understanding the standards and shifts in the standards but does not provide frameworks that demonstrate how to align curriculum with the standards: https://education.alaska.gov/standards |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The state has a Teach Toolkit with some resources for standards implementation: https://education.alaska.gov/standards/teachertoolbox |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
This information is not publicly available. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There is no publicly accessible information on changes to curriculum. CCR standards were adopted in June 2012. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Arizona provides teachers recommended timeframes for ELA and math but does not provide a curriculum framework: http://www.azed.gov/standards-practices/k-12standards/mathematics-resources/
|
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
There are no publicly available resources. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Arizona provides links to external resources to support standards implementation in addition to some webinars and PD opportunities that can be requested: http://www.azed.gov/standards-practices/k-12standards/mathematics-resources |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The board voted to replace their previous standards with new standards in 2016. Arizona revised their curricular documents in math in 2016 and in 2017 for ELA. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Arkansas educators developed curriculum frameworks for both ELA and math that demonstrate alignment to the standards: http://www.arkansased.gov/divisions/learning-services/curriculum-and-instruction/curriculum-framework-documents |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Arkansas provides detailed curriculum documents that outline coursework in ELA and math. Arkansas additionally provides a resource to support the planning and delivery of literacy instruction for every grade band grounded in the Common Core state standards. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Arkansas educators developed 10+ ELA and math high school courses aligned to the Arkansas Academic Standards or the progression of those standards. Links to external organizations with curricular resources are regularly shared with LEAs. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The state revised their standards for the 2017-2018 school year. Revision of each of the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks is required every six years by the state education reform initiatives mandated by the State Board of Education. As of July 1, 2017, these documents replace and supersede all previous English Language Arts courses: http://www.arkansased.gov/divisions/learning-services/curriculum-and-instruction/curriculum-framework-documents/english-language-arts As of July 1, 2017, these documents replace and supersede all previous mathematics courses:.http://www.arkansased.gov/divisions/learning-services/curriculum-and-instruction/curriculum-framework-documents/mathematics |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Curriculum frameworks provide guidance for implementing the standards adopted by the State Board of Education: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/allfwks.asp |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
California’s frameworks offer content and pedagogical guidance across all grade levels, as well as criteria for instructional materials to help support implementation of the standards. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
According to the state website, the State Board of Education “has the constitutional responsibility and authority to adopt instructional materials for grades one through eight (Article IX, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution) and statutory authority to adopt instructional materials for kindergarten. There are no state adoptions in grades nine through twelve. EC sections 60200-60206 describe the process for the adoption of instructional materials for these grades and mandate that submitted materials be evaluated for alignment with the adopted content standards and specific evaluation criteria approved by the SBE….The SBE traditionally adopts only basic instructional materials programs; that is, programs that are designed for use by students and their teachers as a principal learning resource and that meet in organization and content the basic requirements of a full course of study (generally, one school year in length).” |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
California modified its standards for mathematics in 2013. The math curriculum framework was revised in 2013 and the ELA/ELD framework was revised in 2014. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Colorado offers district created curricular overviews as sample outlines of units of study that would be aligned to Colorado Academic Standards in all subjects and grades. This is a service to share work from districts, not state developed or mandated. http://www.cde.state.co.us/standardsandinstruction/curriculumoverviews |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Colorado, in conjunction with over 100 school districts, has created sample district curricula, high impact strategies, workshops and unit samples for school districts to utilize: http://www.cde.state.co.us/standardsandinstruction/samplecurriculumproject Additional implementation resources include vertical alignment documents, graphic organizers, and content connectors: http://cde.state.co.us/standardsandinstruction/2009standards |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Local control is emphasized in most of Colorado's resources to teachers with key phrases like "voluntary materials" emphasizing that they are not mandatory because the state cannot mandate state developed curricular or instructional materials. http://www.cde.state.co.us/standardsandinstruction/2020implementation |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Colorado's standards in all subjects and grades were under review throughout the 2017-2018 school year. The 2020 Colorado Academic Standards were approved at the end of June 2018. By statute, schools and districts will have two years of transition to learn about the revised standards and develop transition plans before full implementation in the 2020-2021 school year. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Connecticut provides some frameworks aligned to their state standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Connecticut provides external curricular unit resources for ELA and math. They additionally provide "model curriculum" for some subjects in Math: http://ctcorestandards.org/?page_id=1025 |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
In Connecticut, curriculum development is designed at the local level: http://portal.ct.gov/SDE/Academic-Office/Academic-Office-Home-Page Most of the state’s curricular resources are derived from Common Core materials already available: http://ctcorestandards.org/?page_id=5181 The office of academics indicates that professional development around the curriculum is offered. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There is no publicly accessible information on changes to curriculum. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Delaware provides vertical and horizontal progressions of their standards for each grade level, including examples of what students should be able to do at each point: https://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/2425 The same is true for math: https://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/2505 |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Delaware provides teachers with a compilation of resources to meet their ELA standards. However, these resources are not created or vetted by the department of education. Instead they come from "respected sources" which seems to be the case across the board for Common Core content areas: https://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/2428 |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Delaware does not mandate the use of any particular curriculum. The department of education does, however, recommend a lot of resources that are linked to the Common Core. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There is no publicly available information on changes to curricular guidelines. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) reports that their curriculum is “designed and improved each year by DCPS teachers and is aligned to the Common Core State Standards and to all district assessments.” |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The DCPS curriculum document outlines the principles of rigor, joy, equity, and access, and it provides the scope and sequence for ELA: https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/ Additionally, The Office of the State Superintendent of Education provides a standards-based lesson plan generator for DC educators to create and share rigorous lesson plans with each other: http://learndc.org/classrooms/instruction/lesson-plan-generator |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The DCPS curriculum and Cornerstones were developed by DCPS teachers, with weekly professional development focused on the curriculum and required anchor texts provided to educators. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
DCPS introduced “Cornerstones” in 2015-2016, which are activities tied to the DCPS units of study. |
1 |
*Information on curriculum, SWD supports, and EL supports came from both the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) website and from the D.C. Public Schools website (DCPS).
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The state provides instructional toolkits in math and ELA that assist teachers with planning lessons aligned to the standards. Under the Florida Statutes, districts chose their instructional materials and create their own curriculum plans. In the 2018 session, House Bill 7055 was passed tasking the department with creating sample course-at-a-glance and unit overview templates for use by school districts when developing curricula. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
In addition to the instructional toolkits that help with lesson planning, CPALMS is an online toolbox of resources and tools that educators can implement: http://www.cpalms.org/Public/. This site includes unit, lesson, and other teaching materials. CPALMS resources are publicly available and are utilized by educators worldwide. Florida educators also have access to iCPALMS which contains professional development modules, lesson study toolkits and the CMAP application which allows districts and teachers to create curriculum maps. The CMAP is preloaded with each district’s calendar and allows teachers or district staff to upload course standards and associated resources and is fully interactive. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Three state instructional materials reviewers per content area, alongside classroom teachers and district content supervisors, review and select materials that are aligned with the Florida Standards. Districts then decide on their own which materials to adopt. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018 |
The state revised their standards in 2014. The State Board of Education requires courses to adopt materials once every five years. Math materials are up for adoption in 2018-2019, while ELA materials are up the following year. A senate bill changing the Florida instructional materials adoption process for districts was passed in 2013. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Frameworks are "models of instruction" designed to support teachers in the implementation of the Georgia Standards of Excellence (GSE). https://www.georgiastandards.org/Frameworks/Pages/BrowseFrameworks/Frameworks.aspx |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The Georgia Department of Education Office of Teaching and Learning has provided an example of the Curriculum Map for each grade level to illustrate what can be implemented within the grade level. School systems and teachers are free to use these models as is; modify them to better serve classroom needs; or create their own curriculum maps, units and tasks. In addition, Georgia teachers have access to the Teacher Resource Link (TRL). The TRL is accessible via the GaDOE "tunnel" in conjunction with SLDS using the single sign-on process. The content is aligned to the Georgia Standards of Excellence (GSE) and National Education Technology Standards (NETS) and pushed to teachers based on course schedule. Using TRL, teachers are able to assign digital resources to students based upon the student's performance on an assessment or by searching for aligned resources by grade, subject, and standard. Resources found in TRL include Georgia Virtual School course content, NSDL, Thinkfinity, GaDOE subject frameworks, and additional teacher-aligned, vetted digital links. Digital content is available for most subjects in grades K-12. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Instructional resource decisions are made by district administrators. The Department of Education provides sample instructional resources and some professional learning on making teaching and learning accessible to support district decisions on their instructional materials: |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The ELA and math standards and supporting curricular documents were revised in 2015. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Hawaii provides family supports for ELA standards but does not provide schools with a particular curriculum framework. The state does, however, require that districts use consistent materials to meet the Common Core ELA standards. Curricular frameworks may be part of those resources. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Hawaii uses the Common Core and search of their website on 4/9/18 did not result in any curriculum or curriculum guidelines. Hawaii recommends that districts use materials that the department of education has vetted, using content area expert input. See authority. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The state provides a list of recommended curriculum materials related to the math and ELA Common Core. However, these materials are “not a script. While teachers use a consistent set of materials as a primary resource, they are still expected to be innovative and creative to address their students’ learning needs.” Schools can select their own instructional materials, as long as they align with the standards. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no reports of changes to the curriculum listed on the state website. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Idaho does not provide a curriculum framework but does provide vertical alignment documents for some content areas, like ELA. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Idaho provides teachers with access to "exemplar unit plans" in ELA but not for Math: http://www.sde.idaho.gov/academic/ela-literacy/ |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Idaho consults with a team of teachers to vet the curricular materials they recommend, though districts can choose which materials they ultimately choose. They provide a list of ELA and math materials across K-12 grade levels that districts can consult. http://www.sde.idaho.gov/academic/curricular/index.html#guide |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There is no information on changes to curriculum on the state website. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Illinois provides a model math curriculum that address the math standards, and an ELA implementation guide aligned to instructional shifts in the Common Core standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Through Illinois’ Model Curriculum Development Project, the state created scope and sequence documents and units for grades K-5, model lessons and lesson documents for K-8, and integrated math courses for high school. A total of 38 unit were developed for elementary school, 24 for middle school, and 25 for high school. Each unit includes an approximate time frame, connections to previous learning, the unit focus, connections to subsequent learning, big ideas, essential questions, mathematical practices, prerequisite skills and concepts, advanced skills and concepts, knowledge targets, skill targets, critical terms, and supplemental terms: https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Model-Mathematics-Curriculum.aspx For literacy, the state provides links to Illinois Classrooms in Action (which contains Illinois’ ELA implementation guide: http://www.ilclassroomsinaction.org/uploads/2/6/0/8/26089560/ccss_implementation_guide_copy_fall_2014.pdf, Illinois Literacy in Action, and other external organizations that provide instructional literacy resources. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
While Illinois does not require any curricular materials, they do provide implementation guides to help educators and administrators gauge whether classroom instruction is aligned to the standards, as well as tools to evaluate whether instructional materials are aligned to the standards: http://www.ilclassroomsinaction.org/curriculum-alignment.html. The state’s professional learning series includes modules to help educators “know and understand” the content standards, and how to apply that knowledge to designing lessons and selecting texts: https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Professional-Learning-Series.aspx |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no changes to curriculum found on the state website. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards |
The Indiana department of education provides correlations, vertical articulations and ELA standards per content areas, revised as of December 2017: https://www.doe.in.gov/standards/English Language -arts#Guides |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The Indiana Department of Education hosts an online portal called Learning Connection where resources for ELA, Math and other content areas can be found. The resources are not available publicly. https://learningconnection.doe.in.gov/Login.aspx?ret=%2fdefault.aspx The state also offers math resource guides with suggestions for resources that correlate with each standard across grade levels: https://www.doe.in.gov/standards/mathematics |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Local districts and schools select their own instructional materials, though the state provides recommended math resources (see Specificity), as well as a list of sample ELA texts for each grade level: https://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/standards/sample-texts-revised-08-05-15.pdf |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Indiana’s standards were revised in 2014. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The Iowa Department of Education does not provide state made curricular frameworks aligned to their standards. They do, however, guide teachers towards the frameworks developed by the Common Core, whose standards they adopted in 2016. There was a bill in the 2018 legislature to require an adopted locally identified instructional framework to access TLC funding (100% of districts). This did not pass in the 2017 legislative session. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Iowa provides modules that specifically guide support teachers in creating standards-based classrooms: https://iowacore.gov/content/standards-based-education-modules They also outline characteristics of effective instruction: https://iowacore.gov/content/characteristics-effective-instruction-0 IowaCORE includes a variety of links to external resources that developed instructional tools aligned to the Common Core standards: https://iowacore.gov/resources |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Iowa does not require that districts use specific curriculum. They do, however, provide teachers and districts with guiding documents that can assist them in the process of vetting curricular materials to cover the Iowa Core standards: https://iowacore.gov/content/instructional-resources-literacy They also provide the modules referenced in the Specificity section. Iowa promotes the use of edreports.org for districts to utilize. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Revisions to standards, most notably ELA, have been minor since 2016. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Kansas provides curriculum maps and course blueprints for Math, though many have been developed by external organizations. These are not available for ELA. http://community.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=5255 |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
There are more specific resources for Kansas’ math standards than for the ELA standards. For math, Kansas offers “Grade Level Focus” documents that clarify when certain standards call for 70% of the instructional time, 20% or 10%. The Critical Areas for Coherence documents are for K-8 educators to help them coherently see how essential foundational areas span across grade levels. Progress Documents explain why standards are sequenced the way they are according to children’s cognitive development. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
According to the website, “KSDE does not review or recommend resources to local school districts. However, the agency can assist in providing links to available resources to assist with materials adoptions and instructional alignment.” These links are to websites of external organizations. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
ELA standards were revised in 2017, while math standards were under review in 2017. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
In March 2009, Kentucky’s General Assembly passed Senate Bill 1, which mandated the development of a state-level model curriculum framework. Resources pertaining to this model curriculum framework were updated in 2018: https://education.ky.gov/curriculum/modcurrframe/Pages/default.aspx |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The Kentucky Department of Education provides many resources related to public school curriculum. Although the agency does not mandate specific curriculum to be taught in the classroom, items that are tied to the state’s public-school assessment program are available. https://education.ky.gov/curriculum/Pages/default.aspx The Model Curriculum Framework itself is a detailed facilitation guide for 21st century curricular planning: https://education.ky.gov/curriculum/Pages/default.aspx |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Kentucky does not mandate local curriculum but they do help district select curricular materials by providing a list or pre-approved materials, the model curriculum framework, and other digital resources: https://education.ky.gov/curriculum/Pages/default.aspx |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The standards are being reviewed and revised as of Summer 2017. While no major course offerings were apparent, many changes to course numberings and descriptions changed in the 2017-2018 school year to reflect changes resulting from the state's ESSA plan and partnership with WIDA. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Louisiana presents a teacher-created resource called ELA Guidebooks 2.0, which outlines ELA curriculum for whole class instruction. The curriculum is intended to ensure students’ college and career readiness. The guidebooks are here: https://learnzillion.com/resources/81666-english-language-arts-guidebook-units/ For math, the state offers lesson planning guidelines to ensure that the rigor is aligned to the math standards. An example of one guideline is here: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/year-long-planning/grade-6-lssm-alignment-to-rigor.pdf?sfvrsn=12 The state reviews curriculum through an Instructional Materials Review process and tiers curriculum based on its alignment to the standards. https://www.louisianabelieves.com/academics/ONLINE-INSTRUCTIONAL-MATERIALS-REVIEWS |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The Louisiana Department of Education provides a wealth of curricular and instructional resources to teachers, categorized by content and grade level, via their teacher toolbox, a digital repository of resources. In addition to the ELA guidebooks, the ELA resources include planning guides to determine text complexity, instructional strategies, assessment guidance, and language tasks. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The Louisiana Department of Education does not require specific textbooks or curricular materials. However, they do provide districts with tiered levels of support to assist in the process of developing or selecting particular curricula. This process includes curricular materials reviews and textbook recommendations: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/academics/curriculum. Additionally the LDOE publishes a PD Vendor Guide to support districts in choosing high quality professional development aligned to high quality curriculum. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Louisiana revised their standards and ELA guidebooks in 2016. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The state provides external resources on the implementation and alignment of standards-based curriculum, though they do not have their own curricular frameworks: https://www.maine.gov/doe/learning/content |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Though there are no specific curricular expectations laid out, the Maine Department of Education’s 2012 strategic plan involves a learner-centered system that is standards-based. Action steps for implementing this system are listed here: https://www.maine.gov/doe/about/vision The Maine website also provides links to learning standards templates developed by Troy Howard Middle School, standards-based progress reports developed by Hall-Dale Elementary School, and conceptual maps of ELA and math curriculum. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
In Maine, how districts and schools implement standards remains a local decision. They provide links to external organizations as additional resources for educators: https://www.maine.gov/doe/learning/content/ela/resources |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Maine’s 2012 Strategic Plan altered pedagogical expectations for educators. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Maryland provides multiple frameworks for each content area. These frameworks were developed by educators in Maryland and are available to all teachers. ELA: http://mdk12.msde.maryland.gov/instruction/curriculum/reading/index.html Math: http://mdk12.msde.maryland.gov/instruction/curriculum/reading/index.html |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Pacing guides, resources, and teacher made materials are available to teachers. Model lessons and unit plans are available at the link above. These contain the following details: unit overview, teacher notes, enduring understandings, focus standards, possible student outcomes, evidence of student learning, fluency expectations, common misconceptions, interdisciplinary connections, sample assessment items/monitoring templates, etc. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Maryland does not appear to require curricular materials, though they do provide detailed curricular materials (see Specificity). They also provide processes for districts and schools--both public and non-public--to request funding for curricular materials, including textbooks: http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/about/Documents/DBS/Nonpublic%20Textbook/ Some resources available to teachers are created by Maryland teachers. Maryland is in the process of gathering data on district curricular materials. The District Curricular Support Materials (CSM) Collaborative in development will include two rating scales for materials in use in Maryland state districts. One rating scale will be a Maryland rating and the other will be national ratings. The Maryland rating factors were determined through stakeholder focus groups and a statewide survey. Maryland has partnered with EdReports for initial national ratings. The CSM will also allow Maryland districts to collaborate on the use of curriculum materials and purchasing decisions. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no changes to the curriculum listed on the state website. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The state developed Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks in ELA/literacy and math (as well as in other subjects): http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/ |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The Center for Instructional Support provides resources for teachers and administrators to implement literacy and math standards, including: Reference guides on topics such as the Standards for Mathematical Practice, methods for evaluating text complexity, and how expectations progress across grades; Sample student work, instructional scenarios, curriculum units, and assessment items illustrating what learning and mastery of the standards looks like; and “What to Look For” guides for classroom observers aligned to grade-level standards in each content area and to the state’s model educator evaluation rubric. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Massachusetts is a local control state. Thus, they do not require the use a particular curriculum. However, they have several new resources and initiatives designed to help districts strengthen curriculum to align with state standards, including a new web page with: maps of districts’ curricular choices, designed to facilitate cross-district collaboration on implementation and curriculum-centered professional learning; quick reference guides on topics likeassessing a district’s “curriculum landscape” andaligning curriculum materials to state standards; and information aboutCURATE(CUrriculum RAtings by TEachers), a new initiative convening panels of Massachusetts educators to review and rate evidence on curriculum materials. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The 2017 curriculum frameworks for English Language Arts and Literacy and for Mathematics were published in their final form on June 29, 2017. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Michigan provides a link to Oakland Schools’ website, where they list unit plans for ELA and math (and other subjects) across all grade levels: https://oaklandk12-public.rubiconatlas.org/Atlas/Browse/View/Calendars |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The Michigan Department of Education link to the curricular maps provides detailed information on the scope and sequence of their unit plans, alignment to the standards, enduring understandings, content expectations, key concepts, lesson resources, etc. They also house an online website where other resources are provided: https://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-28753_65803---,00.html |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The Michigan Department of Education provides resources and materials, including full course outlines and textbooks, online as part of its "Michigan Open Book Project" spearheaded in 2014: http://textbooks.wmisd.org/open-education.html
|
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Where there were no significant changes to curriculum offerings since 2016, the Michigan Department of Education emphasizes a push towards 'flexible learning' for its students. This 'flexible learning' includes digital delivery of specialized coursework: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Flexible_Learning_Document_3_458395_7.pdf |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Though the state does not provide curricular frameworks, they do offer documents to support districts in ensuring that their curriculum and assessments are aligned to the standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The Minnesota Department of Education does not provide a specific curriculum to districts. It does, however, provide resources such as a "Benchmark Toolkit" to review curriculum maps, professional development opportunities, and partnerships through which educators may receive specific resources (https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/stds/Math/). Importantly, these curricular resources are not offered for all content areas. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
