State board presentation review of teacher preparation regulations proposal
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 11

State Board Presentation Review of Teacher Preparation Regulations Proposal PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

State Board Presentation Review of Teacher Preparation Regulations Proposal. June 2014. Overview. The Department is prepared to adopt regulatory changes to teacher preparation. Today we will revisit the background and context of these regulatory changes.

Download Presentation

State Board Presentation Review of Teacher Preparation Regulations Proposal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

State Board PresentationReview of Teacher Preparation Regulations Proposal

June 2014


The Department is prepared to adopt regulatory changes to teacher preparation.

Today we will revisit the background and context of these regulatory changes.

We will also provide a summary of the proposed regulations, as well as an explanation of any adoption-level changes.

Background and Context: Impetus for Change

Teacher preparation is a national issue that has become a focus for reform across the country.

  • Only 23% of all teachers, and only 14% of teachers in high-poverty schools, come from the top third of college graduates.1

  • More than three in five education school alumni report that their education school did not prepare them for “classroom realities.”2

  • Despite this, in 2011, only 37 institutions across the country (out of approximately 1,400) were identified as low-performing. 3

1. Byron Auguste, Paul Kihn, Matt Miller, Closing the talent gap: Attracting and retaining top-third graduates to careers in teaching (Washington, DC: McKinsey & Company, 2010), 5, practices/Education/Knowledge_Highlights/~/media/Reports/SSO/Closing_the_talent_gap.ashx

2 Arthur Levine, Educating School Teachers (Washington, D.C.: The Education Schools Project, 2006), 32, http://www.

3 Chad Aldeman, et al., A Measured Approach to Improving Teacher Preparation (Washington, DC: Education Sector, 2011), 4 – 16,

Background and Context: National Movement

In light of this challenge, several states, national organizations, and the federal government, have recently prioritized reforming teacher preparation.

  • In Sept 2011, USED published the report, Our Future, Our Teachers, calling for states the federal government to work together to improve teacher recruiting and preparation.

  • In late 2012, CCSSO published Our Responsibility, Our Promise: Transforming Educator Preparation and Entry into the Profession, calling for states to increase licensure requirements, and utilize stronger program approval and accountability measures for educator preparation providers.

  • CAEP (the national accrediting body for colleges of education) recently proposed new accreditation standards for teacher preparation providers, which include the use of student achievement data for accreditation, and call for higher entry requirements into teacher preparation programs.

  • The American Federation of Teachers concluded that teaching programs should require candidates to have a cumulative GPA of 3.0 and earn a minimum grade on college- or graduate-school-entry exams, such as a 24 on the ACT.

  • In concert with AACTE (American Association of Teachers Colleges) and Stanford University, Pearson developed a “teacher performance assessment” that assesses teacher candidates’ pedagogical effectiveness prior to entering the classroom; more than 1,000 educators from 29 states and the District of Columbia, and more than 430 institutions of higher education participated in test development.

Background and Context: Feedback and Support from NJ

  • Our Approach to Stakeholder Engagement

  • An Educator Preparation Working Group met four times during 2013 to provide feedback on our priorities and key initiatives; This group included deans and directors from New Jersey schools of education, alternate route providers, as well as representatives from NJEA, NJPSA, and NJASA

  • Our team attends monthly New Jersey Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (NJACTE) meetings to provide updates and gather feedback

  • Feedback and Support

  • Representatives from NJ Colleges and Universities, and the NJEA expressed broad support for increasing the entry standards for teacher preparation programs, while recognizing that this is one early step in improving the quality of the teacher workforce

  • The President of NJACTE supported the new requirement for a performance-based assessment

  • We received recommendations from NJACTE to delay the implementation of these changes, and we have listened and are proposing changes accordingly

Background and Context: Theory of Action

These regulatory changes are part of a broader vision for educator preparation

  • There is no “silver bullet” to improve the quality of the teaching workforce; Any single proposed regulation, in isolation, is not enough to enact meaningful change; however, we believe the actions proposed by the Department in this round of regulations in combination with future proposals will collectively improve the quality of entrants into the profession

  • Teacher preparation is not closely enough connected to K-12 education; It needs to be deeply embedded into multiple aspects of the educator lifecycle, including:

    • Pre-service preparation ;

    • Certification

    • Mentoring / induction

    • Ongoing professional development

    • Evaluation

  • The Department’s theory of action is two-fold:

    • Improve the training and quality of teachers entering the profession

    • Utilize data to strengthen support and accountability for preparation programs

Background and Context: Primary Pathways

  • The proposed regulations take into consideration the two primary pathways into teaching

  • Traditional route: candidates complete a preparation program prior to entering the classroom, and then receive a Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing (CEAS)

  • Alternate route: candidates meet requirements to earn a Certificate of Eligibility (CE) and then complete a