A search on 7/2/18 did not yield required curricular materials or textbooks. Depending on the content area, professional development pertaining to standards implementation is provided. Notably, this professional development is available for mathematics. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to curriculum. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The state provides curriculum frameworks to align with their College and Career Readiness Standards: |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The curriculum frameworks listed above outline the prerequisite skills, the conceptual understanding, and the evidence of knowledge students should display in order to be successful for each grade level. Scaffolding documents are provided in English Language Arts and mathematics to provide teachers with a deeper understanding of the standards as they plan for classroom instruction. These documents can be found at https://www.mdek12.org/ese/ccr . The mathematics and ELA resources also include exemplar lesson plans across multiple grade levels and standards and can be found at https://www.mdek12.org/MEUL. There are also ELA resources for understanding text complexity, webinars for understanding the standards, etc. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The state provides a list of approved textbooks: https://www.mdek12.org/OAE/OEER/TextbookAdoptionProcurement |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Mathematics and English Arts Standards were revised in 2015. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Missouri provides a curriculum framework development guide aligned to the Missouri Learning Standards for districts who choose to use it: https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/curr-framework-developing-curriculum.pdf |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Missouri is a local control state; curricula are determined at by the Local Education Authority. As such the State of Missouri does not mandate specific curriculum, unit, or lesson, resources that are publicly. However, it does provide item specifications, sample test items, rubrics, forms, and curricular resources (via a curriculum listserv) for teachers and districts. https://dese.mo.gov/college-career-readiness/curriculum/english-language-arts#mini-panel-ela4 |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The state does not require the use of particular curricula or textbooks. It does, however, provide resources for developing curriculum and selecting texts that meet the Missouri Learning Standards: https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/Textbook%20Review%20Instrument%20K-5.pdf Missouri offers professional development opportunities around curriculum: https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/curr-pd-fall-winter-2018-19-content-meetings.pdf |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Revised ELA and mathematics standards (Missouri Learning Standards) were adopted in 2016. The curriculum frameworks were subsequently updated and new assessments implemented in the 2017-2018 year. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
There are no curriculum guides for ELA and math, though these guides exist for other content areas. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The Montana Office of Public Instruction provides some standards progressions and expectations outlined in the standards. http://opi.mt.gov/Educators/Teaching-Learning/K-12-Content-Standards-Revision Additionally, MOPI also provides model curricula for most content areas yet not for ELA and math. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Local education agencies in Montana determine their curriculum materials. The MOPI provides a list of 'bonded textbook dealers.' http://opi.mt.gov/Leadership/Management-Operations/Legal-Division/Bonded-Textbook-Dealers |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to curriculum. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The Nebraska Department of Education does not provide curriculum frameworks. They show sample curricular for K-12 science, P-16 math articulation, and from the Kentucky Department of Education. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Districts in Nebraska determine their own curricula to meet the state standards. The department of education does, however, provide resources to teachers and districts in the form of sample curricula, instructional strategies, and is currently developing specific content area standards implementation resources. https://www.education.ne.gov/contentareastandards/content-area-standards-implementation/ |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The Nebraska Department of Education does not mandate specific curriculum or resources to be used by districts or schools. It does, however, provide resources for P-12 alignment, best practices, and sample curricula. https://www.education.ne.gov/ciptoolkit/prek-12-curriculum-alignment/ |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The Nebraska Department of Education adopted content area standards in recent years. In 2014 it adopted its current ELA standards. In 2015, it adopted its current mathematics standards. The timeline for standards revision is located at https://www.education.ne.gov/contentareastandards/. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The Nevada Department of Education provides curriculum frameworks aligned to their Academic Content Standards for some content areas but not ELA and Math. http://www.doe.nv.gov/Standards_Instructional_Support/Materials_Resource_Center/ |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The Nevada Department of Education maintains an Instructional Materials Resource Center where resourced created by teachers are shared. While these materials are not intended to represent an entire curriculum for any content area, they are intended to serve as starting points for teachers. http://www.doe.nv.gov/Standards_Instructional_Support/Materials_Resource_Center/ |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The Nevada Department of Education does not require the use of a particular curricula. While they do not offer recommendations for specific curricula, they do provide alignment tools that assist teachers and districts in determining whether their curriculum is aligned to the Nevada Academic Content Standards. http://www.doe.nv.gov/Standards_Instructional_Support/Materials_Resource_Center/ They also list state approved instructional materials: http://www.doe.nv.gov/Standards_Instructional_Support/Textbook/ |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to the curriculum. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
While there are no ELA and math curricular frameworks posted on the state website, there are state resources that demonstrate how the Common Core’s CCR anchor standards align with the ELA and math competencies developed by New Hampshire’s educators: https://www.education.nh.gov/innovations/hs_redesign/competencies.htm |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The state website offers few instructional resources to support teachers’ use of curriculum and instruction aligned to the standards: https://www.education.nh.gov/spotlight/ccss/examples-exemplars.htm |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
While New Hampshire’s Department of Education does not require the usage of a particular curriculum, they do post guidelines for districts selecting ELA curricula based on the expectations of the standards: https://www.education.nh.gov/spotlight/ccss/documents/criteria_ela.pdf |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to curriculum. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The state developed new curricular frameworks for K-12 ELA and math aligned with their learning standards: http://www.nj.gov/education/cccs/frameworks/ |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The NJ Department of Education provides model curricula for all content areas, including Math and ELA. Each curricular framework document outlines the standards pertaining to each unit plan, and expected student knowledge and skills. Additionally, the department hosts an online platform for educators that includes a variety of instructional resources sorted by content and grade level. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
According to the state website, districts and schools are encouraged to download the curricular frameworks, rename them as their own, and use the documents to build out their own curriculum. Some of the frameworks also include suggested open educational resources. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The model curriculum frameworks were first introduced in 2015-2016. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The New Mexico Public Education Department does not currently have curriculum frameworks aligned to their standards available: https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/bureaus/instructional-materials/new-mexico-content-standards/ |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The New Mexico Public Education Department hosts a webpage titled "Teach Reach New Mexico" where resources including lesson planning strategies, virtual training sessions, and assessment resources are provided. These resources are not content specific. http://teachreachnm.us/resources/ |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
While New Mexico Public Education Department does not require that districts use specific curricular materials, they house an Instructional Materials division that is tasked with reviewing and making curricular recommendations, based on subject. This division provides curriculum recommendations after a review process that engages both content area experts and teachers. https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/bureaus/instructional-materials/the-adoption-cycle/ |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to curriculum. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
New York provides curriculum frameworks aligned to their state standards through their EngageNY project. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The New York State Department of Education provides curriculum that districts may choose to adapt for each grade level, in ELA and Math. Along with these curricula, the state also provides curriculum maps, plans, and protocols as well as resources for the implementation of the Next Generation Learning Standards. One example is here: https://www.engageny.org/resource/grade-4-english-language-arts |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The state provides extensive curricular and PD resources on their curriculum through EngageNY. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The New York State Education Department revised its ELA and Math standards in 2017. The Department is also developing a curriculum for adults to meet the Common Core standards. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction does not provide curriculum frameworks in ELA, while there are instructional frameworks provided for math K-8: http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/mathematics/scos/current/#frameworks For ELA, the state developed a course that explains how to align instruction to the standards: https://ncdpi.instructure.com/courses/818/pages/designing-aligned-instruction-home-page?module_item_id=36580 |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction provides Wiki pages for most major content areas where instructional tools, standards aligned lesson plans, professional development opportunities, and publicly available texts can be found. Most of the resources have been externally developed: http://elascos.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/HOME+ELA |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction does not require that districts use particular curricula. They do, however, review textbooks with teams of teachers and experts and make recommendations based on alignment to their state standards. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
In 2014 the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction revised its Standard Course of Study. The standards were again revised in 2017. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The North Dakota Department of Public Instruction does not provide curricular frameworks aligned to their standards. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
A search on 7/12 did not yield results indicating that the state provides specific curriculum or instructional resources that are publicly available. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
A search on 7/12 did not yield results indicating that the state requires curricular materials nor makes recommendations. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
New ELA and Math Standards were developed in 2017. https://www.nd.gov/dpi/SchoolStaff/Standards/ |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The Ohio Department of Education has model curricula for most content areas aligned to the standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Districts in Ohio have the autonomy to choose their curricula that fits the needs of their students. The Ohio Department of Education does, however, provide a Model Curriculum for all content areas, including ELA and Math. Components of the model curricula include: elaborations on the content of the specific grade level topics/bands, progression statements that describe what students learned in prior years and what they should learn in the next year, instructional supports, instructional strategies, and instructional resources specific to the grade level. Similarly, the department also provides assessments for these curricula. http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/OLS-Graphic-Sections/Model-Curricula http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/OLS-Graphic-Sections/Assessments Additionally, the Ohio Department of Education provides some instructional resources, including professional development. Instructional supports are abundant for Math and ELA. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Districts in Ohio are not required to follow particular curricula but are required to adopt textbooks from a state approved list of publishers. http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Adoption-and-Purchase-of-Textbooks |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The model curricular units were developed in Spring 2017. The standards were also revised in 2017. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The Oklahoma State Department of Education provides curricular frameworks for both ELA and Math aligned to their standards. http://elaokframework.pbworks.com/w/page/114061501/Introduction%20to%20the%20ELAOK |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The ELA and math curricular frameworks include the standards, different levels of student proficiency for each strand, sample learning progressions throughout the year For ELA specifically, state curriculum writers identified the progression of K-12 skills in the areas of argumentative writing, character development, fluency, informational writing, literary elements, main idea, narrative writing, paraphrasing, point of view, summarizing, theme, and thesis/claim: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B34TUiFtH9SxSFk3c3ljYmoxbnM The state also prepared a “Support for Standard Implementation” document, which describes the language phonemes, genre guidance, and grammar guidance that ELA educators need to design classroom instruction: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9vB_zXYltxWYjJJeExBRGpiY0U/view For math, additional resources for implementing the math standards are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i5W2JED1w6oXBET2TJRV2tboHPkxzZLCNAtABpshZDg/edit Additionally, the Oklahoma State Department of Education hosts a repository of curricular resources including pacing guides, and PLC resources. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B34TUiFtH9SxSFk3c3ljYmoxbnM |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The Oklahoma State Department of Education allows districts to choose the curricular resources, including textbooks, that best fit the needs of their students. However, districts must spend 80% of their budget on state-approved titles. The state board of education reviews textbooks every year, in a six-year cycle, in May and releases lists of approved publishers. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Oklahoma's Math and ELA standards were revised in 2016. http://sde.ok.gov/sde/oklahoma-academic-standards. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Oregon's has curricular frameworks (created in 2009, before adoption of the Common Core standards) for its ELA standards, but not math. https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/standards/ELA/Pages/default.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/standards/mathematics/Pages/default.aspx |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Oregon does not have a specific curriculum, unit plans, lesson plans, or pacing guides. As stated on the Oregon Department of Education website: "Instructional materials used in Oregon’s classrooms need to reflect the most current information and research and be aligned to academic content standards. To this end, these instructional materials are subject, by law, to a review process and must meet established specifications and criteria in order to be approved by the State Board of Education for use in classrooms." https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/teachingcontent/instructional-materials/Pages/default.aspx |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Oregon requires that districts choose textbooks from lists that the State Board of Education has approved. A district may choose to adopt their own textbooks but must provide evidence that a review process took place. As specified in the state website: "Following adoption by the State Board of Education, school districts must do one of the following: (1) Select and adopt from the list (ORS 337.050 and OAR 581-022-1640), (2) Independently adopt instructional materials using the State Criteria (OAR 581-022-1622) or (3) Postpone adoption for up to two years (OAR 581-022-1650)." |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to curriculum. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Pennsylvania provides curricular frameworks for ELA, Math and a variety of other courses. http://www.pdesas.org/CMap/CFramework |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The Pennsylvania Department of Education provides voluntary model curricula for literacy, literacy/writing, math, and science. The model units include objectives, essential questions, vocabulary, duration, prerequisite skills, materials, and related resources. These model curricula additionally include sample unit and lesson plans. http://www.pdesas.org/ContentWeb/Content/VoluntaryModelCurriculum |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The Pennsylvania Department of Education does not require or recommend the use particular curricula. Instead, curricular resources are listed on their Standards Aligned Systems database. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to curriculum. PA revised their standards in 2014. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
While the Rhode Island Department of Education Curriculum webpage makes reference to high quality curricular frameworks, no frameworks created by the department are currently listed. The state does, however, provide review documents to assist districts and teachers in the process of determining whether curricular frameworks and materials are of high quality. These review materials are provided through the state's partnership with EdReports.org. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The Rhode Island Department of Education does not provide a specific curriculum created by the department. It does, however, provide resources to external curricula and curricular materials that have been reviewed by the department through organizations like EdReports and Achieve the Core. http://www.ride.ri.gov/InstructionAssessment/InstructionalInitiativesResources.aspx |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The Rhode Island Department of Education does not appear to require the use specific curricular materials. It does provide expert-reviewed, and state approved, curriculum resources for teachers and districts. As the state website specifies, "High-quality curriculum materials have been verified as aligned to rigorous college- and career-ready standards. When defining high-quality curriculum materials Rhode Island is adopting the work of EdReports a nationally recognized organization providing expert reviews of materials." |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to curriculum. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The South Carolina Department of Education provides some ELA and Math curricular frameworks for the implementation of specific programs or skills sets. Among these are an Honors ELA course implementation framework in both ELA and Math and a framework for inquiry in ELA. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The South Carolina State Department of Education provides recommended instructional units, lesson plans, and other instructional resources for ELA and Math teachers. The units include the rationale/overview, standards and indicators, clarifying notes, “I Can” statements, essential questions, academic vocabulary, prior knowledge, subsequent knowledge, potential instructional strategies, learning targets, and culminating assessments. Resources differ for ELA and Math. Math: https://ed.sc.gov/instruction/standards-learning/mathematics/support-documents-and-resources/ |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The South Carolina State Department of Education requires the use of approved instructional materials. Materials, including textbooks, are reviewed in a 6-year cycle which corresponds to the state's review of its standards. https://ed.sc.gov/finance/instructional-materials/guides-and-instructions/overview-of-the-instructional-materials-adoption-program/overview-of-the-instructional-materials-adoption-program/ |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The State Board approved new standards in ELA in 2015. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
SD has provided sample blueprints as resources for aligning instruction to the standards at each grade level: http://doe.sd.gov/octe/ccsELA.aspx http://sdccteachers.k12.sd.us/home/ela-k-12-instructional-blueprints http://doe.sd.gov/ContentStandards/math.aspx http://sdccteachers.k12.sd.us/home/math-blueprint-overview/math-blueprints |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
According to state officials, SD provides districts with unpacked standards recourses for most standards. The unpacked standards for English language arts and math will be posted on the Departments website later this fall. The unpacked standards provide additional details such as: Student-friendly language about the standard; What teachers/students need to know, understand, and do or conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and application information depending upon the set of standards; Achievement-level descriptors for ELA and math; Key terms/vocabulary; Previous learning connections, future learning connections; and Relevance, explanations, and examples information. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
There is no information regarding required or encouraged curricular materials available on the state website. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether curricular frameworks have changed from 2011 to 2018. |
The state adopted new ELA and standards in 2018. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
While there is no curriculum framework for all grade levels, the state's literacy framework for pre-K through 4th grade teachers is reportedly aligned to its academic standards: |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
While there are no curricular materials (i.e. unit plans, lesson plans, pacing guides) listed on the state website, there is a detailed literacy guide for pre-K through 4th grade teachers. This guide outlines the state's approach to unit planning, implementing literacy instruction in the classroom, and reflection. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
According to the website, "The State Textbook and Instructional Materials Quality Commission is responsible for recommending an official list of textbooks and instructional materials to the Tennessee State Board of Education (SBE) for approval. Once the SBE has approved a list of textbooks and instructional materials, it is the responsibility of local boards of education to decide which textbooks and instructional materials to use in their districts." There is a period of public review, in which the public has the opportunity to weigh in on the recommended textbooks and instructional materials. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Tennessee launched their statewide Read to be Ready campaign in 2015, and new standards in the 2017-2018 school year. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The state refers to their curriculum as their content standards—there are no separate frameworks. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
There are no known guidelines that specify expectations for curricular development. The state is currently developing an interactive instructional tool to help educators understand how the state defines components of the standards, and what resources to use to plan standards-based lessons. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The required curricula referred to on the state website are the ELA, math, social studies, and science standards. The state provides a list of currently adopted curricular materials in ELA and math: https://tea4avfaulk.tea.texas.gov/ematevi/EMATREPORTS/RptInst/EM_CURR_ADPN.pdf |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Texas revised their math standards in 2012. They revised their curricular standards in 2017. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Curriculum is locally adopted in Utah. The state offers some supports for curriculum such as core guides for each grade level in mathematics, and lesson plans for each grade level in ELA, that are aligned to state standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
There are detailed lesson plans or curricular guidelines offered for each grade level in both content areas. The resources can be found through this website: https://www.uen.org/core/ The state has also created specific open education resources, such as science and mathematics texts that are available at UEN. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The Utah State Instructional Materials Commission selects and adopts a list of textbooks and instructional materials that they recommend to districts. This list is updated once every five years. This commission includes the state superintendent as well as educators throughout the state. Additionally, content and teaching experts throughout the state developed Open Educational Resources in secondary ELA and math, with may be used by educators, parents, and students. Finally, the state's Curriculum Search database offers a compilation of resources for math and ELA educators: https://www.uen.org/curriculumsearch/searchParams.action |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The state revises their list of curricular materials once every five years. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
When Vermont first adopted the CCSS, they released the Standards and Assessment Implementation guide. Now, expectations for curriculum are identified in the Education Quality Standards (2120.5. Curriculum Content. http://education.vermont.gov/documents/state-board-rules-series-2000). |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Curriculum is determined locally. The state website provides a link to one of their district's K-12 scope and sequence in ELA, though there is no equivalent state resource for math. Guidelines for proficiency-based learning, which is a state requirement, are found here (though they are not specific to grade level or content area): http://education.vermont.gov/sites/aoe/files/documents/edu-proficiency-based-education-key-characteristics-of-a-proficiency-based-learning-system-of-education.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Curriculum is determined locally. While there is no required curriculum, the state's Act 77 requires students be provided with flexible and personalized pathways for demonstrating proficiency at each grade level. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The math and ELA CCSS were adopted in 2010. In 2013, the state passed Act 77, which requires flexible pathways to learning. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Virginia provides curriculum frameworks for educators. http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/ |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The Virginia Department of Education provides curriculum frameworks for both ELA and math content area, which outlines what it means for students to understand the standards, and the essential knowledge and skills they need for each strand. ELA: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/english/index.shtml Math: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/mathematics/index.shtml Lesson plans and a variety of supplementary materials are available (e.g. instructional videos, PowerPoint presentations, etc.) by content. ELA lesson plans: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/english/2010/lesson_plans/index.shtml Math lesson plans: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/scope_sequence/mathematics_2009/index.php |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
According to the state website, “the Standards of Learning (SOL) and the Curriculum Framework consist of the content that educators are supposed to teach and students are supposed to learn. Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) handles the textbook review process for the Board of Education. Once approved, the VDOE provides a proposed list of textbooks for the specific content area.” |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to curriculum. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Washington establishes state learning standards; curriculum is determined by local districts, and therefore there are no ELA or math curricular guidelines on the state website. The state has statewide approved Career and Technical Education equivalencies based on model frameworks that align national and industry standards to state core content standards, performance assessments, leadership, employability, relevance to work, and thinking skills. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Washington establishes state learning standards; curriculum is determined by local districts. The state provides guidance and conducts workshops about instructional materials adoption. The state website also provides links to external resources for both ELA and math content areas. For instance, teachers can access links to Illustrative Math, Achieve the Core, Youcubed at Stanford University, and math resources at http://www.k12.wa.us/Mathematics/Resources.aspx#2. Similarly, Washington's ELA teachers can access external ELA resources, Achieve and Achieve the Core, on the state's website. ELA teachers can also access internal resources, such as resources for OSPI's Early Learning Program at http://www.k12.wa.us/EarlyLearning/default.aspx. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
Washington does not have required curriculum. According to the website, "the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) no longer provides reviews of (math) instructional materials or curriculum other than reviews of Open Educational Resources (OER) curriculum." However, it does provide schools guidance on curriculum selection. The state website uses Educators Evaluating Qualitative Instructional Products (EquIP), an Achieve resource, to help schools recognize appropriate material aligned to the standards. Additionally, the state uses Instructional Materials Evaluation Tool (IMET), an Achieve the Core resource, to help schools assess textbooks alignment with the standards.
|
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to curricular offerings. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
Curriculum frameworks for ELA and math are not publicly accessible on the state website. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The state provides curriculum resources on its Teacher Resources for Educational Excellence (TREE) website, though these resources are not publicly accessible: https://webtop.k12.wv.us/0/apps/tree/ |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
According to the state website, county boards of education, administrators and educators are responsible for the curriculum. Guidelines for selecting instructional materials are not publicly accessible. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to curricular frameworks. West Virginia implemented new standards in 2016. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The state provides curriculum frameworks for both ELA and math content areas. https://dpi.wi.gov/standards In Wisconsin, all state standards serve as a model. Locally elected school boards adopt academic standards in each subject area to best serve their local community. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
Wisconsin's state website includes ELA templates for course, unit, and lesson plans. Additionally, external links are provided to access supplementary ELA materials: https://wlresources.dpi.wi.gov/browse?batch_size=20&sort_by=title&view_mode=summary&f. In math, the state provides curricular frameworks that outline how to launch, explore summarize, reflect, and apply the standards. Supplementary resources are provided here: https://wlresources.dpi.wi.gov/browse?batch_size=20&sort_by=title&view_mode=summary&f.general_subject= |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
The Wisconsin State Statutes do not generally govern the process of adoption of model academic standards, but schools must have standards and must include certain curricular subjects. Each school board is required by Wisconsin law to adopt pupil academic standards in mathematics, science, reading and writing, geography, and history. Each school board should provide curriculum, course requirements and instruction consistent with the goals and expectations under [current law] [s. 118.30 (1g) (a) 1., Stats.] & Chapter PI 8.01 (1) (k), Stats. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction, exercising his authority under Article X of the Wisconsin Constitution, adopts model academic standards that school boards may adopt, if they choose to do so. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction has adopted standards for 27 content areas, such as mathematics, ELA, technology education, business, science, and world languages. In Wisconsin, all state standards serve as a model. Locally elected school boards adopt academic standards in each subject area to best serve their local community. Wisconsin does not have required curriculum. Wisconsin Department of Public Education's objective is to help districts select high-quality instructional materials, and they therefore provide some resources to help districts select aligned materials: Wisconsin Department of Public Education's objective is to help districts select high-quality instructional materials. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to curriculum. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Consistency |
Whether states have curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards. |
The state does not provide curriculum frameworks for educators. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the standards. |
The state website provides a list of resources to external links for both math and ELA content areas. For the math subject area, Wyoming's website includes but not limited to links to The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and The Mathematics Assessment Project which both include lessons and additional resources. The website also includes links to external resources for language arts, such as Achieve the Core and Navigating Text Complexity. Wyoming has a statewide PLC Edmodo links for all academic subjects. According to the website, "The WDE has launched a statewide PLC on Edmodo so teachers, coaches, and facilitators can ask questions, share information and resources, and even share lessons and mapping documents that have already been created." https://edu.wyoming.gov/educators/standards/ |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which states require curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD. |
There is no mention of required or recommended resources, or guidelines for selecting resources, on the state website. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether ELA or math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Wyoming adopted ELA standards in 2012 and Mathematics in 2018. |
0 |
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
WIDA's ELD standards are integrated with Alabama's ELA standards to support ELs in the classrooms. A guidebook is updated each year for use by English Learner (EL) coordinators, classroom teachers, program administrators, and federal programs coordinators and directors. For more information, click the following link: http://www.alsde.edu/sec/fp/ell/ESL%20Resources/EL%20Guidebook%202018-2019.pdf |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The Alabama Department of Education provides guidance related to particular models: English as a SecondLanguage (ESL); English Language Development (ELD); and, Structured English Immersion (SEI). These instructional models are explored in a guidebook updated each year for use by EL coordinators, classroom teachers, program administrators, and federal programs coordinators and directors. For more information, click the following link: http://www.alsde.edu/sec/fp/ell/ESL%20Resources/EL%20Guidebook%202018-2019.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Alabama is a member of the WIDA consortium. For more information, click the following link: https://wida.wisc.edu/ |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The changes made in Alabama’s EL assessment are the results of upgrades to the ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 online assessment. For more information, click the following link: https://wida.wisc.edu/assess/access/tests/online |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Alaska has adopted the 2007 WIDA ELD Standards. WIDA also has available the 2012 Amplified Standards which includes additional topics with connections to academic content standards. Both sets of standards are intended to be used together to guide instruction. https://education.alaska.gov/ESEA/TitleIII-A/docs/EL_Identification.docx |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The state refers districts to federal requirements and asks that they submit paperwork that details the services they are providing but does not require or have specific curriculum or program models: https://education.alaska.gov/ESEA/TitleI-A/docs/EL_Plan_of_Service_GMS.docx |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Alaska is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Alaska adopted WIDA standards in 2007 and has adopted the changes made by WIDA. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
There is a purposeful overlap of the ELP and the Arizona College and http://www.azed.gov/oelas/elps https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=54de1d88aadebe14a87070f0 |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Arizona requires that states use an Structured English Immersion (SEI) model that they have outlined here: https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=55257a8f1130c008a0c55ce3 |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
There are no known partnerships. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
SEI endorsement requirements were changed as of April 24, 2017 http://www.azed.gov/oelas/sei-endorsement/ |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Arkansas uses the CCSSO ELP standards that are assessed by the ELPA21 Assessment. The Arkansas ELP Standards are aligned to the Arkansas Academic Standards in ELA as well as to the Mathematical Practices and Science Practices. The alignment is by grade level and it may be accessed on the ADE websitehttp://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Curriculum%20and%20Instruction/ |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
There is an ADE ESOL Program Handbook to guide districts in implementing programs that are in alignment with the expectations of OCR and the Department of Justice. One section in the handbook addresses program development. Districts and SEAs are referred to the federal ELL toolkit for program models. |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Arkansas is an ELPA21 state, Arkansas participates in CCSSO’s State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards English Learner group to collaborate with other states on improving state efforts in serving English Learners. Arkansas collaborated with Education Northwest to offer six regional three-day ELP Standards Training of Trainers institutes in the Summer of 2016. Ongoing support to districts has been provided by Education Northwest via http://www.arkansaselp.org/. Utilizing local experts who had completed the ELP Standards Institutes, the state continues to provide professional development regarding the ongoing implementation of the ELP Standards. Every fall, Arkansas partners with ARKTESOL to provide a statewide conference for educators who serve English Learners followed by a one-day training for district ESOL Coordinators. ARKTESOL is the state affiliate of TESOL, an international professional organization for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Additionally, ADE has partnered with various institutions of higher education to provide an ESL endorsement training program where teachers attend a rigorous summer institute followed by four modules of targeted learning aligned to the state standards for teaching English Learners with on-going support throughout the school year as the participants apply new concepts in their classrooms. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Arkansas adopted the Common Core in 2010 and revised the Arkansas Academic Standards in 2016. The ELP Standards were adopted in 2014 and Arkansas started using ELPA21 assessments in 2014. The ADE ESOL Program Guide was developed and released in December 2015 in an effort to support districts as they design and implement effective programs and policies for English Learners. In the fall of 2016 through the spring of 2018, the Arkansas ESSA Title III/English Learner Advocacy Group was formed to collaboratively address the items pertaining to English Learners in the Arkansas ESSA plan by gathering input from a variety of stakeholders including ESOL Coordinators, superintendents, teachers, community leaders, universities and parents. Common entry and exit procedures were developed as part of the ESSA plan with this stakeholder group with full implementation in the 2018-19 school year. In an effort to provide additional instructional supports to districts, in 2017 Arkansas added two English Learner Specialists who provide professional development and program support along with the state ESOL Program Director and EL Assessment Specialist. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
The state has ELP standards as well as detailed supports for ELA/ELP implementation: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/implementationsupport.asp The state has recently transitioned to the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC) as the state ELP assessment. The ELPAC is aligned with the 2012 California English Language Development Standards. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ep/ |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
California authorizes school districts and county offices of education to develop language acquisition programs: at a minimum providing Structured English Immersion; and to the extent possible, providing Two Way or Dual-language immersion programs for native and non-native English speakers; and Transitional or Developmental programs for ELLs. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/caedge.asp |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
California developed their own ELP standards: https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/englangdevstnd.pdf The binational summer programs is a collaborative effort among the Secretary of Foreign Relations and Secretary of Public Education of Mexico, Mexican Consulates, and the California Department of Education; Migrant Education Binational Migrant Education Program (Mexico). https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/me/il/binational.asp The U.S. State Department designates U.S. organizations to administer the Exchange Teacher Program (currently, Spain and Mexico) that provides cross-cultural exchanges, understanding and respect between California teachers and foreign teachers, professional development, and interest in international studies. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/me/il/exchangevisit.asp |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The ELP standards were revised as a result of the adoption of the Common Core: https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/eldresources.asp State Seal of Biliteracy (2012) program recognizes high school graduates who have attained a high level of proficiency in speaking, reading, and writing one or more languages in addition to English. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/sealofbiliteracy.asp The CA Education for a Global Economy (CA Ed.G.E.) Initiative passed by voters in 2016 authorizes school districts and county offices of education to establish language acquisition programs for both native and non-native English speakers, and requires school districts and county offices of education to solicit parent and community input in developing language acquisition programs. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/caedge.asp The EL Roadmap Policy was approved by the State Board of Education in 2017 providing guidance to local educational agencies (LEAs) in order to welcome, understand, and educate the diverse population of students who are English learners attending California public schools. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/rm/ The CDE developed the EL Learner Roadmap that contains a crosswalk with the State Local Control Funding Formula priorities. https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/statepriorityresources.asp CA Global 2030 Initiative, 2018 a bold initiative to vastly expand the teaching and learning of world languages and the number of students proficient in more than one language over the next 12 years. https://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/, see also, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Speaks to Bilingual Teachers Event in Tijuana https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr18/yr18rel49.asp |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Colorado utilizes the WIDA ELP standards, and the state provides supplemental documents that demonstrate how they align to the Common Core standards. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Colorado gives districts flexibility in selecting their ELL programs, and provides funding based on the state's English Language Proficiency Act. This includes but is not limited to: bilingual education programs, ESL programs, and "other methods of achieving English proficiency": http://www.cde.state.co.us/cde_english/elpa They do have an ELD guidebook with a section on “Designing Effective Programs to Meet the Needs of ELs,” but the guidebook is not publicly available. Note from state officials: This guidebook is not publicly available, but only on request, as the CDE is under an agreement with OCR to make all public documents accessible. The CLDE office is working on making this very large document accessible, however, until then, it is available through an email request. |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Colorado participates in SEA WIDA activities, professional learning, and uses WIDA Professional Learning Unit credits to deliver PD to LEAs. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
According to the state website, “On May 21, 2014, Colorado’s Governor signed HB14-1298 that repealed and re-enacted with amendments to the English Language Proficiency Act (ELPA).” |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
The state developed a detailed document that outlines how the ELP standards correspond with the content standards: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SDE/English-Learners/celp_standards_content_standards_practices.pdf?la=en |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
In Connecticut, “Bilingual Education Programs are to be established and implemented in any school building that has 20 or more EL/LEP students with the same dominant language. Per the Bilingual Finally, this site offers links to a variety of instructional tools, professional learning opportunities, and resources for ELs: https://portal.ct.gov/SDE/English-Learners/English-Learners/Documents |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide. additional supports for teachers. |
Connecticut has worked closely with the Connecticut Administrators of Programs for English Language Learners (CAPELL) to provide resources and/or trainings for ELL and bilingual education programs. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The state board adopted the Connecticut English Language Proficiency standards in 2015. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Delaware utilizes the WIDA ELD standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Delaware recognizes several different program models to deliver ESL services. These include: ESL content-based models, pull-out models, inclusion, sheltered instruction, bilingual programs, transitional bilingual programs, maintenance developmental bilingual programs. In addition to the language instructional programs, there are requirements related to parent involvement and student advocacy that must also be fulfilled: https://www.doe.k12.de.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=5113&dataid= 14801&FileName=Section%20IV_EnrollmentProvision%20of%20Services.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Delaware is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to the ELL policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
D.C. is a WIDA state and therefore utilizes their ELP standards. There are no documents that demonstrate alignment with the ELA standards available on the state website. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The state’s Delivering Education Services to English Learners guidebook for administrators, instructional leaders, and teachers in D.C. outlines program models, accommodations, and best practices in instructional strategies for English Learners: https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/EL_Policy_FINAL.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
D.C. is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The state developed a State English Learner Action Plan in 2015, which includes “critical levers for change and key activities OSSE is executing on behalf of English learners for the 2015-2016 school year.” It is unclear if this action plan is still in use. |
|
* Information on curriculum, SWD supports, and EL supports came from both the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) website and from the D.C. Public Schools website (DCPS).
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
CPALMS has descriptions of language development standards and a correlating document with descriptions of how these standards are implicated in different courses: http://www.cpalms.org/Public/PreviewStandard/Preview/8644 |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Approved programs delineated in the PK-12 Database Manuals indicate that sheltered English instruction, two-way immersion, maintenance programs, sheltered immersion, and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programs are available for ELL students, though there is not much detail describing these programs. |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Florida is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
In 2012 Florida adopted the revised WIDA standards. http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7506/urlt/English-Language-Learners-Update.pdf |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Georgia advocates for the use of core English language instructional programs, called ESOL, which offer curricular frameworks aligned to the state's ELD standards adopted from WIDATM. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) is an English language instructional program for English Learners (ELs) using Georgia’s standards-based curriculum aligned to the WIDA ELD standards: http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-Instruction/Pages/English-to-Speakers-of-Other-Languages-%28ESOL%29-and-Title-III.aspx |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Georgia is a WIDA state. Georgia also works with WIDA, TESOL, GATESOL, and various Georgia Universities to support teachers of ELs. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Georgia has continued to use the ELD standards framework developed by WIDA and has adopted consequent versions of their ACCESS for ELLs® assessment. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Hawaii uses the WIDA standards that are aligned to the Common Core http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/StudentLearning/ |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Hawaii advocates for programs of English as a second language as well as "acculturation activities," though they do not specify these programs and supports: |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Hawaii is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no changes to ELL policies or supports listed on the state website. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Idaho adopted the WIDA standards, though there does not seem to be a publicly accessible resource that shows how the WIDA ELD standards align with Idaho’s content standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The state provides information on different ELL programs and instructional strategies, but the selection of appropriate programs is determined at the district level. Alternative Language Programs for LEPs: http://www.sde.idaho.gov/el-migrant/el/files/resources/curriculum/Language-Programs.pdf LEP instructional approaches: http://www.sde.idaho.gov/el-migrant/el/files/resources/curriculum/Instructional-Approaches.pdf ESL strategies: http://www.sde.idaho.gov/el-migrant/el/files/resources/curriculum/English-Second-Language-Strategies.pdf Additionally, their curriculum review committees vetted programs and resources that align with the ELD standards: Recommended programs: http://www.sde.idaho.gov/academic/curricular/files/adoption-guide/lep/LEP-Grade-K-12-Recommendations.pdf Recommended resources: http://www.sde.idaho.gov/academic/curricular/files/adoption-guide/lep/LEP-Resources.pdf |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Idaho is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Idaho adopted the WIDA standards in 2013 and reviews their English Language Development materials and resources every three years. http://www.sde.idaho.gov/el-migrant/el/files/program/guidance/2016-2017-EL-Program-Manual.pdf |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Illinois adopted WIDA’s ELD and Spanish Language Development standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The state designed a framework to guide districts in “designing comprehensive, research based services for kindergarten through 12th grade English learners that meet the federal Title VI requirements of equitable and meaningful access to education, as well as Illinois state requirements under the Illinois School Code Article 14C”: https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Learning-Equitable-Access.aspx They have one section explaining how to provide comprehensive services for English learners (https://www.isbe.net/Documents/comp-svcs-section.pdf ) and one section on addressing standards-based instructional needs for English learners (https://www.isbe.net/Documents/stds-based-inst-asmt-section.pdf) |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Illinois is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Illinois adopted the WIDA standards and has since made modifications to their definition, procedures, and assessment of ELLs but has not changed their standards since adoption: https://www.isbe.net/Documents/1_ACCESS-%20Superintendent.pdf |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Indiana is a WIDA partner and has adopted the WIDA ELD standards. While no direct crosswalk is provided for these standards, they are intended to work alongside the Indiana ELA standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The state provides resources for districts and schools to interpret federal law to serve EL but does not suggest or prescribe particular programs: https://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/elme/2017-2018-idoe-el-guidebook.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Indiana is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to the ELL policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
The Iowa English Language Proficiency Standards correspond to the Iowa’s academic standards for English/Language Arts. This alignment includes resources like the student screener and assessment. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Iowa does not require specific program models for English Language Learners, and they provide general descriptions of different models in their EL handbook (this is being currently updated). However, the state does require that any program that is developed at the district level (including but not limited to bilingual education, dual language, ESL) consider a variety of different topics. All districts report, via SRI, what program models they employ in teaching Els. The state refers to the programs developed at the district level as Language Instruction Education Program (LIEP). https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/ELHandbook-May2013%28Revised%29.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Iowa is an ELPA21 state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Iowa joined ELPA21 in January of 2014, when they adopted its standards and assessments as well. The Iowa core standards were adopted in 2016. Revisions to Iowa's EL Handbook were made in 2015. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
The state adopted ELPA21’s ELD standards in 2013. The state is collaborating with ELPA21 Standards Initiative in an effort to more closely correlate English Language Proficiency Standards with College and Career Ready standards for English Language Arts and Literacy, Math, and Science. http://www.ksde.org/Agency/Division-of-Learning-Services/Career-Standards-and-Assessment-Services/Content-Area-A-E/English-Language-Proficiency/Standards |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The state provides training modules on the standards, provided by ELPA21. It also provides guidance for working within dual language programs. However, no specific models for working ELLs are recommended. |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Kansas is an ELPA21 state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The KSDE adopted ELPA21 ELP standards in 2013. They have not, as of 5/21/18, adopted ELPA21st screeners: http://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/CSAS/Content%20Area%20(A-E)/English_Language_Proficiency/Assessments/approved%20ELL% |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
WIDA's ELP standards are designed to serve as a “companion document” to the Kentucky Academic Standards, though the integration of the two sets of standards are not explicitly demonstrated. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The KDE does not make specific recommendations to districts for what programs they should implement to support their ELs. They refer districts to the considerations put forth by the Office of English Language Acquisition and Office of Civil Rights: https://education.ky.gov/specialed/EL/Pages/English-Learners-and-Immigrant--Resources.aspx |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Kentucky is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
In 2017, Kentucky moved to a new WIDA Screener Online to identify ELLs in 1-12th grades. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
The LDE has ELP standards that are aligned with content standards at each grade level: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/academic-standards |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The LDE provides guidance and considerations for districts to consider as they develop EL programming. In certain instances, they may recommend that districts implement specific programs. For example, if a district has an established EL community that speaks the same language, they recommend the development of a two-way language immersion instructional model: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/english-learners/english-learner-guidebook-changing-educational-outcomes-for-english-learners.pdf?sfvrsn=4 Additionally, “Connectors for English Learners” demonstrates what EL’s language use looks like at each ELP level as he or she progresses toward independent participation in grade-appropriate tasks. The Connectors inform general education teachers how to implement strategies to support ELs in general education classrooms. One example of this document is here: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/academic-standards/4th-grade-connectors-for-els.pdf?sfvrsn=3 |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Louisiana partnered with WestEd and the Stanford Understanding Language Initiative to create the Connectors for English Learners document. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
In 2017-18, Louisiana began identifying schools that are persistently low performing with ELs for targeted intervention. In 2017-18, districts had the option to submit a plan for improvement; beginning in 2018-19, intervention plans are required. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Maine uses WIDA's ELD standards, designed to support all content areas. They further require that each district have a plan to align the instruction of ELs to all content standards, regardless of the number of ELs in their districts, though they do not provide guidelines for doing so: https://www.maine.gov/doe/sites/maine.gov.doe/files/inline-files/ServingMainesEnglishLearnersAugust2012.doc |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Maine stature requires that all instruction be conducted in English, for all students. However, districts and schools are permitted to develop bilingual programs if the goal is to achieve proficiency in two languages or if the bilingual program is of a transitional nature: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/20-A/title20-Asec4701.html |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Maine is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Maine joined WIDA in 2003 and since then has only clarified its definitions of proficiency, EL, and requirements to serve ELs in the state: https://mainedoenews.net/2011/09/07/legal-requirements-english-learners/ |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
WIDA's grade-level English Language Development (ELD) Standards directly correspond to grade-level Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which Maryland has adopted. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
In Maryland, districts use the WIDA ELD standards to develop their own curricula and program requirements. There are some strategies for supporting ELs embedded throughout some of the ELA, social studies, and math unit plans. |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Maryland is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to ELL policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Massachusetts is a member of the WIDA consortium and utilizes the WIDA English Language Development Standards. WIDA's standards are designed to be implemented alongside Massachusetts ELA standards. While the state does not provide direct alignment documents, it provides many resources for districts and teachers to align content and ELP standards. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Massachusetts state law requires that ELs be educated in either a sheltered English immersion (SEI) program or a bilingual education program. Bilingual education programs include dual language or two-way immersion (TWI) programs and transitional bilingual education (TBE) programs. Districts seeking to open new SEI or bilingual education programs must develop a proposal and submit it for review by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education no later than January 1st of the preceding school year. Massachusetts also provides instructional videos demonstrating the implementation of ELP standards. Additionally, Massachusetts has also released curricular framework supports for content area standards and the integration of ELP standards. |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Massachusetts is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
On November 22, 2017, Governor Baker signed into law the LOOK Act. Broadly, the new law aims to provide districts with more flexibility as to the English learner education programs they choose to meet the needs of English learners, while maintaining accountability for timely and effective English language acquisition. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
The EL site is inactive. |
0 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The EL site is inactive. |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Michigan is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to ELL policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
WIDA ELD standards are designed to be implemented with Minnesota’s ELA standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Minnesota provides a brief overview of second language acquisition frameworks, which includes the name of the framework, the program model, the standards, and the outcomes: https://education.mn.gov/mdeprod/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Minnesota is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The Learning English for Academic Proficiency and Success (LEAPS) Act was passed in Minnesota in 2014, which increases supports for ELs. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
There are no English Language Proficiency standards found on the website. The state utilizes the CTB LAS Links assessments to monitor progress towards acquiring English. According to the LAS Links overview document, the assessment was “developed to measure students’ English language proficiency in school settings in relation to the content, literacy, and linguistic goals of the CCR and other content standards of a similar nature”: https://districtaccess.mde.k12.ms.us/studentassessment/Public%20Access/Special_Populations |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The English Learner: Administrator and Teacher Guide provides EL instructional strategies, how to assess mastery of EL standards, and explanations of elementary, middle, and high school reading and writing portfolios The state also offers a series of recorded webinars designed to provide administrators, general education teachers, EL tutors and other educators with information on how to effectively serve this population. There are also instructional strategy guides, resources to request differentiated professional learning experiences, and other EL specific tools, including sample assessments and lesson plans. These resources may be found here: |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The state belongs to the National Council for Chief State School Officers, which provides supports and professional learning that supports the SEAs development of professional development content for teachers. The American Institute for Research (AIR) also provides professional learning and content supports for EL teachers, through technical assistance and professional development. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
In order to meet the requirements of ESSA an English learner component has been added to the state accountability model. The state has increased the support personnel available to provide on-site, technical assistance, differentiated professional development and coaching from one to a staff of four. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Missouri uses WIDA standards that are aligned to the Missouri Learning Standards. Missouri educators apply WIDA performance definitions to grade level academic standards in all content areas. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The state’s Educating Linguistically Diverse Students Handbook details program model options and sample curricular supports, but the state does not have legislation or specific curriculum or program models that districts must follow. Instructional tools to support ELs come from our partner WIDA. |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Missouri is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
ACCESS score exit criteria changed in 2017. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Montana uses WIDA standards that are designed to be integrated with the Montana ELA standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Montana does not require that districts use a specific program to implement ELD standards. They do, however, list some program models districts may choose to implement. http://opi.mt.gov/Portals/182/Page%20Files/Title%20%26%20Other%20Federal%20Programs |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Montana is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Montana is a member of WIDA. In 2012, Montana adopted a definition of proficiency based on the convening of English learner educators across the state. This definition is reflected in exiting criteria. http://opi.mt.gov/Portals/182/Page%20Files/Title%20%26%20Other%20Federal%20Programs |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Nebraska underwent an alignment process in May of 2017 to ensure that ELP standards are aligned to ELA standards. https://cdn.education.ne.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/AlignmentDocumentELA2017.pdf |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Nebraska does not require that districts use particular curricula or program models to implement their ELD standards. They do, however, provide general resources to assist in the implementation of particular programs to serve their English learner population. Among these are: pull-out ESL, push-in ESL, Sheltered English Instruction (SEI), Dual language, transitional bilingual and heritage programs. https://cdn.education.ne.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/NDE-Teacher-Program-Guide-2017-updates.pdf See Rule 15 Implementation Guide Section 004 (page 15) https://www.education.ne.gov/nderule/rule-15-implementation-guide/ |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Nebraska is an ELPA21 state. Nebraska is a member of the EL SCASS through CCSSO. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The Nebraska Department of Education adopted its ELD standards in 2014. Since then, some modifications have been made to EL exit criteria: See Rule 15, section 007, page 42. https://www.education.ne.gov/nderule/rule-15-implementation-guide/ |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Nevada is part of the WIDA consortium. However, their English Learner and Migrant Education webpage is currently under construction as of 7/5/18, http://www.doe.nv.gov/Assessments/English_Language_Proficiency_Assessment_(WIDA)/ |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
This information is not currently available publicly. |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Nevada is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Nevada is a part of the WIDA consortium and is considering the impact of WIDA's ACCESS 2.0 assessment, relative to its own standards. To date, updates to EL assessments and exit criteria have reflected updates from WIDA. http://www.doe.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/ndedoenvgov/content/News__Media/Guidance_Memos |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
The New Hampshire Department of Education is part of the WIDA consortium and uses their ELD standards. The state provides alignment resources between their ELD and content standards, including reading and writing. These alignment resources are also available for Math, Science, and Social Studies. https://www.education.nh.gov/instruction/integrated/title_iii_information_nh.htm |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The New Hampshire Department of Education provides a choice of programs for the implementation of ELD standards. These include: small group or individual pull-out program, ESOL instruction in the mainstream classroom, a self-contained (magnet) classroom for a limited period of time, and sheltered instruction in the mainstream classroom. Additionally, there are restrictions of how long a student may be in a pull-out environment. https://www.education.nh.gov/instruction/integrated/esol/documents/esol_guidance_revised_9-8-15.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
New Hampshire is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
New Hampshire has been part of the WIDA consortium since 2004. Since then, they have adopted changes to assessment and proficiency thresholds. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
NJ is part of the WIDA consortium and has adopted its ELD standards, intend to be used in conjunction with its ELA standards. Alignment between these two sets of standards can be found in resource documents including the curricular framework for ELA and model curriculum for ELA. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Districts with fewer than 5 students must provide part-time English as a Second language programs for English learners. Districts with more than 20 English learners of a single language must be provided with full-time English development programs. Part time programs available for implementation include: English as a Second Language, Sheltered English Instruction, High Intensity ESL, Bilingual Tutorial, Bilingual Resource, and Bilingual Part-time. Full-time programs available for implementation include: Dual Language (Two-way immersion), Full-time bilingual (transitional bilingual). Districts with more than 20 English learners of the same language may submit a waiver to provide less than full-time programs. The NJ Department of Education provides detailed guidance on the implementation of these programs including student class sizes for each program model, by grade level. https://www.state.nj.us/education/bilingual/policy/ImplementingELLPrograms.pdf Model curricula is to meet the needs of EL students are also provided by the NJ Department of Education. https://www.state.nj.us/education/bilingual/curriculum/ |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
New Jersey is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
NJ is part of the WIDA consortium and has adopted its ACCESS 2.0 assessment upon its release in 2016. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
New Mexico uses the WIDA standards, designed to be integrated to ELA and other content areas. No specific alignment documents are available on the state’s webpages. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
There are five state approved English language development programs in the state of New Mexico: Dual language immersion, Enrichment programs, Heritage language programs, Maintenance programs, and Transitional programs. https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/bureaus/languageandculture/bilingual-multicultural-education-programs-bmeps/bilingual-multicultural-education-programs-bmeps-frequently-asked-questions-faqs/ |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
New Mexico is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
New Mexico has adopted WIDA updates to assessments and now uses ACCESS 2.0. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
The state of NY developed two sets of standards that are aligned to the common core ELA standards. These standards are the English as a Second Language and Native Language Arts Standards. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The NY State Education Department provides a list of EL program options available for implementation by districts. These programs include one-way and two-way Dual Language, English as a Second Language, as well as a transitional bilingual program. http://www.nysed.gov/bilingual-ed/program-options-english-language-learnersmultilingual-learners They also developed Scaffolding Instruction for ELL Resource Guides for ELA and math: http://www.nysed.gov/bilingual-ed/program-options-english-language-learnersmultilingual-learners Finally, the state website includes resources for their Integrated English as a New Language Initiative, which integrates core content with ELD instruction: http://www.nysed.gov/bilingual-ed/integrated-english-new-language-enl-resources |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
The “Scaffolding Instruction for ELLs” resource guides were developed in partnership with the American Institutes for Research Center for English Language Learners. Existing partnerships include the NYS Regional Bilingual Education Resource Network, which provides PD and resources to strengthen the teaching and learning of students of English as a New Language. They also link to WestEd’s resources for providing quality education for ELs” http://www.nysed.gov/bilingual-ed/english-language-learnermultilingual-learner-educator-tools-and-best-practices |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
In 2012, the NY State Education Department undertook a three-year process of creating the new English as a Second Language and Native Language Arts standards to align to the Common Core. https://www.engageny.org/resource/new-york-state-bilingual-common-core-initiative. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
North Carolina uses WIDA's ELD standards which are designed to be implemented with the state's ELA standards. The state does not, however, provide a direct alignment between the two. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction does not require that districts use specific curricula to meet the needs of their ELLs. The English Learner WIKI page specifies 4 programs that are currently available for implementation in North Carolina school districts: a Developmental Bilingual Model, Full and Partial Immersion programs, and Two-Way model. A search on 7/12 did not yield results indicating implementation guidelines or recommendations. |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
North Carolina is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
In 2008, The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction adopted the WIDA standards. The state has also adopted the WIDA's ACCESS 2.0 assessment, releasing guidelines in 2017. http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/policyoperations/lep/accessgde2017-18.pdf |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
North Dakota uses WIDA's ELD standards, which are designed to be implemented alongside the state's ELA standards. The state does not, however, provide direct alignment support between the two. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The North Dakota Department of Public Instruction does not require that states have specific curricular programs in place for ELLs. They do, however, provide guidance documents that list the requirements that any program or curriculum meant to meet the needs of ELLs should meet. (https://www.nd.gov/dpi/uploads/48/ELLProgramRequirementsTable.pdf) Additionally, they provide brief descriptions of program models and reference to 'model' programs in the state that have implemented those programs (https://www.nd.gov/dpi/uploads/1370/StaffingProgramModels.pdf). |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
North Dakota is a WIDA state. |
1 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
North Dakota is WIDA Partner and has adopted it's ACCESS 2.0 assessment. https://www.nd.gov/dpi/SchoolStaff/IME/ELL/ACCESS/ Clarification to the state's district procedures was released in 2016. https://www.nd.gov/dpi/uploads/1370/01LEPELLMIS01FallReportIdentificationGuidance201617.pdf |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Ohio uses the Ohio ELP standards, which are designed to be implemented with the state's ELA standards. The Ohio ELP Standards include two methods of correspondence mappings to promote the alignment of the ELP standards with the content area standards. One set of correspondences is provided for the language demands associated with the mathematics, science, and English language arts practices. A second type of correspondence shows the relationship between the ELP standards and the language demands found in Ohio’s Learning Standards for ELA. Ohio also provides general key points for teaching ELs in an ELA classroom. http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/English-Language-Art/Resources-for-English-Language-Arts/Tips-and-Tools-for-Diverse-Learners-in-English#ELL |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Ohio does not require that districts implement a particular model for ELs. It provides some key considerations for the teaching of ELLs. https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/English-Language-Art/Resources-for-English-Language-Arts/Tips-and-Tools-for-Diverse-Learners-in-English There are some instructional strategies embedded into the grade-level model curriculum documents. |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Ohio is an ELPA21 state. Also, Ohio participates in the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) English Learner State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (EL SCASS). Locally, the Ohio Department of Education’s Lau Resource Center for English Learners partners with the Ohio Teachers of English to Speakers of Languages (TESOL) to provide an annual conference on English language education. Partnerships that share expertise and supports for English learners also include the Ohio Foreign Language Association and regional collaboratives that meet to share resources for English learners. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
In 2015, the Ohio English Language Proficiency Assessment (OELPA) replaced the Ohio Test of English Language Acquisition based upon the previous ELP standards. http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Testing/Ohio-English-Language-Proficiency-Assessment-OELPA. In 2018, the corresponding screener (OELPS) was implemented. Through 2017-2018, Ohio implemented a two-step standardized procedure for identifying English learners, including the Ohio Language Usage Survey and Ohio English Language Proficiency Screener (OELPS) As part of the state literacy framework, professional development related to addressing the needs of English learners is being delivered to State Support Teams and the network of regional literacy leaders. Collaborative guidance regarding Early Learners, Exceptional Learners, and Vulnerable Youth including Migrant Youth occurs within the Department. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Oklahoma is part of the WIDA consortium and has adopted its ELD standards, designed to be implemented with the state's ELA standards. The state does not, however, provide alignment resources between the two. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
A search on 7/12 did not indicate that Oklahoma outlines specific programs for districts to meet the needs of their ELL students. No instructional implementation resources were found. |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Oklahoma is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Oklahoma joined WIDA in 2006 and has since adopted updates to its assessment, ACCESS 2.0. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
The Oregon Department of Education uses the ELPA21 standards. The state provides a diagram of the ELPA standard overlaps with content area principles, including ELA. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
A search on 7/12 did not yield results indicating that Oregon provides specific curricular/instructional tools or program models for the implementation of ELP standards. |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Oregon is an ELPA21 state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Ohio adopted the ELPA standards in 2013. In 2015, it became mandatory that ELL students with disabilities students take the ELPA assessment. https://www.oregon.gov/ode/rules-and-policies/StateRules/Documents/Executive%20Numbered%20Memo%20001-2014-15%20English%20Learner%20Students%20with%20Disabilities.pdf In the 2018-2019 school year districts will be required to use the state approved home language survey as part of their identification procedure. https://www.oregon.gov/ode/about-us/Documents/Numbered%20Memo%20003-2016-17%20EL%20Identification.pdf The Oregon Department of Education is implementing additional changes to meet the requirements of ESSA. These changes include the use of one of the states 4 approved screeners by 2018 and then the adoption of one sole screener by 2020. https://www.oregon.gov/ode/about-us/Documents/Executive%20Numbered%20Memo%20005-2017-18%20Identification%20of%20ELs%20under%20ESSA.pdf |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
The Pennsylvania Department of Education Standards Aligned System (SAS) provides ELL and ELA overlays. http://www.pdesas.org/Page/Viewer/ViewPage/15 |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Local education agencies in Pennsylvania can choose which program model best suits the needs of their students. They must, however, comply with criteria established by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. All programs must fall within six categories: Mixed Class Bilingual, EL Bilingual, EL-Specific Transitional Instruction, Mixed Classes with Native Language Support, EL Specific English Only Instruction, Mixed Classes with English Only Support. |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Pennsylvania is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The Pennsylvania Department of Education is a member of the WIDA consortium and has adopted the consortiums ACCESS 2.0 assessment. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Rhode Island is a member of the WIDA consortium and has implemented its ELD standards. These standards are designed to work with the Common Core standards adopted in Rhode Island. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The Rhode Island Department of Education does not require the use of a specific model or curricula for ELL. The state provides guidance for identifying the goals of ELL programs as through its "District EL Program Description Worksheet" that requires that districts identify and provide evidence as to how a particular program model meets their needs. The state additionally provides a course called, Building Capacity for a Collaborative ENL and General Education Model: A Five-Module Course for School-Based Teams: http://ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Students-and-Families-Great-Schools/English-Language-Learners/CourseBooklet.pdf According to this course booklet, “This course was created for school based teams and professional learning communities interested in increasing their capacity to support English Learners during general content instruction.” |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Rhode Island is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The Rhode Island Department of Education joined WIDA in 2003 and has adopted the consortia’s ACCESS 2.0 assessment. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
The South Carolina Department of Education uses the WIDA ELD standards, which are designed to be implemented with the state's ELA standards. The state does not, however, provide resources that make the alignment between the two standards clear. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The South Carolina Department of Education does not list any curricula or program models for the implementation of ELD standards. |
0 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
South Carolina is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
In the 2015-2016 school year, the South Carolina Department of Education approved the use of WIDA ACCESS assessment. https://ed.sc.gov/tests/elementary/access-for-ells/ |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
South Dakota is a WIDA partner and has adopted the WIDA ELD standards. While no direct crosswalk is provided for these standards, they are intended to work alongside the ELA standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
South Dakota posts a Guide for Establishing and Monitoring Programs and Services for English Learners. On page 18, the guide outlines different program models for English Learners and provides examples of different co-teaching models: http://doe.sd.gov/title/documents/EL-Guide2.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
South Dakota is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to ELL policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Tennessee is a WIDA partner and has adopted the WIDA ELD standards. The Teaching Literacy in Tennessee: English Learner Companion provides detailed guidelines for the integration of ELD standards into literacy instruction. |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Tennessee's English as a Second Learner Manual explains each program model in detail. The manual also provides examples of when students should be considered for different models, as well as what differently tiered instruction looks like for ESL students. The manual can be found here: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/cpm/ESL_Manual.pdf Moreover, their Teaching Literacy In Tennessee: English Learner Companion (https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/reports/teaching_literacy_tennessee_english_learner_ companion.pdf) also provides detailed guidelines for supporting ELs in literacy classrooms. |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Tennessee is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
According to their website, "All English Learners (ELs) will be required to have individual learning plans (ILPs) beginning in the 2018-19 school year, as noted in state board policy 3.207." |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Texas developed its Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System, with a handbook that shows how the English Language Proficiency Standards align with their TEKS, their academic content standards: https://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=25769811824&libID=25769811841 |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Texas as its own website full of resources and guidelines for supporting ELs and for implementing bilingual or ESL programs: http://elltx.org/ One example of a detailed resource is the Sentence Frames and Probing Questions tool (https://projects.esc20.net/upload/page/0071/docs/ELPS-SentenceFrames.pdf) while another example is the Interactive Language Objectives tool (https://projects.esc20.net/upload/page/0071/docs/ELPS-InteractiveLanguageObjectives.pdf) |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Texas develops their own standards and assessments. |
0 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The ELL assessment has been modified slightly every year since 2013. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Utah utilizes WIDA’s ELD standards. There are no guidelines available on the state website that demonstrate the alignment of ELD standards with the core ELA standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The state website provides an overview of their Dual Language Immersion program with English and either Chinese, French, German, Portuguese or Spanish, with a separate website explaining the model and offering resources for implementation: http://www.utahdli.org/instructionalmodel.html. ELL-specific program models are not described on the state website. |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Utah is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to ELL policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Vermont is a member of the WIDA Consortium and participated in the Alignment Study between CCSS in ELA and Math and WIDA ELP Standards. The results are published in a 3/14/2011 report prepared by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Oklahoma. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Vermont AOE’s English Learners web page, http://education.vermont.gov/student-support/federal-programs/english-learners, provides a link to WIDA website, resource library and secure portal, where VT educators can access curricular, instructional, or programmatic tools. |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Vermont has been a WIDA Consortium Member since 2004. WIDA works with multiple organizations, including Wisconsin Center for Educational Research (WCER), Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), and Data Recognition Corporation (DRC) to provide support services to SEAs and LEAs in member states. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
With the transition to a new Online ELP assessment in 2016, VT has made changes to policies/requirements related to state testing, preparation, and training. Additional instructional supports have been presented to Vermont on the WIDA website and via both virtual and face-to-face professional learning opportunities. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Virginia utilizes the WIDA ELD standards. The state provides webinars for lesson planning with ELD standards for language arts teachers. http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/esl/ |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Virginia's website includes lesson planning guides with ELD standards for Math, ELA, science, and social studies teachers. They also link to instructional resources provided by the U.S. Department of Education, as well as a reference to TeacherDirect, a weekly newsletter of instructional resources. |
2 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Virginia is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
The board adopted the WIDA standards in 2008. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Washington is a member of the ELPA21 Consortium and has adopted its English Language Proficiency Standards for use. The Consortium provides documentation of alignment to ELA standards. Washington provides K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 documents that show how ELP standards align with ELA standards. http://www.k12.wa.us/MigrantBilingual/ELD.aspx |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
The state offers links to six modules developed by the Regents of the University of California to provide professional development to teachers who use ELP standards. Washington educators of English learners receive instruction on the ELPA21 Consortium standards through the online modules. Washington recognizes six program models for Transitional Bilingual Instruction Programs, which they explicate here: http://www.k12.wa.us/MigrantBilingual/pubdocs/ProgramModels.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Washington is an ELPA21 state and is also a member of the CCSSO EL SCAS, the National Council of State Title III Directors. The Washington Association of Bilingual Educators (WABE) is an state resource organization that conducts three annual professional learning events for teachers and administrators. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Substitute House Bill 1445 established the creation of a dual language program in response to the 689% increase in the number of EL students from 1986 to 2014. English Learner Progress is part of Washington’s ESSA accountability framework, weighted 5% at each of the three levels: elementary, middle, high. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
West Virginia developed its own ELP standards, using California’s ELD standards as a launching point. The state website states that one of the goals for the new ELP standards is to "create fewer, clearer standards with strategic correspondences to the WV CCRS for English Language Arts (ELA) & WV’s ELP standards is included in State Board Policy 2417: http://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/policy.php?p=2417 |
2 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Some strategies for instructionally supporting ELLs are listed in here: http://wvconnections.k12.wv.us/elpstandards.html http://wvde.state.wv.us/federal-programs/documents/LIEP_Guidance.pdf US Department of Education OELA’s Toolkit has been shared with Federal program directors: https://ncela.ed.gov/files/english_learner_toolkit/2-OELA_2017_language_assist_508C.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
West Virginia is an ELPA21 state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
There are no known changes to ELL policies. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Wisconsin is part of the WIDA consortia and therefore draws on WIDA’s Essential’s Action Handbook as a resource for Wisconsin educators. The Essential Actions Handbook emphasizes the connection between the academic language as the crosswalk between grade-level expectations delineated in academic content standards and their corresponding language development standards. Additionally, Wisconsin serves as a member of the WIDA Standards committee. This committee is engaged in a three-year initiative to create a new WIDA Instructional Framework; a standards-based tool aimed at authentically blend language development and increased demands within the content standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
According to Chapter 8, Programming Decisions of their EL Policy Handbook, “Although districts have the flexibility to choose the programming and supports that work best for their district and their students, they are required to have the personnel and resources necessary to effectively implement the chosen EL program(s)”: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CMayfF21xmTOrOWU9H4hoa_t-DigDqNaN_59t7RMYS8/edit Wisconsin outlines their Language Instruction Educational Programs here: https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/english-learners/Language%20Instruction%20Education%20Program%20state%20of%20WI%20crosswalk.docx.pdf |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Wisconsin is part of the WIDA consortia. As a consortia member, Wisconsin accesses professional learning services that are made directly available to school districts and Cooperative Education Services Agencies (CESAs) to increase capacity of classroom teachers to support English Learners. The state collaborates with the CESAs to provide technical assistance and professional learning to educators at the local level. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
Wisconsin is working to ensure its state policies align with requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015. |
|
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Supports for ELLs |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards. |
Wyoming utilizes the WIDA ELD standards. |
1 |
|
Specificity |
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs. |
Wyoming provides an external link to the U.S. Department of Education's "Chapter 4: Tools and Resources for Providing English Learners Equal Access to Curricular and Extracurricular Programs". The chapter provides guidance to state and local educational agencies on meeting the needs of English Learners. At the end of the chapter, a list of resources is available for educators. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/chap4.pdf The state also explains ELL programs here: https://1ddlxtt2jowkvs672myo6z14-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/EL-Guidebook-Plus-Attachment-f.pdf Wyoming purchases 24 additional PLUs (beyond what WIDA provides per capita & contract) to provide professional development opportunities to districts on instructional tools and strategies to support ELLs. |
1 |
|
Authority |
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional supports for teachers. |
Wyoming is a WIDA state. |
2 |
|
Stability |
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018. |
As part of the implementation of a new assessment system in 2017-18, Wyoming updated their Accommodations Manual, which includes supports ELLs can use in the summative assessment: https://edu.wyoming.gov/downloads/assessments/2018/WY-TOPP-Accomodations-Guide.pdf. |
|
|
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Alabama uses the reading and language arts subtest of the Praxis II Elementary Education Multiple Subjects test to assess their literacy proficiency. The state's teaching standards also address the science of reading and incorporating literacy skills across content areas. However, the test and standards do not fully ensure that teachers are truly proficient in literacy instruction consistent with the CCR standards. At a secondary level, the teaching standards do not address the instructional shifts related to building content knowledge and vocabulary through careful reading of informational/literary texts, and they do not ensure that secondary teachers’ pedagogy is fully aligned to the literacy skills across core content areas. Alabama also requires prospective elementary teachers to earn a passing score on Praxis 5201, Teaching Reading. The Alabama State Board of Education (ALSBE) voted 10/12/2017, to increase the passing score on almost all Praxis tests used in Alabama, including each of the components of Elementary Education Multiple Subjects and Teaching Reading, effective 9/1/2018, and thereafter. A copy of the resolution is accessible via this link: http://www.alsde.edu/sites/boe/Adopted%20Resolutions/Resolution%20Modifying%20Passing%20Scores%20on%20 On 9/13/2018, when the ALSBE adopted an updated Educator Preparation Chapter of the Alabama Administrative Code, all programs leading to initial certification in any teaching field must document that they require at least one course in the teaching of reading. Hopefully, “the instructional shifts related to building content knowledge and vocabulary through careful reading of informational/literary texts, and…secondary teachers’ pedagogy fully aligned to the literacy skills across core content areas” will be addressed in the reading courses to be required. Alabama State Department of Education ALSDE staff will encourage the inclusion of those components. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
While Alabama requires all teachers to pass ELA and/or math subject tests (both for elementary teachers), the Praxis tests are not necessarily sufficiently rigorous, with a high enough passing score, to ensure teachers are proficient in math and reading content knowledge, especially in ELA. Elementary teachers take the Praxis II Elementary Education Multiple Subjects test, which has separately scored math and ELA subtests, but are not required to have an academic content specialization. Secondary teachers are required to pass a Praxis II single-subject content test for each content area they teach. As indicated in the “Consistency” section above, the Alabama State Board of Education (ALSBE) voted 10/12/2017, to increase the passing score on almost all Praxis tests used in Alabama, including each of the components of Elementary Education Multiple Subjects and Teaching Reading, effective 9/1/2018, and thereafter. A copy of the resolution is accessible via this link: http://www.alsde.edu/sites/boe/Adopted%20Resolutions/Resolution%20Modifying%20Passing%20Scores%20on%20 In addition, effective 9/1/2018, applicants for an initial certificate will be required to earn a passing score on edTPA, a performance assessment, rather than a written test of pedagogy, ETS’ Principles of Learning and Teaching. Alabama Math Science Technology Initiative (AMSTI) has a preservice certification that enables teacher candidates to immediately receive services with the state math initiative when hired at a school. The teacher candidates focus on connecting learning targets with success criteria to task selection and questioning skills. Student work samples are sorted to identify student conceptual understanding and skill related to the learning targets. The student work samples also provide an opportunity for teacher reflection on their instructional practice where they make decisions on what to do next related to content and pedagogy. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Alabama has a strong data collection policy for its teacher prep programs, even earning a NCTQ "best practices" award in this area. As has been true for almost 40 years, programs that fail to meet approval standards adopted by the ALSBE are not approved. Program completers who do not meet all ALSBE criteria do not receive a certificate to teach in Alabama schools. In September 2018, after a multi-year hiatus, Alabama will provide to the public a report card for each educator preparation institution and a statewide report card. The two major components of each institution’s and the state’s 2018 report card will be 1) test performance by program, and 2) survey responses from new teachers and their principals. It is anticipated that data categories, assessment measurers, and consequences will be added to the report card format over time. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure tests: Introduced reading test as requirement of elementary teacher licensure as of 9/1/2012. Introduced Praxis multiple subjects tests for elementary (vs. a generalist test) sometime between 2011-2013. ALSBE voted 9/10/2014 to require edTPA for individuals whose applications for initial certification are received 9/1/2018, and thereafter. ALSBE voted 10/17/2017, to raise the passing score for almost all Praxis tests, effective for applications received 9/1/2018, as referenced above in both “Consistency” and the “Authority” sections of this Teacher Preparation Policy subsection. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
At the elementary level, teacher prep programs are not required to address the science of reading instruction, and none of the three licensing tests Alaska offers assesses it. The different tests broadly address measuring the complexity of texts, but not how to incorporate them. Alaska has no requirements for the preparation of elementary teachers that address the incorporation of literacy skills across core content areas. At the secondary level, teacher prep standards and requirements do not address any of the CCR instructional shifts around literacy. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Alaska uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. The state does not require elementary teachers to take courses in math. Secondary teachers are required to pass a single-subject test. To get a 6-8 certificate, middle school teachers have to pass a single-subject test, but they can also teach on a K-8 general license, which means that middle school teachers don't have to demonstrate sufficient content knowledge. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Alaska does not collect data on to measure the performance of teacher prep programs. In addition, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. However, if a first-year teacher does not achieve a satisfactory score on the state's evaluation instrument, the program must provide them with free remediation within the first two years. |
0 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes in K-8 licensure: New legislation (sometime between 2015-17) requires passing a content test before initial licensure. Prior to that, teacher had three years to pass the content test. Recent legislation has removed the ability of applicants for a Professional license who have not met the content exam requirements to apply for a second initial certificate. Changes in 8-12 licensure: Now requires passing a subject-matter test for initial licensure (again, sometime between 2015-17). |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Elementary teachers are not required to take coursework or pass a test demonstrating proficiency in the science of reading, and also do not have to take a stand-alone reading test, though teachers do need to take a phonics course within their first two years of teaching. While the state has some requirements addressing the key literacy shifts, these requirements don’t go far enough in ensuring teachers are prepared to use informational texts, teach literacy across core content areas and to assist struggling readers. At the secondary level, standards do not address the use of informational texts, and are inadequate in addressing literacy skills across content areas. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Arizona uses the National Evaluation Series to assess content knowledge. However, due to legislation that allows teachers to become licensed by either passing a relevant NES test or having a bachelor's degree or higher in elementary education (for elementary licenses) or relevant content area (for secondary licenses), teacher candidates are not actually required to demonstrate proficiency in core content areas at any level. At the elementary level, teacher prep programs are not sufficiently geared towards meeting the math needs of elementary teachers. At the secondary level, Arizona offers a 6-12 single-subject license which can be obtained by either passing a test or having a relevant degree. For STEM fields, an individual who has worked or taught in relevant areas in the past is also eligible for a license. |
0 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Arizona does collect data on its teacher prep programs and identifies deficiencies in program performance through the program's biennial report. The state articulates clear consequences for programs that do not improve these deficiencies, and "programs with the same deficiency(s) in two consecutive biennial status letters are subject to revocation of Board approval." |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure requirements As of 8/1/17, the state passed legislation that gave teachers several pathways through which to waive required exams. In 2012 or 2013, Arizona introduced the NES Elementary Ed test as required, which has two subtests rather than one general content test. They also introduced NES tests in middle/secondary certification. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Arkansas requires its teachers to be fully prepared to address key literacy shifts related to informational texts, literacy across content areas, and struggling readers. Elementary K-6 teachers and Special Education K-12 teachers are required to pass a stand-alone reading assessment to ensure proficiency in the science of reading instruction, and their preparation standards have been crafted to thoroughly address key literacy shifts as required by CCR standards. Requirements at the secondary level also demonstrate strong literacy practices and earned the state an NCTQ “best practices” award for how they address adolescent literacy among secondary teachers. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Arkansas uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. However, the state did earn an NCTQ “Best practice” award for the way its middle school licensure requirements ensure teacher content knowledge. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Currently, while the state does collect meaningful data on its programs and publishes annual Educator Preparation Provider Reports at https://eis.ade.arkansas.gov/eppr/, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. Educator Preparation Programs at Institutions of Higher Education are required to have accreditation from the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). A loss of accreditation will result in a loss of state approval. However, the state introduced legislation in 2017 that will develop a system for the annual reporting and review of educator preparation program quality for all providers. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: -As of 2018, new areas of licensure have been added. Educator Preparation Unit is working to create program requirements and competencies. These areas include: ● Online Teaching Endorsement K-12, ● Alternative Environment Endorsement K-12, ● Dance K-12, First-time and Endorsement, ● Dyslexia K-12 Ancillary License, and ● English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) K-12 Ancillary License. -As of April 2018, a basic skills assessment is no longer a requirement for licensure. However, as a requirement for accreditation Educator Preparation Programs must have admission requirements established, most programs continue to require some type of basic skills assessment. This change gives programs flexibility for admissions. -As a requirement of April 2018 rules, all alternative educator preparation programs must include professional ethics training that candidates must complete prior to a provisional license being issued. -As of September 1, 2017, the state now requires new elementary K-6 teachers and Special Education K-12 teachers to pass a stand-alone reading test. -2015 changes to licensure rules added several areas lo licensure, the new programs were implemented beginning in Fall 2016. The areas included: ● Phaseout of Physical Science 7-12 license and implementation of programs for Physics 7-12 and Chemistry 7-12, ● Creation of Computer Science 4-12 License, ● Creation of Dyslexia K-12 Endorsement, ● Creation of K-6 or 7-12 Special Education Resource Endorsement by program of study, and ● Addition of Special Education K-12 as a licensure area for Master of Arts in Teaching programs. -Prior to 2013, the Early Childhood P-4 License was in place and the assessment was a generalist Praxis assessment. The Early Childhood P-4 License has been phased out and replaced with the Elementary Education K-6 License. The Praxis assessment for this license is a multiple subject assessment in which the candidate has to pass all four subject areas. -In 2013 many changes were made to licensure level and areas as a result of recommendations from a Licensure Task Force in order to meet the needs of school districts. Programs were implemented beginning in fall 2015. These changes include: ● Change Early Childhood P-4 to Elementary Education K-6; ● Creation of Early Childhood/Special Education B-K license as a first-time license or endorsement; ● Change P-8, 7-12 options to only K-12 for are, music, foreign language, PE/Health, and Drama/Speech; ● Change P-4, 4-12 Special Education to K-12; ● Add option for Special Education K-12 as a first-time license; and ● Conversion of Business Technology from 7-12 to 4-12 grade bands. -As of Nov. 11, 2011, the state also began requiring that middle school educators take the middle school Multiple Subjects Praxis. The state also introduced new legislation around that time that allowed teachers to pick any 2 of the 4 main content areas to become certified in, instead of the dual areas of English/Social Studies and Math/Science. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
At the elementary level, the state has crafted standards and tests to thoroughly address key literacy shifts as required by CCR standards, earning it an NCTQ “best practices” award. Elementary teachers and special education teachers are required to pass a reading instruction test, and teacher prep programs are required to address the science of reading. Secondary standards, on the other hand, require teachers to be fully prepared to incorporate literacy skills across content areas and use texts of increasing complexity, but are not quite adequate in ensuring. teachers are comfortable incorporating informational texts. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
California uses its own tests to assess teacher content knowledge. While these assessments, as well as the teacher prep standards, are more rigorous and comprehensive than many other states, there are some deficiencies in truly requiring teachers to demonstrate proficiency. At the elementary level, a teacher must complete subject-matter coursework in college, and then complete a teacher education program. Candidates are then required to pass an exam with three subsets—however, the test does not include a separately scored math or reading test. The state does not require content specialization among elementary teachers, and its math standards not specifically geared to meet needs of elementary teachers. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
California doesn't require programs to report data related to performance. In addition, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. |
0 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Licensure requirements themselves have essentially stayed the same, but state has made minor changes to align with CCR standards. In 2016, updated Elementary Multiple Subjects program prep standards. Sometime between 2013 and 2015, updated the Reading, Language, and Literature subset on CSET to address informational texts and text complexity. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
At the elementary level, the literacy alignments are embedded in the teacher quality standards as well as clearly defined in the Elementary Education endorsement standards. In addition, other endorsements such as early childhood and special education also include elements directly from the Elementary Education endorsement. At the secondary level the literacy alignments are embedded in the teacher quality standards. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Teachers must demonstrate they have met the elements outlined in the teacher quality standards and content standards. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
While Colorado does collect a lot of data on teacher prep programs, including publishing an annual report showing the relationship between prep programs and student achievement, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report. Every 5 years each preparation program participates in the reauthorization process. During this time content is reviewed, data is collected and analyzed, and findings are shared with each program. Rubrics are used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and programs are either reauthorized, conditionally reauthorized with identified areas of improvement, or deauthorized. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes around licensing requirements: In 2017, the state phased out PLACE and NES tests as demonstrations of content knowledge. (Last administration was 5/6/17, scores will be excepted for 5 more years). -As of 9/1/2016, the state moved from allowing elementary teachers to take either the PLACE or Praxis Content Knowledge test, to requiring passage of the Praxis: Multiple Subjects test. -Sometime between 2015-17, the state stopped requiring teacher prep programs to address the science of reading or to ensure teachers know how to assist struggling readers. Sometime between 2011-13 the state moved from a generalist K-8 license for middle school, to requiring middle school teachers to have a secondary 7-12 license. |
0 |
|
General Education Curriculum |
|||
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Elementary candidates must pass a Foundations of Reading test, which is on track by assessing knowledge of scientifically-based reading instruction and other components of the key instructional shifts. At the same time, the test may not be sufficiently rigorous in ensuring teacher proficiency in these areas, and it only partially addresses assisting struggling readers. At the secondary level, standards do not address any of the shifts in literacy instruction. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Connecticut uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. At the elementary level, the state requires that candidates must complete either a subject-area or interdisciplinary major. At the secondary level, teachers are required to pass a single-subject Praxis test. Connecticut also requires a middle grades certificate for all middle school teachers, which requires passing a single-subject Praxis. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Connecticut does collect meaningful data about the effectiveness of teacher prep programs, and is working to add student growth in as a data point on program effectiveness. On March 7, 2012, the Connecticut State Board of Education (CSBE) approved the creation of the Educator Preparation Advisory Council (EPAC) to advise the CSBE on the transformation of Connecticut’s system for the approval and oversight of educator preparation provider (EPP) programs (Connecticut Special Act 12-3, Attachment A). EPAC was first convened on August 3, 2012, with membership from professional organizations, PK-12 schools and EPPs, both traditional programs and alternate route to certification (ARC) programs. Since 2013, the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) and EPAC have worked with advisory subcommittees, as well as state and national experts, to develop recommendations for restructuring EPP programs relative to six EPAC principles adopted by the CSBE: 1. Program Entry Standards, 2. Staffing & Support of Clinical Experiences, 3. Clinical Experience Requirements, 4. District-Program Partnerships & Shared Responsibility, 5. Program Completion & Candidate Assessment Standards, and 6. Program Effectiveness & Accountability. On December 7, 2016, the CSBE approved a set of specific EPAC recommendations, including adopting the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) standards as the basis for continuing program approval (Connecticut Special Act 16-22, Attachment B) effective December 31, 2016; and a pre-service performance assessment, edTPA, required for EPP program completion effective September 1, 2018. A third key recommendation was the development and implementation of a new educator preparation Data Dashboard for tracking EPP preparation quality, with indicators aligned to EPAC principles, CAEP standards, and educator preparation statutory requirements, including Praxis II testing data, edTPA performance data, placement and retention data, and teacher and employer survey data (Connecticut Special Act 15-243, Attachment C). Attachment D presents a complete set of Data Dashboard indicators, for which the CSDE is now developing cut scores. Commencing September 1, 2018, the CSDE will report annually to the Connecticut General Assembly on the quality of EPP programs based on Dashboard data, as required by Public Act 15-243. Dashboard data will also be used by the CSDE annually to review individual EPP programs. If warranted by Dashboard data trends, the CSDE may intervene based on Connecticut’s “Just Cause” regulation (Section 10-145d-9(i) below). Additionally, Dashboard data will be used in conjunction with findings from the CAEP visiting team report to determine continuing program approval in accordance with CAEP’s seven-year visit cycle. Finally, the CSDE, with stakeholder input, will establish low-performing and at-risk criteria for reporting to the U.S. Department of Education, pursuant to the Title II Higher Education Act. |
3 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: Beginning 2019, candidates will need to pass edTPA for licensure; and Sometime between 2011 and 2013, the state began using the Praxis Multiple Subjects test (instead of a generalist exam) for elementary teachers, which is a more rigorous test of content knowledge. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Although elementary teachers are required to pass the Praxis, the test doesn't include a specific reading portion and is not well aligned to scientifically-based reading instruction. However, the state does require elementary teacher prep programs to address the science of reading. The Praxis assesses measuring text complexity but does not go far enough in ensuring teachers are proficient in incorporating informational texts of increasing complexity. At the secondary level, standards are nonexistent around the key literacy shifts associated with CCR standards. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Delaware uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. Elementary teachers are not required to have an academic content specialization. For middle school, Delaware requires either a 6-8 license which entails passing a single-subject content test, or allows secondary teachers to teach middle school. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Delaware has strong data collection policies for its teacher prep programs. In addition, it has set and publicized minimum standards of performance for programs. Programs are held accountable to meeting these standards and placed in tiers based on their performance. If a program does not meet the standards, they are placed on probation. Programs on probation for 2+ years can't accept new candidates. After four years, their approval will be revoked. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: As of Jan. 2014, the state started requiring all elementary teacher candidates to pass the Praxis Multiple Subjects test, instead of a general content test. Between 2011 and 2013, the state introduced legislation requiring prep programs to address the science of reading. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Although elementary teachers are required to pass the Praxis, the test doesn't include a specific reading portion and is not well aligned to scientifically-based reading instruction. It also assesses measuring text complexity but does not go far enough in ensuring teachers are proficient in incorporating informational texts of increasing complexity. DC doesn't require teachers to take coursework in incorporating increasingly complex informational texts, or incorporating literacy across content areas. At the secondary level, standards are nonexistent around the key literacy shifts associated with CCR standards. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
DC uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
DC does collect data on its teacher prep programs. For example, they collect programs' annual summary licensure test pass rates, and require that at least 80% of program completers pass their licensure exams. However, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. Although technically standards do exist for measuring the effectiveness of these programs, it's unclear how programs are assessed. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: As of 9/1/2013, DC stopped allowing the Praxis general content exam for elementary teachers, and began requiring the Multiple Subjects, which is a more rigorous test of content knowledge. |
1 |
*Information on curriculum, SWD supports, and EL supports came from both the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) website and from the D.C. Public Schools website (DCPS).
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
In general, the state has relatively strong and rigorous requirements that ensure teachers at all levels are fully prepared for CCR shifts around literacy. Elementary teacher prep programs are required to address the science of reading in prep work, and the test candidates must take for licensure includes the 5 components of reading. In addition, the state's competencies address other shifts to literacy instruction around information texts, literacy skills across content areas, and assisting struggling readers. At the secondary level, the state has rigorous literacy standards, which earned it an NCTQ "Best Practices" award. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Florida uses its own state tests to assess teachers' content knowledge. All FTCE test development activities are conducted or overseen by the Department of Education, using statewide committees of subject matter experts (SMEs) from Florida's colleges, universities, districts, and K–12 classrooms representing all regions of Florida to ensure appropriate rigor and full alignment to the State Board of Education approved Florida standards. All FTCE tests are developed using processes that are consistent with national standards and best practices for developing large-scale examinations as articulated in Standards For Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014). All of the Florida Teacher Certification Examinations (FTCE) are aligned to the State Board of Education adopted K–12 content standards for each of the respective content areas. The competencies and skills from which the examinations are developed are further aligned with the expectations required of a Beginning Effective Teacher Candidate (BETC). As the rigor and complexity of the student standards increased with the State Board of Education adoption of the Florida K–12 Standards, the FTCE tests were brought in line with these expectations. For the Elementary Education K-6 test, elementary teacher candidates have to pass individually scored content sub-tests (LA/Reading, Social Science, Science, and Mathematics), and are not required to earn an academic content specialization. All middle school teachers are required to have a middle grades (5-9) certification in one of the four core content areas, which requires passing a subject-specific content test (FTCE-MG Mathematics, MG English, MG Social Science and MG General Science). Candidates must also earn a major or complete 18 hour of coursework in their content area. Florida also offers a single-subject 6-12 license, which requires passage of a single-subject test (i.e., FTCE-English 6–12, Mathematics 6–12, and numerous other 6–12 tests). Teachers must also pass a test to add a content area. |
2 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Florida collects meaningful data from its teacher prep programs. In addition, "the state requires that preparation programs must guarantee the high quality of its program completers during the two years following completion or initial certification, whichever comes first. Any program completer who is employed during this two-year period in a Florida public school, and earns an evaluation result of developing or unsatisfactory on a district's evaluation system, must be provided additional training by the program at no additional cost to the teacher." Florida has also set minimum standards of performance for its programs. If a program fails to meet these standards, it will be denied approval. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017 |
Changes to licensure: Since EC teachers can teach through grade 3, starting in 2013 Florida began requiring teacher candidates in the area of Prekindergarten to Grade 3 (PK–3) to pass a new FTCE PK–3 test consisting of individually scored content sub-tests (Developmental Knowledge, LA/Reading, Mathematics and Science). Beginning in May 2014, FL began requiring elementary teachers to pass a new Elementary Education K-6 test which consists of 4 subtests (LA/Reading, Social Science, Science, and Mathematics). In Sept 2011, the State Board of Education passed regulation repealing an integrated approach to middle grades certification, and retained requirements for specific content certification. FL also stopped administering the Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum (MGIC) test for teacher candidates. Changes to teacher preparation programs: -As of July 2013, Florida implemented new legislation that impacted the continued program approval processes, i.e., that the continued approval of a teacher preparation program must be based on significant, objective, and quantifiable measures of not only the program, but on the performance of the program completers. This included evidence of performance in six areas: 1. placement rate of program completers into instruction positions in Florida public schools and private schools, if available; 2. retention rate for employed program completers in instructional positions in Florida public schools; 3. performance of students in prek-grade 12 who are assigned to in-field program completers on statewide assessments using the results of the student learning growth formula adopted under section 1012.34, Florida Statutes (F.S.); 4. performance of students prek-grade 12 who are assigned to in-field program completers aggregated by student subgroup, as defined in ESEA, as a measure of how well the program prepares teachers to work with a diverse population of students in a variety of settings in Florida public schools; and 5. results of program completers’ annual performance evaluations per section 1012.34, F.S.; and (6) production of program completers in statewide critical teacher shortage areas as identified in section 1012.07, F.S. -Effective February 2015, the State Board of Education adopted revisions to Rule 6A-5.066, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), which further elaborated on the six performance measures and established performance targets for each one. In addition, the rule further delineated “approval” or “denial” decisions for the continued approval process that included two parts: establishment of an Annual Program Performance Report (APPR), i.e., annual report card, that included the six performance measures and targets; and results of a site visit conducted every five years. (APPRs=50%; Site Visit results=50%) Effective April 2018, the State Board of Education adopted revisions to Rule 6A-5.066, F.A.C., to include the Florida Site Visit Framework to support an evidence-based approach to site visits; and a revision to the continued approval decision that required institutions to show evidence toward programmatic improvement as a result of actionable feedback from the site visit. (APPRs=50%; Site Visit results based on framework=20%; and evidence of improvement based on actionable feedback=30%) |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Although a separate stand-alone reading assessment is not required for Georgia certification in the field of Early Childhood Education (P-5), the state-approved GACE certification assessment for this field (ECE P-5) contains a sub-test with sub-scores that addresses the science of reading and is a blend of a compensatory model and a fully conjunctive model. In Georgia’s model, Subarea I (reading/language arts) is one of three subareas in Test I of the GACE Early Childhood Education (P-5) Assessment. This subarea counts 50% of Test I. The probability of passing Test I with a low score on Subarea I, is psychometrically very low. To help ensure the GACE assessments sufficiently measure the content area and for the grades bands covered in the area of certification, the GACE assessments were developed by diverse and representative test development, bias review, and standard setting committees each consisting of Georgia educators in the content field and those that prepare educators in the content field, in collaboration with a national testing supplier. Each content area GACE is aligned with the state’s P12 content standards, the GaPSC program approval content standards, and national standards. To further increase the rigor, in November 2017, the Commission approved raising the passing standard of content assessments, including all containing math, by 1 (one) Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) effective September 1, 2019. The standards do not adequately prepare elementary teachers for any of the other shifts in literacy instruction related to CCR standards such as incorporating informational texts of increasing complexity. At the secondary level, teacher prep standards do not address the building of content knowledge and vocab through informational and literary texts. In addition, while middle school standards expect teachers to be able to teach and incorporate literacy skills, the standards for secondary teachers do not. Georgia program providers are required to prepare candidates to implement state-mandated standards, which include College and Career Ready Standards. In addition, programs must be based upon the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards, which stress that teachers must be prepared to build literacy skills across the curriculum. Georgia preparation program content standards for reading (incorporated in multiple preparation rules) are scheduled for revision in late 2018, at which time the 2017 Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals will be considered for state adoption. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Georgia uses customized state tests (GACE) to assess teacher content knowledge, each of which were developed by diverse and representative test development, bias review, and standard setting committees each consisting of Georgia educators in the content field and those that prepare educators in the content field, in collaboration with a national testing supplier. Each content area GACE is aligned with the state’s P12 content standards, the GaPSC program approval content standards, and national standards. Although a separate stand-alone mathematics assessment is not required for Georgia certification in the field of Early Childhood Education (P-5), the state-approved GACE certification assessment for this field (ECE P-5) contains a sub-test with sub-scores that addresses mathematics and is a blend of a compensatory model and a fully conjunctive model. In Georgia’s model, Test II, Subarea I (mathematics) is one of three subareas in Test II of the GACE Early Childhood Education (P-5) Assessment. This subarea counts 53% of Test II. The probability of passing Test II with a low score on Subarea I, mathematics, is psychometrically very low. To further increase the rigor, in November 2017, the Commission approved raising the passing standard of content assessments, including all containing math, by 1 (one) Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) effective September 1, 2019. Georgia offers a single-subject certification for secondary teachers (6-12) that requires candidates to pass a single-subject content test. The state requires a middle school certification (4-8) for any teachers teaching middle school. Candidates are required to pass specific subject-area test and also required to concentrate in at least two of the four core content areas, earning the state an NCTQ "Best Practice" award for middle grades certification. |
2 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Georgia does collect data on teacher prep programs and requires programs to report annually on their performance. Georgia’s Preparation Program Effectiveness Measures (PPEM) system classifies programs according to four performance levels: Exemplary, Effective, At-Risk of Low-Performing, and Low-Performing. Currently in a non-consequential year of implementation, cut scores and consequences related to each performance level have been defined and made available to all Georgia program providers. After PPEMs become consequential in academic year 2018-19, performance levels will be made available to the public and after three years of consequential implementation they will affect approval status and approval review procedures. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Since 2011, Georgia teacher preparation program requirements have been revised in a number of ways including the following: Programs must be based upon the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards; A Pre-Service Certificate is required for all teacher candidates prior to field and clinical experiences (see GaPSC Certification Rule 505-2-.03); Program content standards and requirements have been updated in most fields; Programs must ensure candidates demonstrate proficiency in integrating information, media, and technology literacy into curricula and instruction, as well as the use of technology to effectively collect, manage, and analyze data for the purpose of improving teaching and learning; All program providers must significantly enhance partnerships with P-12 schools, such that partnerships are “…collaborative relationships…focused on continuous school improvement and student growth and learning through the preparation of candidates, support of induction phase educators, and professional development of B/P-20 educators” (p. 13); Testing requirements have been updated to include a Pre-and Post-assessment of Educator Ethics and the edTPA; In November 2017, the Commission approved raising the passing standard of content assessments, including all containing math, by 1 (one) Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) effective September 1, 2019; and The passing standard for edTPA was increased by 1 (one) Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) effective September 1, 2017. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
At the elementary level, there are no requirements around the science of reading (candidates are not required to pass a test and teacher prep programs are not required to teach it). In addition, while the Praxis touches on incorporating informational texts, it does so inadequately, and the test is just one of five options to become certified. At the secondary level, there are no requirements around literacy shifts as related to CCR standards. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Hawaii has an elementary (K-6) license, a middle school certification (6-8, required for all middle school teachers), and a single-subject secondary license (6-12). The state offers 5 different options for teacher certification: passing a Praxis II test; a National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification in the content field; a major in a content; at least 30 semester hours in the content field, at least 15 of which must be upper division level; or a master's, specialist or doctoral degree in the license field.
|
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Hawaii has essentially no accountability in this area - they do not require teacher prep programs to collect or report data, there are no minimum standards, and thus there are no consequences for not meeting those standards. |
0 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: The state phased out the Praxis general content test for elementary teachers on 7/1/2014, and adopted the Multiple Subjects test, which is a more rigorous test of content knowledge. However, around the same time, the state also increased the # of options for educators of all levels to prove content knowledge, not all of which require passing an exam. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
According to the Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Standards, approved August 2017, “all teacher candidates are expected to meet the Idaho Core Teacher Standards and the standards specific to their discipline area(s) at the ‘acceptable’ level or above.” The literacy standards require teachers to demonstrate foundational literacy knowledge, fluency/vocabulary development/comprehension knowledge, assessment knowledge, and writing process knowledge that align with the state’s standards. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Idaho uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. The state requires that all elementary candidates earn a subject-area endorsement (allowing the teaching of that subject through grade 9), passage of middle level Praxis II in the content area, or a K-12 endorsement but does not guarantee a teacher will earn specialization in an academic area. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
All educator preparation programs are reviewed based on CAEP standards as well as Idaho Standards for Initial Certification of Professional School Personnel. You can find information about this at http://www.sde.idaho.gov/cert-psc/psc/standards.html The Manual of Instructions for Program Approval for Certification can be found at http://www.sde.idaho.gov/cert-psc/psc/standards/files/Manual-of-Instructions-for-Program-Approval-for-Certification.pdf The review schedule may be found at http://www.sde.idaho.gov/cert-psc/psc/standards/files/standards-program/2015-2027-Program-Review-Schedule.pdf |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: The state recently developed new Comprehensive Literacy standards for teacher candidates. Around 2013, the state moved from the Praxis general content exam to the Multiple Subjects exam for elem. teachers, which is a more rigorous test of content knowledge. Around 2011, the state began requiring elementary teachers to earn a subject-area endorsement. Twenty percent of the Idaho Standards for Initial Certification of Professional School Personnel is reviewed annually to ensure that recent research and best practices are embedded. http://www.sde.idaho.gov/cert-psc/psc/standards/files/standards-initial/Standards-for-Initial-Certification-for-Program-Reviews-after-July-1-2020.pdf |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Through teacher prep programs, coursework, and standards teachers are required to addresses all of the key shifts in literacy instruction. In addition, secondary teachers are also required to take coursework that addresses key shifts in literacy instruction. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Illinois uses its own state tests to assess teachers' content knowledge. Elementary candidates have to pass individually scored content sub-tests, and are not required to earn an academic content specialization. Beginning in 2018, middle school teachers will be required to have a middle school certificate (5-8), which entails taking middle school content exams. At the secondary level, the state offers a 6-12 single-subject license, which requires passing a content test. |
2 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Illinois is beginning to require educator prep programs to collect data on the effectiveness of their teachers. The state does collect other meaningful data on the performance of programs. The state requires 80% of program completers to pass their licensing exam, but this standard is not very high, nor is it clear what happens when programs don't meet this goal. In addition, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure requirements: Beginning 2018, the state is requiring middle grades certification (5-8) for all middle school teachers. In Sept. 2017, Illinois began requiring elem certification (1-6). After this, they also introduced a new multi-subject elementary test, instead of requiring a Elem/Middle combined generalist exam. This new test also introduced questions on the science of reading. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Indiana requires elementary teachers to pass the elementary education generalist CORE assessment. The state also requires teacher prep programs to train candidates in scientifically-based reading instructions and candidates have to take at least 6 hours of coursework in the subject. The standards are descriptive and rigorous in regard to using informational texts; however, there are no standards related to incorporating literacy skills across core content areas, and standards addressing struggling readers are not adequate in ensuring teachers are fully prepared. At the secondary level, standards do not address using complex informational texts, but they are adequate in ensuring teachers are prepared to incorporate literacy skills across core content areas. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Indiana uses Pearson-designed tests to assess teacher content knowledge. Elementary teachers must pass a Multiple Subject test with separately scored subtests for math and ELA. The state also requires a bachelor's degree in an academic content area, but given the wide variety of what meets the requirement, there is no guarantee teachers will specialize in a core content area. Middle school teachers are required to have middle school (6-9) certificate, which requires the passage of a single-subject test. In addition, teachers must have a degree with a major or content area that "substantially applies to a content area listed in the state's certification regulations." The state also requires all secondary teachers to have a secondary license (5-12) and pass a content test to teach any core secondary subject. NCTQ awarded the state a "best practice" award in secondary content knowledge, as one of the few states that do not have loopholes in the area of science and social studies certificates. |
2 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Indiana does collect meaningful data on their state's teacher prep programs. However, although the DoE is required to establish standards and benchmarks for performance, these standards have not actually been set. in addition, the state is also required to set a minimum rating that prep programs must achieve to avoid referral, but they have not set that minimum or made the matrix ranking system yet. As of 7/1/2017, the state started to list programs that weren't meeting expectations, but they haven't done anything with this information yet. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: In Feb. 2014, the state replaced Praxis tests with newly designed Pearson tests at all levels. At the elem. level, the new test also contains what amounts to a stand-alone reading test. As of Sept. 1, 2012, Indiana replaced their previous Praxis test with the Multiple Subjects exam, which has separate content subtests. Between 2011 and 2013, the state switched from requiring middle school teachers to earn a concentration in two content areas, to earning a major or content area aligned to one of the state's recognized content areas. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Elementary candidates are required to take coursework in the science of reading, but are not required to take test that demonstrates proficiency in scientifically-based reading instruction. In addition, although standards and tests address certain components of the literacy shits associated with CCR standards, they do not ensure that elementary teachers are adequately prepared for the rigorous demands required in any area of CCR literacy instruction. At the secondary level, standards don't address informational texts at all, and do not go far enough in ensuring teachers are prepared for teaching literacy skills across content areas. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Iowa does not have a licensure test, rather a program completion test. The assessment, edTPA is authorized as one option for this testing requirement. It has two handbooks in each assessment that evaluate content application. This meets Iowa's statutory requirement. This means that licensure in the state does not require demonstrating proficiency in any content area. In math, beyond the fact that the test does not report out a specific math score, the test barely evaluates candidates' knowledge beyond an elementary school level. |
0 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Iowa does collect meaningful data on their teacher prep programs. Iowa programs must meet specific state approval requirements or risk consequences. However, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: Between 2015 and 2017, the state began requiring teacher prep programs to address the science of reading. As of 9/1/2015, the state introduced new requirements related to content coursework for elementary teacher candidates, and began requiring candidates to complete a "field of specialization in a single discipline or a formal interdisciplinary program". The state began piloting edTPA in the 2014-15 school year, and it became an approved method of licensure at participating institutions. In 2013, the state passed legislation switching to the Praxis 5018. Middle school policies seem to have changed a lot. Iowa does not require a test for the middle school endorsement, since middle school is added to an initial license. Iowa only tests for program completion for the initial teaching area. It also appears they added in the requirement of adding a 5-8 endorsement on to an existing K-6 or 5-12 subject matter endorsement. Far before 2011, Iowa began requiring secondary teachers to pass content tests. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Elementary teachers are not required to pass a test on science of reading, and the test only partially address standards related to using informational texts. The standards do address incorporating literacy skills across all content areas, but only vaguely address struggling readers. At the secondary level, standards address using literacy skills across core content areas, but not informational texts. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Kansas uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. While Kansas requires teachers to have a major, it does not have to be in a core content area. In the area of math, which is not separately scored, the test barely evaluates content knowledge beyond and elementary school level.
|
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Kansas does collect meaningful data on their teacher prep programs. However, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. Programs must meet 75% of content area program standards in order to be recommended for approval, but these standards are not necessarily performance-based criteria with clearly stated minimum thresholds. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
In general, the state has remained fairly stable in terms of their teacher preparation requirements and expectations. In the last few years, the state introduced a unified elementary license, which allows teachers to teach students both with and without disabilities, and began requiring programs to submit some evidence of a candidates' learning. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Though Kentucky indicated that it recently implemented literacy requirements for middle school, high school, grades 5-12, and grades P-12 certification programs, these standards have not been incorporated into actual policy. The Praxis Multiple Subjects test required for elementary teachers addresses reading, but does not have a specific reading subscore and does not appear to be fully aligned with scientifically based reading instruction. In addition, it only addresses measuring text complexity, but not how to incorporate increasingly complex texts into instruction. At the elementary level, Kentucky has no state requirements for science of reading instruction, addressing struggling readers, or incorporating literacy skills across content areas. In addition, at the secondary level, Kentucky's standards fail to address any of the instructional shifts around literacy associated with the CCR standards. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Kentucky uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. At the secondary level, Kentucky requires teachers to pass single-subject Praxis II test. They also require middle school teachers to have a middle school specialization. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Kentucky does collect meaningful data on their teacher prep programs. However, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report; so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. The state requires 80% of program completers to pass their licensing exam. If they don't meet that standard, they are subject to "emergency review," and the program is required to submit an improvement plan. However, it's not clear what the consequences then are. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: In Feb. 2015, the state passed legislation that mandated all middle school, high school, grades 5-12, and grades P-12 certification programs to ensure candidates admitted after Aug. 2016 could meet new literacy requirements (the International Reading Association Standards). Sometime between 2011 and 2013, the state began requiring elementary school teachers to pass the Praxis Multiple Subjects test, which has four subtests, instead of the Elementary Education test which combines curriculum and pedagogy. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Louisiana's recently adopted new literacy competencies ensure that teachers are generally well prepared to address the literacy instructional shifts associated with CCR standards. Louisiana's new literacy competencies require all teacher preparation programs, including elementary programs, to address the science of reading and require teachers to have extensive knowledge of complex texts and be able to apply this knowledge. Secondary standards clearly address the need to incorporate increasingly complex informational and literary texts and literacy skills across core content areas, and have earned it a "Best Practices" award from NCTQ. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Teachers must pass a rigorous, state-adopted, elementary content subject-matter test for initial certification. At the secondary level, Louisiana requires teachers to pass single-subject Praxis II test. For initial certification, law requires middle school teachers pass a core content exam (ELA, Math, Science, or SS). Furthermore, all (elem, middle, and secondary) teachers have to pass a content exam relative to their teacher prep program if there is an adopted exam. If there isn't an adopted exam, the teacher must have 30 semester hours in that content area (e.g., Earth Science, Latin, etc.). |
2 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Louisiana has started to set and publicize minimum standards for its performance criteria. One that it has established is that programs with a passage rate of 80-86% are "At risk" and below 79% are "Low performing." Programs can move through various levels of consequences based on their classification and how many years they have had this status. Persistent failure to improve eventually results in loss of approval. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensing: Beginning in 2017, the state started requiring elementary candidates to take the Multiple Subjects test, rather than a generalist test. In October 2016, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) created new standards/competencies for teacher candidates, including revised literacy competencies, general competencies, special education competencies, mathematics competencies, early childhood competencies, and disciplinary literacy competencies. The Board also passed policies that requires a yearlong residency. Refer to Bulletin 996 (subchapter C) and this one-pager for more information. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
The Praxis Multiple Subjects test required for elementary teachers addresses reading, but does not have a specific reading subscore and does not appear to be fully aligned with scientifically based reading instruction. In addition, it only addresses measuring text complexity, but not how to incorporate increasingly complex texts into instruction. At both elementary and secondary levels, Maine's preparation standards do not address any of the key literacy requirements based in CCR standards. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Maine uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. At a secondary level, Maine requires teachers to pass a single-subject content test. It offers a middle level certificate (5-8), but also allows secondary teachers to teach single subjects in middle school. However, at the same time Maine offers a generalist K-8 license, meaning individuals can teach middle school by only passing elementary-level content tests. Although subscores are provided, this assessment does not adequately assess the content knowledge required of middle school teachers. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Maine does collect meaningful data on their teacher prep programs. However, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: Around 2013, the state passed legislation requiring elementary ed candidates to demonstrate proficiency in evidence-based reading instruction. The state began requiring the Praxis Multiple Subjects test for elem. candidates in August 2015, instead of a general content test. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
At the elementary level, the state requires teacher preparation programs to address the science of reading, but does not require teacher candidates to pass an assessment that measures knowledge of scientifically based reading instruction. Their standards, coursework and assessments do not go far enough in requiring teachers to demonstrate proficiency in assisting struggling readers, incorporating literacy across core content areas, or using informational texts. At the secondary level, Maryland's standards do address incorporating literacy skills in all content areas, but the standards and tests do not address building content knowledge and vocabulary through careful reading of informational and literary texts. Currently MSDE is facilitating an elementary literacy workgroup to revise the 12 credit requirements for elementary education certification. Workgroup membership includes reading expert representatives from the PreK-12 community, an MSDE EL/Title III specialist, faculty from community colleges, University of Maryland Systems institutions, Maryland Independent College and Universities, a state delegate, and individuals from various reading interest groups such as Right to Read and Dyslexia Maryland. The workgroup is incorporating resources and standards from such organizations as the International Dyslexia Associate, International Literacy Association, and the National Association for the Education of Young Children. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Maryland uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. In math specifically, the test does not evaluate teachers on their understanding of underlying mathematical concepts, or on their mathematical knowledge beyond elementary-level content. At the secondary level, Maryland offers a 7-12 single-subject licenses and requires teachers to pass a Praxis II content test. Maryland also requires a middle school certificate (4-9) for middle school educators. However, elementary teachers may also teach in departmentalized middle schools if at least 50 percent of the teaching assignment is within elementary grades. Maryland requires evidence of candidate performance related to PreK-12 student learning during internship assignments and collects that data annually in the Teacher Preparation Improvement Plan. Also, many Maryland Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) are using or moving to performance- based assessments for that purpose. In addition, Maryland has recently adopted the Praxis Elementary Education: Content Knowledge for Teaching (CKT) Assessment. This assessment requires teacher candidates to demonstrate key understanding of mathematical concepts. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
The state collects data on its alternative preparation programs, but not on its traditional programs (with the exception of annual summary licensure test pass rates). The state requires 80% of program completers to pass their licensure exams, but it's unclear what the consequences are if a state doesn't meet that goal. The institution is declared Low Performing if 80% of its candidates do not pass the Praxis Core. The information must be published and taken into consideration during program approval visits. Candidates are not eligible for Maryland State certification if all required assessments are not passed. The State collects and publishes the total number of certification eligible completers vs. the number of program completers by institutions. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Licensure requirements have remained fairly stable. In 2017-18 the state has revised its literacy coursework required for teacher candidates. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Massachusetts has strong teacher prep practices around literacy. Elementary teachers are required to pass one of two rigorous tests around the science of reading, which NCTQ recognizes as "one of the nation's best policies regarding teacher preparation in the critical area of reading instruction." New Subject-Matter Guidelines require that all license areas, including secondary levels, ensure that teacher preparation candidates are able to support the integration of standards for literacy across the content areas as outlined in the 2017 ELA/Literacy Framework. (http://www.doe.mass.edu/edprep/resources/smk-guidelines.pdf) |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Massachusetts uses their own tests to assess teacher candidates, which are more rigorous than other tests. In addition, candidates need a major in an academic subject or in education. |
2 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Massachusetts does collect meaningful data on teacher prep programs, including programs' annual summary licensure test pass rates, but they don't have any specific minimum pass rate they require from programs. They evaluate programs' performance in six domains: The Organization, Partnerships, Continuous Improvement, The Candidate, Field-Based Experiences, and Instruction. Each domain has criteria, and criteria are rated on a scale from 1 (insufficient) - 4 (compelling). Then programs are given a rating, which exists on a 5-tier scale (Approved w/Distinction to Not Approved). The state considers a lot of evidence in its approval process, but it does not specify any objective minimum or cut-off scores. If a program is designated low performing, it must submit a written improvement plan. If it hasn't made satisfactory progress after a year, approval may be revoked. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensing: The state has updated all subject-matter knowledge guidelines and requirements, and is updating corresponding licensure tests as a result. 1. Beginning in 2012, the state passed the following regulations or guidelines governing expectations for teacher candidates and preparation providers, they include: o 2012 Program Approval Standards & Licensure Requirements o 2014 Professional Standards for Teachers (which align expectations at preparation with those in place for employment) o 2015: Candidate Assessment of Performance (CAP) which is a new performance-based assessment aligned with the MA Educator Evaluation Framework in place in employment and it is now required for program completion. o 2018: Pre-Practicum Guidelines governing early field-based experiences for teacher candidates. 2. These changes have resulted in an increase in student achievement for students of more recent preparation completers while simultaneously narrowing the variation in outcomes within providers. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Michigan requires elementary teacher prep programs to address science of reading, but elementary licensure tests do not assess knowledge of scientifically based reading instruction. While standards do address assisting struggling readers, they do not ensure that teachers are fully prepared to include literacy skills across the core content area, and the test does not include incorporating informational and literary texts. Secondary standards do not go far enough in ensuring teachers are equipped to incorporate literacy skills across content areas or build content knowledge and vocabulary through careful reading of informational and literary texts. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Michigan uses their own tests to assess teacher candidates. The test that is required for elementary teachers does not report teacher performance in each subject area, meaning that it may be possible to pass the test and still fail some subject areas. Teachers do not have to pass a separately scored math portion. At the secondary level, a teacher must hold a single-subject 6-12 license and pass a subject matter test to teach any core subject. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Michigan does monitor and collect data from its traditional prep programs, but not its alternate programs. The state has also set minimum standards for programs to meet in three different areas: a) passage rates on licensing exam b) satisfaction surveys from teacher candidates and c) effectiveness evaluations. Each is assessed on a 100-pt score and when compiled a program must have a score of at least 84.5. All programs are assigned a category, and low performing programs must take corrective action or may be shut down. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: Recently, the state legislature allocated $500,000 to adopt a new elementary certification test that ensures all teachers are required to demonstrate proficiency in literacy instruction. The test has not been developed or adopted yet. The state is also in the process of revamping the preparation standards for early math instruction, which will lead to the development of a new licensure test for elementary educators. The state adopted a new general content test for elementary education in October 2013. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Minnesota requires that teacher prep programs address the science of reading and require that candidates pass a test that has a standalone science of reading portion. The standards do ensure that elementary school teachers are prepared to assist struggling readers, but do not adequately prepare teachers to incorporate texts of varying complexity or incorporate literacy skills across content areas. At the secondary level, Minnesota's standards do address incorporating literacy skills in all content areas, but the standards and tests do not address building content knowledge and vocabulary through careful reading of informational and literary texts. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Minnesota uses its own state licensure exams. Teachers are not required to have an academic content specialization. In the math subtest, math questions account for about 75% of the content so while it's not exactly a standalone test, it is unlikely that candidates can pass without demonstrating sufficient content knowledge.
|
2 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness |
In Minnesota, all prep programs must produce a biennial report that include pass rates on pedagogy and content exams, as well as the edTPA. Each program is also required to submit a publicly accessible report. However, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Minnesota's licensing requirements have remained stable. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
At the elementary level, teachers are required to pass a Foundations of Reading test, which does address using informational texts, incorporating literacy skills across content areas, and assisting struggling readers, but does not go far enough in any of these areas to ensure that elementary teachers are adequately prepared. All Elementary Education programs must include 15 hours of reading/literacy coursework. Six hours, Literacy I and Literacy II, are prescribed by the state and include instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. At the secondary level, Mississippi has no preparation or requirements for teachers around CCR literacy shifts. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Mississippi uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. The state requires candidates to complete an interdisciplinary program of study that includes two content concentrations. In math specifically, the test does not evaluate teachers on their understanding of underlying mathematical concepts, or on their mathematical knowledge beyond elementary-level content. Mississippi offers a middle school license to teach grades 4-8. All middle school teachers teaching core subjects must pass a single subject content test. The state also offers single-subject 7-12 licenses, which require the passage of a single-subject content test to teach any core subject. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
The state does collect meaningful data on preparation programs. The state requires 80% of program completers to pass their licensure exams, but it's unclear what the consequences are if a state doesn't meet that goal. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: As of 9/1/2016, all new elementary candidates are required to pass the Foundations of Reading test; and It appears that Mississippi phased out the K-3 elementary license between 2015 and 2017, and now only offers a K-6 license for new elementary candidates. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
The State of Missouri teacher candidates for Elementary Education are required to pass an assessment aligned to the Missouri Learning Standards for English Language Arts, which incorporates the science of reading. This link provides a crosswalk of the Missouri Learning Standards for English Language Arts to the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/cur-mls-crosswalk-ela-K-5.pdf. Missouri requires elementary teacher candidates to take courses in strategies for content literacy, twelve hours of Elementary Literacy to address curriculum, instruction, and assessment of language acquisition, phonological awareness and phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and the writing process using authentic texts and purposes. The standards address Reading Literary Text and Reading Information Text to build knowledge. https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/cur-mls-crosswalk-ela-K-5.pdf State standards require middle and secondary school teachers to complete six semester hours in secondary literacy, which addresses incorporating literacy skills across content areas. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Missouri uses its own state tests and allows teachers to add grades/fields to existing licenses with either coursework or a passing score on the elementary content test. At the elementary level, this includes separately scored subtests for math and reading/ELA. In addition, candidates must also have 21 semester hours in a concentration. The state requires middle grades certification (5-9) for all middle school teachers, which requires passing a single-subject test. The same is true for secondary (9-12) licenses. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Missouri collects meaningful data on traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs. An Annual Performance Report for Educator Preparation Programs (APR-EPP) for teacher preparation programs is aligned to the nine Missouri Teaching Standards. The annual review of data from each teacher preparation program includes content assessment scores, grade-point average, performance assessment scores, and first-year educator survey. These standards apply to programs with at least 30 program completers over 3 years. Programs are categorized based on their overall performance. All certification programs approved by DESE earn continuing accreditation on an annual basis. The following categories will be used to accredit certification programs: Accredited: Certification programs that meet all of the standards for the preparation of educators will be accredited and may continue to recommend candidates for certification. Provisionally Accredited: Certification programs will be issued a status of Provisional Accreditation based on points earned on at least two of the qualifying Standards. The Provisional Accreditation classification does not require action by the Board, and the EPP retains the ability to continue to recommend candidates in those certification programs. Unaccredited: DESE makes recommendations to the Board for specific actions. A provisionally accredited program that earns fewer than 70 percent of the points possible in two consecutive years will be reviewed by the Board. If the Board finds that the program is making sufficient progress, it may designate the program as Provisionally Accredited for a one-year period. If he Board determines that the program is not making sufficient progress toward achieving full Accredited status, it may declare the program Unaccredited. An unaccredited program may not recommend preparation program candidates for certification. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: As of 8/1/2017, the State of Missouri requires teacher candidates to have a Content GPA of 3.0 and Cumulative GPA of 2.75, receive a passing score on the Missouri Content Assessment, and receive a passing score on the Missouri Performance Assessment in order to be recommended for licensure. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Montana's standards do not address any of the key literacy shifts related to CCR standards, and don't require teacher prep programs to address them. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Montana does not require subject-matter testing for any of its teachers, though it does have teaching standards for its teacher prep programs. It offers a K-8 generalist license, a 4-8 middle school endorsement (though teachers can also teach middle school on a generalist K-8 licenses, or a secondary license), and a single-subject cert. for 5-12. |
0 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Montana does collect meaningful data on their teacher prep programs. However, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
For years, Montana's requirements for licensure remained relatively stable. Between 2015 and 2017, however, the state made their licensure process slightly more rigorous. First, the state began requiring teacher candidates to pass subject-matter tests (whereas before there were no testing requirements). The state also began offer a middle-grades certification, though the state still offers a generalist license. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
At the elementary level, teachers are not required to pass a test in the science of reading, or take coursework in the subject. In addition, the test elementary teachers are required to pass only partially address standards related to using informational texts. The standards indirectly address struggling readers or incorporating literacy skills across content areas. At the secondary level, Nebraska has no preparation or requirements for teachers around CCR literacy shifts. New language in Rule 24 Endorsements (Elementary Education) now requires reading and mathematics instruction to include identification of deficiencies and effective instructional and intervention strategies, effective 8.1.18. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Nebraska uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. The state does not require elementary teachers to attain an academic content specialization. In the area of math, which again is not separately scored, the test barely evaluates content knowledge beyond and elementary school level. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Nebraska does collect meaningful data on their teacher prep programs. Minimum requirements and standards for Teacher Preparation Programs are found in Title 92, NAC, Chapter 20. Programs must report annually by May 15 on NDE Form 20-004, any areas in which the teacher education program is out of compliance along with their plan to become compliant in order to continue to be state approved. Corrections must be implemented within a 12-month period. NDE is in frequent contact with the institution regarding progress. State Program Approval Reviews are conducted once every seven years, and include endorsement program reviews as well as a Rule 20 review. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
As of 9/1/2015, all new elementary and secondary candidates were required to pass Praxis II subject-matter tests to earn an initial license (whereas before, there were no subject-matter testing requirements). As of 9/1/2018, middle school teachers are also required to pass a content test. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
At the elementary level, teachers are not required to pass a test in the science of reading or take coursework/ in the subject. The test elementary teachers are required to pass addresses some of the standards related to using informational texts, but the standards only vaguely or indirectly address struggling readers or incorporating literacy skills across content areas. At the secondary level, Nevada has no preparation or requirements for teachers around CCR literacy shifts. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Nevada uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. The state also does not require elementary teachers to have an academic content specialization. In the area of math, which again is not separately scored, the test barely evaluates content knowledge beyond and elementary school level. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Nevada collects meaningful data for its traditional prep programs, but not its alternate ones. Nevada does have some minimum standards for performance, and failure to meet standards may result in a program losing their state approval. In addition, "the Board of Education may review any program before the end of the state's seven-year approval period if the percentage of students in a program who pass state-required tests is less than 80 percent, or if 5 percent or more of probationary teachers employed in Nevada from a particular preparation program are either terminated or not reemployed." |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: Between 2011 and 2013, the state added a new requirement that elementary candidates must earn at least six credit hours of math. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
All elementary teachers must pass a Foundations of Reading test, and the state now requires teacher prep programs to address the science of reading. The Foundations of Reading test does address using informational texts, incorporating literacy skills across content areas, and assisting struggling readers, but does not go far enough in any of these areas to ensure that elementary teachers are adequately prepared. At the secondary level, standards do not address incorporating informational texts. Also, testing frameworks in other content areas don't address incorporating literacy skills, but secondary standards in those content areas do address it. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
New Hampshire uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. The state offers two types of elementary licenses: a K-6 or a K-8. Only the latter requires an academic content specialization. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
New Hampshire does collect meaningful data on their teacher prep programs. However, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017 |
Changes to licensure: Between 2013 and 2015, the state began offering both a K-6 and K-8 elementary license. Before, all elementary candidates were required to earn an academic concentration. After, only K-8 candidates were. As of 7/1/2014, the state began requiring all elementary candidates to pass the New Hampshire Foundations of Reading Test. The state also began requiring teacher prep programs to address the science of reading. In Sept. 2013 the Professional Standards Board took away an exception that allowed content testing to be waived if a candidate had a master's degree or higher in the subject or seven years of experience. As of 7/1/2012, the state began requiring the Praxis II Multiple Subjects test of elementary candidates, rather than a general content test. Between 2011 and 2013, the state began requiring middle school teachers to pass a subject matter test to attain licensure. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
The Praxis Multiple Subjects test required for elementary teachers addresses reading but does not have a specific reading subscore and does not appear to be fully aligned with scientifically based reading instruction. The state also doesn't require teacher prep programs address the science of reading, or that teachers take coursework in it. In addition, the test only addresses measuring text complexity, but not how to incorporate increasingly complex texts into instruction. The standards are also inadequate in incorporating literacy skills across content areas. At the secondary level, New Jersey has no preparation or requirements for teachers around informational texts. Though the standards do require that "the teacher develops and implements supports for learner literacy development across content areas," they do not go far enough. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
New Jersey uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. However, if a teacher fails the test by 5%, they can be exempt if their GPA is 3.5 or higher. The state also requires elementary teacher candidates to have a liberal arts major or 60 liberal arts credits. Middle school teachers are required to teach with on an elementary license with a subject-matter specialization. Secondary teachers need to pass a single-subject content test for any core secondary field they want to teach. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
New Jersey does collect meaningful data on their teacher prep programs. However, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: As of 2017, there was pending state legislation that would require elementary candidates to pass a reading assessment. Somewhere between 2011 and 2013, the state moved from a generalist content test to the Praxis Multiple Subjects test at the elementary level. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
All elementary teachers are required to pass a reading test that addresses the 5 components of reading, and the state requires teacher prep programs to address the science of reading as well. Elementary teachers are also tested on their ability to assess struggling readers, and to incorporate complex informational tests. However, the state has no requirements for prepping teachers in the area of incorporating literacy skills across all content areas. Although New Mexico requires 3 credit hours in reading for middle and secondary teachers, at the secondary level the state has no preparation or requirements for teachers around CCR literacy shifts. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
New Mexico uses the National Evaluation Series to assess content knowledge. The state also requires that elementary teachers take a variety of credit hours in the four core content areas, plus an additional 24-36 hours in a specific content area. New Mexico offers a middle school license (5-9), which requires passage of a single-subject content test, but they also allow teachers to teach on a generalist license. However, they do have slightly more stringent requirements for middle school teachers on an elementary license to demonstrate content knowledge (passing a test, completing a major, or already possessing a valid certificate. New Mexico also offers a single-subject license for secondary teachers (7-12), which requires passing a content test in a core area. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
New Mexico does collect meaningful data on their teacher prep programs. However, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017 |
Changes to licensure: As of 1/1/2013, all elementary candidates are required to pass a reading assessment. In 2014, the state separated their early childhood license into two (birth-age 5, age 4-grade 3). In 2015 the state legislature passed a law that updated the pre-requisite requirements for all teacher candidates. Over the last three years, the state has increased the cut-scores and level of rigor for teacher competency assessments. It also appears they have changed testing regulations over the years, incorporating tests from NES, as well as New Mexico's own NMTA tests. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Elementary candidates are required to take a test that addresses the 5 components of reading, and essentially amounts to a stand-alone reading test. The standards address incorporating literacy skills across content areas, but aren't adequate in this area. Technically, at the secondary level, the standards do not address informational texts. In response to NCTQ's analysis, the state argued that candidates are required to take 6 credit hours of language acquisition/literacy development, including focusing on ELLs. They also state that the standards include the shifts to literacy under the Common Core. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
New York uses its own state tests to assess content knowledge. The state also requires teachers to earn a bachelor's degree or higher that has three components: a pedagogical core, a gen education core, and a content core. For grades 5-9, NY requires a single-subject license, which requires passing a single-subject content test. For non-departmentalized middle schools, the state has a generalized middle grades license, which requires passing a multi-subject test. New York also has a single-subject 7-12 license for secondary teachers, which requires passing a content test for any core subject area. |
2 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
New York collects license passage rates, but not much other meaningful data on teacher prep programs. The state requires a summary pass rate of 80%. The state will conduct a program review, and the program will have to submit a corrective action plan (new policy as of 2017-18). If the program doesn't submit a satisfactory plan, or doesn't make progress, the program's registration may be denied. In addition, the state will suspend a graduate-level program's ability to admit new students if less than 50% of program completers pass licensure exams over a three-year period. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: The state developed new content test, which candidates applying for certification on or after 5/1/2014 were required to take. At this time, the state also began requiring the edTPA. As of 1/1/2018, the state decreased the required passing score for the edTPA, in response to criticism that the required score was too high. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
All elementary teachers must pass a Foundations of Reading test, and the state requires teacher prep programs to address the science of reading. The Foundations of Reading test does address using informational texts, incorporating literacy skills across content areas, and assisting struggling readers, but does not go far enough in the area of informational texts to ensure that elementary teachers are adequately prepared in that area. At the secondary level, standards do not address informational texts, but they are adequate in ensuring teachers are prepared to incorporate literacy skills across core content areas. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Teachers in the state also have until their second year to pass the test, as long as they attempt passage in the first year. In North Carolina, elementary teachers must pass a Pearson General Curriculum test, which is fairly rigorous. The state does not require an academic content specialization among elementary teachers. North Carolina offers a middle grades certificate (6-9), required for all teachers teaching middle school, and a single-subject secondary license (9-12). Teachers are required to pass a single-subject Praxis content test. requirements. The state does require candidates to complete a teacher prep program but is ambiguous about required coursework. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
North Carolina collects meaningful data on its teacher prep programs and incorporates this data in an online Teacher Quality Dashboard. The state requires a) a summary pass rate of at least 70% and b) that 95% of graduates employed by public schools have earned a continuing license during the past two years. The state reviews the status of programs annually, and if a program fails to meet performance standards, it may receive a specific designation, and have sanctions imposed. If a program has been on probation for three consecutive years (or if it has been on probation for just one year, but for some reason the state determines its necessary), program approval will be revoked. A program must wait at least two years after having its license revoked before it can seek re-approval. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: In 2017, teacher preparation programs must ensure that all elementary candidates are able to support struggling readers. As of 10/1/2014, all elem. educator candidates are required to pass a General Curriculum test and a Foundations of Reading. Between 2011 and 2013, the state began requiring that middle school and secondary teachers pass single-subject content tests. They must attempt during their first year, but don't have to pass until their second year. Prior to this, they didn't have to take a test until they applied for a standard professional 2 license (usually after 3 years). |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
At the elementary level, teachers are not required to pass a test in the science of reading or take coursework in the subject. The test elementary teachers are required to pass addresses some of the standards related to using informational texts, but the standards only vaguely address struggling readers or incorporating literacy skills across content areas. Although North Dakota requires secondary teachers to take a Reading in the Content course (and one of the standards for that course is cross-curricular literacy skills), at the secondary level the state has no preparation or requirements for teachers around CCR literacy shifts. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
North Dakota uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. In addition, elementary teachers are not required to have an academic content specialization. In the area of math, which is not separately scored, the test barely evaluates content knowledge beyond elementary school level. The state offers a middle grades certification (5-8), which requires passing a Praxis subject-matter test, but does not require it. Teachers can also teach on a 1-8 generalist license that only requires passing elementary content tests. North Dakota offers a single-subject secondary license for grades 7-12, which requires passing a single-subject content test. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
North Dakota does not seem to have accountability in this area - they do not require teacher prep programs to collect or report data, there are no minimum standards, and thus there are no consequences for not meeting those standards. |
0 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: New legislation passed in 2017 creating a 5-12 secondary license (rather than 7-12), meaning a middle grades license is no longer mandatory. In 2016, the state stopped offering a K-6 elementary license, and now only offers a 1-8 elementary license (and separate Kindergarten license). |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Elementary teachers must pass a Foundations of Reading test, which addresses the science of reading. Teacher prep programs must also address the science of reading. Frameworks at the elementary level address informational texts, but not how to incorporate texts of increasing complexity. The standards do adequately prepare elementary teachers for incorporating literacy skills across the curriculum and assisting struggling readers. Middle school teachers are also required to pass a Foundations of Reading test, which addresses some of the instructional shifts around building content knowledge and vocabulary through the use of informational and literary texts. Although they are also required to take 12 hours of coursework on how to teach reading, this does not ensure they are able to incorporate literacy skills across content areas. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
The state uses its own tests to assess teacher content knowledge. The P-3 license does not require an academic content specialization. At the middle school level, NCTQ awarded the state a "Best Practices" award in content knowledge. All middle school teachers are required to have a middle school license (4-9) and required to pass a specific subject-area test. Middle school candidates must earn concentrations in two core content areas (essentially 2 minors). Teachers with secondary licenses can also teach single subjects in middle school, and secondary candidates must have an academic major in the content area. Secondary licenses are 7-12, and require the passage of a single-subject content test. |
2 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Ohio does collect meaningful data on preparation programs. The state requires 80% of program completers to pass their licensure exams to be considered "effective." If a program is less than 80% it is considered "at risk of low performing," and if it gets less than 80% for three years than it's "low performing," but there are no clear or consistent consequences associated with these designations. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: As of 7/1/17, the state introduced a new reading assessment all elementary and middle grades educator candidates will need to pass. In 2013, the state adopted the Ohio Assessment for Educators, moving away from Praxis II general subject-matter tests. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Oklahoma requires its elementary teachers to pass a test in scientifically-based reading instruction. Teacher prep programs are also required to address it. The test framework address informational texts, but not how to incorporate them in instruction. In addition, the standards do not ensure that teachers are adequately prepared to incorporate literacy skills across content areas, though they are robust in assisting struggling readers. At the secondary level, Oklahoma has no requirements for literacy related to CCR shifts. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Oklahoma uses its own tests to assess teacher content knowledge. The test does not offer a separately scored math portion, and the test does not seem very rigorous - it appears to require a limited understanding of mathematics. The state has a single-subject 5-9 license which involves passing a content test and earning an academic major in a subject. However, middle school teachers can teach all subjects except math on a 1-8 generalist license, which only requires passing an elementary-level content test. Oklahoma offers a 6-12 single-subject, secondary license that requires passing a single-subject content test. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Oklahoma does collect meaningful data on their teacher prep programs. However, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. They do delineate consequences, including revoking accreditation, for programs that don't meet standards and don't improve, but without objective, minimum performance standards it's difficult to tell how those determinations are made. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
In general, requirements for licensing has remained relatively stable. |
2 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Oregon does not ensure that teachers of any level are adequately prepared for the literacy shifts required by CCR standards. Although the test elementary candidates are required to pass addresses the science of reading and informational texts, it is not a standalone reading test. In addition, teacher prep programs are not required to address the science of reading. The state has no standards dedicated to incorporating literacy skills across content areas, and the standards are inadequate in ensuring teachers can identify and support struggling readers. At the secondary level, the state has no requirements for literacy related to CCR shifts. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Oregon allows teachers to "accept any instructional assignment from prekindergarten through grade 12 within the scope of the subject-matter endorsement(s)." Teachers are not required to earn an academic content specialization. Candidates must also complete the edTPA endorsement. The state offers Foundational Level endorsements in the four core content areas, which are middle-school level and require passing a subject content test. However, middle school teachers can teach on an elementary license in grades 7-8 in a self-contained classroom. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Oregon has very little accountability in this area - they do not require teacher prep programs to collect or report data, there are no minimum standards, and thus there are no consequences for not meeting those standards. They do monitor candidate performance through edTPA, and programs have to report some data for CAEP requirements. |
0 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: edTPA is slated to become "consequential" to teacher candidates in the 2018-19 school year. The state passed legislation effective July 2016 that requires all teacher candidates "receive training to provide instruction that enables pupils to meet or exceed third-grade reading standards and become proficient readers by the end of the third grade." As of 1/1/2016, Oregon teachers can "accept any instructional assignment from prekindergarten through grade 12 within the scope of the subject-matter endorsement(s)" and "the scope of the endorsement shall be determined by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) course codes associated with the endorsement." This legislation also led to a restructuring of middle school endorsements. It appears that between 2011 and 2013, the state eliminated an "alternative assessment" path which allowed candidates who failed a content test twice to petition for a waiver. Throughout 2011 and 2012, the state slowly moved from Oregon state assessments to NES tests, staggering the rollout of the test across different subjects/levels. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Although the test elementary candidates are required to pass addresses the science of reading, and partially informational texts, it is not a standalone reading test. However, the science of reading is mentioned in the guidelines for teacher prep programs for P-4. Neither standards nor the test address incorporating literacy skills across content areas. At the secondary level, the state does not have any requirements addressing the use of informational texts. Although the state adequately prepares middle school teachers to incorporate literacy skills across core content areas, the standards at the secondary level are too broad to ensure candidates are prepared. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
An early childhood license is required for P-4, and requires the passage of a newly developed state-specific test. The state does not require an academic content specialization. The state requires a middle school license to teach grades 4-8, which involves passing a single-subject Praxis. The state also requires candidates to concentrate in one or two core content areas, and also take a minimum of 12 credit hours in the other core content areas. A secondary single-subject license is offered for 7-12, which also requires passing a single-subject Praxis. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs. based on their effectiveness. |
Pennsylvania does collect objective meaningful performance on teacher prep programs. However, they do not set meaningful minimum scores in more performance categories. They do require that, across three years, an average of 80% of completers pass their licensing exam, and that the three-year average for each single assessment pass rate is at least 80% (including both completers and enrolled students). If a program doesn't meet the state's minimum standard of performance, it is designated "low performing." The designation is also based on receiving conditional status during a major review, and the percentage of enrolled students who complete the program. "At that point, a program will receive technical assistance from the program's state liaison. However, it is unclear what the consequences are for low performing programs or what triggers loss of approval." |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
As of April 2, 2012, the state moved from Praxis II to newly developed Pennsylvania Educator Certification Tests at the elementary level. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
The Praxis Multiple Subjects test required for elementary teachers addresses reading but does not have a specific reading subscore and does not appear to be fully aligned with scientifically based reading instruction. The state also doesn't require teacher prep programs address the science of reading, or that teachers take coursework in it. In addition, the test only addresses measuring text complexity, but not how to incorporate increasingly complex texts into instruction. At the secondary level, state standards do not address informational texts, and do not ensure teachers are adequately prepared to incorporate literacy skills across the curriculum. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Rhode Island uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. The state does not require an academic content specialization. The state requires middle school certification (5-9) for all middle school teachers, which requires passing a single-subject content test. The state also requires middle school teachers to earn a major (or equivalent) in the content area or "closely related field." A single-subject secondary license is offered for 7-12. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Rhode Island collects meaningful data on its teacher prep programs. It also has recently set and publicized minimum standards of performance, but the objectivity and measurability of these standards is lacking. In addition, the state classified programs based on their overall performance, and does require certain actions to be taken based on their classification. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: In 2012, Rhode Island switched from a general Praxis II content test to the Praxis II multiple subjects test. This test also tests elementary candidates' knowledge of scientifically-based reading instruction, though it is not a stand-alone reading test. Around the same time, Rhode Island began requiring secondary teachers to pass content tests. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
The Praxis Multiple Subjects test required for elementary teachers addresses reading but does not have a specific reading sub-score and does not appear to be fully aligned with scientifically based reading instruction. In addition, the test only addresses measuring text complexity, but not how to incorporate increasingly complex texts into instruction. However, the state does require teacher candidates in Early Childhood, Elementary, and Special Education to take 12 hours of instruction in the science of reading, and its standards ensure that teachers are fully prepared to incorporate literacy across the content areas and assist struggling readers. Teacher candidates in Middle Level and High School preparation programs must complete a six-hour course sequence in the Foundations of Reading and Content Area Reading and Writing. The state's secondary standards do not address informational texts, but they are adequate in ensuring teachers are prepared to incorporate literacy across core content areas. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
South Carolina uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. The state does not require an academic content specialization in Early Childhood Education or Elementary Education. The state requires subject-specific middle school certification (5-8) for all middle school teachers, which requires passing a single-subject content test. A single-subject secondary license is offered for 9-12. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
South Carolina collects licensure pass rates, but no other meaningful data on the performance of teacher prep programs. The state requires at least a 95% pass rate for the Assisting, Developing, and Evaluating Professional Teaching (ADEPT) evaluation among program completers, and a summary pass rate of 80% on state licensure exams. The state also categorizes programs as "At Risk" or "Low Performing" based on their performance, but there are not clearly articulated consequences associated with these categories. State Board of Education Regulation 43-90 requires public institutions of higher education with approved teacher preparation programs to be accredited by a national accrediting organization with which the state has a partnership agreement. Private institutions are encouraged to seek the same national accreditation; at minimum, these institutions must be accredited through a state process that mirrors the national one and uses the same standards. South Carolina has a partnership agreement with the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), and providers must demonstrate candidate impact on P-12 student learning to meet a required CAEP standard. Final approval decisions based on the national or state accreditation process rest with the State Board of Education which has the authority to grant initial or ongoing approval and to deny institutions the ability to recommend candidates for certification. Additionally, the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education may sanction providers whose accreditation is denied. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: Starting in fall 2016, candidates in Early Childhood, Elementary, and Special Education are required to complete a 12-hour course sequence in literacy. Candidates in Middle Level and High School preparation programs must complete six hours of coursework to include the Foundations of Reading and Content Area Reading and Writing. In July 2012, higher cut-scores were approved for the required middle-level certification tests in math, science, social studies and language arts. Updated subject area assessments for Middle Level ELA, Social Studies, and Mathematics were adopted effective September 1, 2013. The updated assessment for ML Science was adopted effective September 1, 2014. Beginning September 1, 2014, South Carolina began requiring elementary candidates to take the Praxis II Elementary Ed: Multiple Subjects test. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
The state has no requirements that prepare teachers at any level for the shifts in literacy instruction required by CCR standards. |
0 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
South Dakota offers an elementary license to teach K-8. It does not require teachers to pass a content test or earn an academic content specialization. The state does offer a single-subject secondary license for grades 5-12. Teachers do not need to pass a content test for initial licensure. |
0 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
South Dakota has very little accountability in this area - they do not require teacher prep programs to collect or report data, there are no minimum standards, and thus there are no consequences for not meeting those standards. |
0 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: In 2016, the state changed their elementary and middle certification requirements. Instead of one K-8 license, candidates can choose between three different endorsements: a) self-contained K-4, b) self-contained 5-8), or c) a K-8 license in one of the four core content areas. What tests the candidates have to pass is determined by the type of license they are pursuing. Recent legislation also now allows secondary teachers to pass a Praxis II content test or have an academic major in the applicable content area, rather than necessarily having to pass a content test. It also expanded the secondary license to 5-12, rather than just 7-12. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Tennessee demonstrates fairly strong practices in literacy preparation. The state test addresses the five components of reading. The standards are adequate in ensuring elementary teachers are prepared in all other aspects of literacy skills. At the secondary level, informational tests are partially addressed among middle school teachers through the test they are required to take, but not for secondary teachers. However, the state has new literacy standards that ensure middle and secondary teachers are prepared to incorporate literacy skills across the curriculum. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Tennessee uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. Elementary teachers must pass both a content & pedagogy test, though they can delay passage of these if they possess a bachelor's degree in a core content area. The state offers a middle-grades certification (6-8), which requires passing of a single-subject content test. Teachers have a choice of interdisciplinary or single-subject arts & sciences majors. The state also offers a single-subject secondary license for 6-12, which requires passing a single-subject content test. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Tennessee collects meaningful data on its teacher prep programs. It has also set and publicized meaningful minimum standards in the areas of candidate profile, employment, and provider impact. There is an annual report card that reports out on programs' performance compared to these standards, and programs are categorized based on their overall performance. Programs that do not meet a standard are denied accreditation and cannot enroll new students. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: Between 2011 and 2013, the state switched to requiring a new reading test for elem. candidates. Between 2013 and 2015 the state switched from a general Praxis content exam for elem. candidates to requiring passage of the Praxis 5018 and 5017 tests. In 2014, the state adopted a new Educator Licensure Policy which changed middle-grades licensure from an interdisciplinary license for grades 4-8, to a single discipline endorsement area for grades 6-8 in one of the four core content areas. In 2015, legislation went into effect that allowed teachers to delay passage of a content and pedagogy test if the candidate had a bachelor's degree in a core content area. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Texas' assessment for elementary teachers does assess the science of reading. Prep requirements are partially adequate in addressing incorporating literacy skills across curriculum, but not completely, and they address expository texts but not informational texts. At the secondary level, standards call on teachers to incorporate literacy across core content areas, although exams do not assess this. Exams also do not test informational texts, but do require competencies with expository texts. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Texas uses its own state tests to assess content proficiency. For elementary teachers, to earn a generalist license, teachers must earn an academic content or interdisciplinary major, and earn a satisfactory score in each core subject covered by the state's exam. For middle school, the state requires teachers to have either a generalist (4-8) license or a subject-specific (4-8) license. However, even in the generalist license, candidates must earn a passing score in each core subject in the state's exam. For secondary teachers, Texas requires a single-subject secondary license for grades 7-12, which requires passing a content test. |
2 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Texas collects meaningful data on teacher prep programs - they are required to report candidates' first two attempts at licensure tests and the results of surveys of principals and program completers. They have also set and publicized minimum performance standards. The state also requires that programs increase their performance over the coming years. Programs are categorized based on their overall performance. If they do not meet the standards, programs are placed on warned or probation status. If programs are on probation for longer than three years, their approval will be revoked. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: Between 2011 and 2013, the state moved to a new certification exam for elementary candidates, and began requiring that to qualify for a generalist certificate, candidates must earn a "satisfactory level of performance" in each core subject covered by the exam. In Sept. 2014, the state updated its certification exams. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
The Praxis Multiple Subjects test required for elementary teachers addresses reading but does not have a specific reading subscore and does not appear to be fully aligned with scientifically based reading instruction. In addition, the test only addresses measuring text complexity, but not how to incorporate increasingly complex texts into instruction. However, the state does require prep programs to address the science of reading. Utah's secondary standards do not address informational texts. For teachers with secondary licenses, prep programs are required to prepare teachers to incorporate literacy skills across curriculum. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs, |
Utah uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. The state does not require an academic content specialization. Utah has a secondary 6-12 license for middle school or secondary teachers, which requires passing single-subject content tests. However, Utah also offers a K-8 generalist license that middle school teachers can teach on, although its only valid for teaching 6-8 in elementary settings, not middle school/junior high (which represents the vast majority of middle schools in the state), or self-contained classrooms. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Utah collects meaningful data on its teacher prep programs but is not actually analyzing this data to gauge the effectiveness or performance of its programs. In addition, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: In Dec. 2011, the state introduced a new elementary content test (Praxis II: Multiple Subjects), which became required as of Sept. 2012. In early 2014, the state updated its teacher prep standards to explicitly require that programs address the science of reading. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
The Praxis Multiple Subjects test required for elementary teachers addresses reading, but does not have a specific reading subscore and does not appear to be fully aligned with scientifically based reading instruction. However, the state does require prep programs to address the science of reading. The standards do adequately prepare teachers for building knowledge through informational texts. While the standards do address incorporating literacy skills across curriculum, they are not adequate in ensuring teachers are prepared, and there are no standards related to assisting struggling readers and incorporating literacy skills across content areas though. There are no standards for secondary teachers. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Vermont uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. All teachers must complete an arts and sciences major in the content area of the endorsement they are seeking. However, the state's language does not ensure that a teacher's major will actually earn a major in an academic subject area. The state requires a 5-9 single-subject license for middle school teachers and a 7-12 one for secondary teachers. Both licenses require passing a single-subject content test. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Vermont does collect meaningful data on their teacher prep programs, including annual program compliance data. The consequence a program could face because of non-compliance, is losing the authority to recommend for licensure. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
In 2013, the state moved from requiring Praxis 1 to the Praxis Core and requiring elementary candidates to also take the Praxis II. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
The Praxis Multiple Subjects test required for elementary teachers addresses reading, but does not have a specific reading subscore and does not appear to be fully aligned with scientifically based reading instruction. In addition, the test only addresses measuring text complexity, but not how to incorporate increasingly complex texts into instruction. However, the state does require prep programs to address the science of reading. The standards do adequately prepare teachers for building knowledge through informational texts. The secondary standards do not address building content knowledge and vocab through informational and literary texts. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Virginia uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. All teachers must complete an interdisciplinary major or one in the state's core academic areas. The state requires a middle school 6-8 endorsement for middle school teachers, which requires passing a single-subject test. They also offer a 6-12 secondary license. Candidates must pass a content test initially. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Virginia collects meaningful data on the performance of its teacher preparation programs, requiring programs to report annually on metrics like employer satisfaction survey data and licensure exam pass rates. The state does require a summary pass rate of 80% on state licensure exams. If a program does not meet the 80% pass rate and is not accredited, it will not be approved. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Virginia's teacher licensure requirements have remained relatively stable throughout the years. However, as of 7/1/2014, the state began requiring all elementary and early elementary candidates to pass the Praxis II Multiple Subjects test (instead of a Praxis II general content test). |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
Although the test elementary candidates are required to pass addresses the science of reading and informational texts, it is not a standalone reading test. The state does require teacher prep programs to address the science of reading. The standards are fairly strong in incorporating informational texts and assisting struggling readers, but there are no standards in incorporating literacy across content areas. Secondary standards do not require that teachers are prepared for building knowledge through incorporating informational or literary texts. Standards for middle school humanities and science teachers touch on incorporating literary skills in the curriculum, but not other core content areas or in any secondary subjects. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
To earn an elementary multi-subject license, Washington requires teachers to pass an NES Elem Education test. The state does not require an academic content specialization. For middle school teachers, the state offers a 4-9 license. This requires a passing of subject-specific test, but ELA and social studies are combined into one "humanities" test. Washington also does not require middle school teachers to have a major or minor in what they plan to teach in. However, the state doesn't require teachers to have a middle school license—they can also teach on a generalist K-8 license, which requires only passing elementary-level content tests. Washington also offers a single-subject 5-12 license, which requires passing a content test. To add an additional endorsement, teachers must also pass a content test. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Washington does collect meaningful data on its teacher prep programs, and is in the process of beginning to collect even more data. They are also working to set meaningful minimum standards of performance, and develop a way to hold programs accountable. |
1 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: In Sept. 2014, the state replaced the Washington Educator Skills Test-Endorsement (WEST-E) with NES general elementary content test, for elementary educators. The state also replaced the test for secondary ELA candidates. In 2012-2013, the state began requiring the completion of the Teacher Performance Assessment (now EdTPA). |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
The state requires all Early Childhood (K-4) teacher candidates to take a stand-alone Praxis reading test (5024 –test designed for Birth-through Kindergarten only). WV requires all elementary teacher candidates (K-6) to take Praxis 5203 Teaching Reading: Elementary Education. This test reflects the five essential components of effective reading instruction as identified by the National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension along with other foundational reading skills students must develop, such as word recognition and the application of print concepts. The test assesses the individual’s knowledge of how to support developing literacy as an integrated skill, starting with oral language development and building to include developing writing skills in parallel with reading development. The WV College- and Career- Readiness Standards for English Language Arts at the secondary level integrate all four domains of literacy (reading, writing, speaking/listening, and language) into one set of standards. Specific content area literacy standards can be located in individual content area policies. |
2 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
The state uses Praxis tests to assess content knowledge. The state requires that Elementary education (K-6) programs shall include a minimum of 30 credit hours of coursework in English/language arts, health, mathematics, physical education, science, social studies and the arts such that the coursework is relevant to the curriculum delivered in the elementary K-6 classroom. WV requires a middle school endorsement for all middle school teachers, which requires the passage of a single-subject content test. West Virginia also offers a single-subject 10-12 secondary license, which requires passing a content test. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
West Virginia has adopted the same program performance metric required for CAEP at the state-level. It has not set minimum standards in most performance areas, but does require a summary 80% pass rate on state license exams. The state also has four criteria—1) accreditation status, 2) Praxis II content area exam pass rates, 3) Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching exam pass rates, and 4) recognition of programs of study—and if a program is ranked at risk or low performing in two of the four, they are given an overall rating of "at risk." Policy 5100 indicates that if an institution/program fails to meet the criteria for any WVBE and/or CAEP accreditation it could be subject to having the EPP’s program approval status withdrawn. The WVDE may recommend an alteration in the program’s approval status to the WVBE for review and action. |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: Between 2011 and 2013, the state switched from a combined content and pedagogy Praxis II to the Praxis II Multiple Subjects exam for elementary candidates. Also, conducted a teacher performance assessment study (TPA) and requires all providers to have a TPA adopted. All institutions are now required to be CAEP accredited and adhere to the rigorous admission and performance criteria as required by CAEP. Policy currently under revision to include stronger clinical partnerships and year-long internship models. Adopted reading and literacy tests requirements for elementary and early education programs. State requires the passing of Praxis II content exams prior to student teaching. Around the same time, the state also began requiring the Praxis II Teaching Reading exam. |
1 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
The state requires elementary teachers to take the Foundations of Reading test, which addresses foundations of reading development, development of reading comprehension, and reading assessment and instruction.
|
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Wisconsin uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. The state does not require elem. teachers to earn an academic content specialization. Candidates for the middle school license are required to complete an academic minor in a core subject. For secondary teachers, they are required to pass a single-subject Praxis test. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Wisconsin does collect meaningful data on their teacher prep programs. However, the state does not set minimum standards of programs for the data categories that teacher prep programs must report, so the state does not have any consequences if a program fails to meet specific criteria. "The state describes the process and consequences for programs receiving conditional approval and non-approval, but approval is not based on clearly stated, objective evidence or measures of performance." |
2 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
Changes to licensure: In the 2013-2014 school year, the state's elementary licensure content guidelines underwent a comprehensive revision, to align them to Common Core standards. Between 2011 and 2013, the state started requiring all elementary candidates to pass a reading test. As of January 31, 2014, all elementary, special ed and reading candidates needed to pass the Praxis II Foundations of Reading test. |
0 |
|
Attribute |
Criteria |
State Details |
Strength of Attribute |
|
Teacher Preparation Policy |
|||
|
Consistency |
The extent to which teacher preparation requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards. |
The Praxis Multiple Subjects test required for elementary teachers addresses reading, but does not have a specific reading subscore and does not appear to be fully aligned with scientifically based reading instruction. In addition, the test only addresses measuring text complexity, but not how to incorporate increasingly complex texts into instruction. The state does not require prep programs to address the science of reading, or teachers to take courses in it. There are no requirements related to incorporating literacy across content areas or assisting struggling readers. At the secondary level, the state has no requirements related to literacy. |
1 |
|
Authority |
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs. |
Wyoming uses Praxis II tests to assess teacher content knowledge, though the Praxis II is not necessarily sufficiently rigorous or aligned with CCR standards. The state does not require an academic content specialization. The state offers middle school and secondary licenses, but only social studies teachers are actually required to pass a content test. Middle school teachers are also not required to earn an academic major or a minor. |
1 |
|
Power |
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness. |
Wyoming has little accountability in this area - they do not require teacher prep programs to collect or report data, there are no minimum standards, and thus there are no consequences for not meeting those standards. |
0 |
|
Stability |
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017. |
In general, Wyoming's licensure requirements for educator candidates have remained relatively stable. However, between 2013 and 2015, the state moved from requiring a combined content and pedagogy exam for elementary candidates to requiring the Praxis II Multiple subjects test. |
1 |
Feature: Consistency
|
The extent to which teacher preparation ELA requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—No alignment |
|
Feature: Authority
|
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation programs |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—Not required |
|
Feature: Power
|
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—No monitoring |
|
Feature: Stability
|
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017 |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—2 or more different legislative actions changing teacher prep policies, or changes to teacher prep policies occurring at 2 or more different time points |
|
Feature: Consistency
|
Whether states have ELA and math curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—No reported alignment |
|
Feature: Specificity
|
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the ELA and math standards |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—There are no publicly accessible resources |
|
Feature: Authority
|
The extent to which states require ELA and math curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—No requirements or guidelines |
|
Feature: Stability
|
Whether ELA and math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018 |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—2+ changes |
|
Feature: Consistency
|
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—No |
|
Feature: Specificity
|
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education in general education settings |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—No |
|
Feature: Authority
|
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional instructional supports for teachers |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—No known partnerships |
|
Feature: Stability
|
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018 |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
This information was not consistently provided enough for us to code this as a policy indicator; we instead provide information we were able to find in case it is of interest to the public |
|
Feature: Consistency
|
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—No |
|
Feature: Specificity
|
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—No |
|
Feature: Authority
|
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional instructional supports for teachers |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—No known partnerships |
|
Feature: Stability
|
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018 |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
This information was not consistently provided enough for us to code this as a policy indicator; we instead provide information we were able to find in case it is of interest to the public |
|
Feature: Consistency
|
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—Unknown |
|
Feature: Specificity
|
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—Unknown |
|
Feature: Authority
|
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to understanding and implementing the standards |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—Unknown |
|
Feature: Power
|
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license. |
|
|---|---|
|
Scale |
|
|
0—State does not require PD to renew teaching license |
|
Teachers are the single most important school-based influence on student achievement. State policymakers must, therefore, design coherent systems of supports that guide teachers' instructional practice, especially in this era of rigorous college- and career- readiness (CCR) standards for all students, including English language learners (ELL) and students with disabilities (SWD).
Though in many cases local education agencies have the authority to select or design and implement their own teacher preparation, curricular, professional development models, state education agencies (SEAs) outline the broad parameters of these support systems and provide supplementary guidance or resources. In this interactive map series, we compare how SEAs influence instructional practice through these three domains. Our organizing framework is the policy attributes theory which hypothesizes that there are five components to successful policy implementation: specificity, consistency, authority, power, and stability. See the Specific Rating Key on each map for details on how we determine the rating scale for individual attributes.
Notes on Methodology:
- We asked all 50 states and D.C. to verify the information in the map series, giving each state one month to review the information and respond with edits. We specified that we would follow up with them three times and if we do not hear back by the deadline, we would take their silence as approval of the data. Thirty-one states out of 51 responded to our requests. If your state requires corrections, please email us at gse-csail@gse.upenn.edu.
- The information populating this series come from the National Council of Teacher Quality (2017) database and from each state education agency's official website.
Common Acronyms:
| ELA: English Language Arts | LEP: Limited English Proficiency | ESL: English as a Second Language | RtI: Response to Intervention |
| MTSS: Multi-Tiered System of Supports | WIDA: World-class Instructional Design and Assessment | ELPA21: English Language Proficiency Assessment for the 21st Century |
- Teacher Preparation Policy
- General Education Curriculum
- Supports for SWDs
- Supports for ELLs
- Professional Development (PD)
Feature:
Consistency
The extent to which teacher preparation ELA requirements are aligned to literacy CCR standards
Consistency Rating KeyFeature:
Authority
The extent to which teachers are required to demonstrate content expertise in ELA and math in order to graduate from their preparation program
Authority Rating KeyFeature:
Power
Whether states reward or sanction teacher preparation programs based on their effectiveness
Power Rating KeyFeature:
Stability
The extent to which teacher preparation programs have changed from 2011 to 2017
Stability Rating KeyFeature:
Consistency
Whether states have ELA and math curriculum frameworks that are aligned to their standards
Consistency Rating KeyFeature:
Specificity
The extent to which states have specific curricular resources (e.g., lesson plans, unit plans, pacing guides) that detail expectations for teachers implementing the ELA and math standards
Specificity Rating KeyFeature:
Authority
The extent to which states require ELA and math curricular materials and support the implementation of these resources with additional PD
Authority Rating KeyFeature:
Stability
Whether ELA and math standards or curricular frameworks have changed from 2012 to 2018
Stability Rating KeyFeature:
Consistency
The extent to which states have IEP resources aligned to the CCR standards
Consistency Rating KeyFeature:
Specificity
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, or program models, or instructional tools to support the teaching of SWDs in general education in general education settings
Specificity Rating KeyFeature:
Authority
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with SWD expertise to provide additional instructional supports for teachers
Authority Rating KeyFeature:
Stability
Whether instructional supports or policies for SWDs have changed from 2012 to 2018
Stability Rating KeyFeature:
Consistency
The extent to which states have English Language Proficiency (ELP) or English Language Development (ELD) standards aligned to the ELA standards
Consistency Rating KeyFeature:
Specificity
The extent to which states have specific curriculum, program models or instructional tools to support the teaching of ELLs
Specificity Rating KeyFeature:
Authority
Whether states partner with national or local organizations with ELL expertise to provide additional instructional supports for teachers
Authority Rating KeyFeature:
Stability
Whether instructional supports or policies for ELLs have changed from 2012 to 2018
Stability Rating KeyFeature:
Consistency
Whether professional learning standards are aligned to CCR standards
Consistency Rating KeyFeature:
Specificity
The extent to which state PD programs for teachers help them understand the standards, or provide them with tools to unpack the standards
Specificity Rating KeyFeature:
Authority
The extent to which the state designs/offers PD for teachers related to understanding and implementing the standards
Authority Rating KeyFeature:
Power
The extent to which the state holds its teachers accountable for completing PD activities to renew teaching license.
Power Rating Key
© COPYRIGHT 2021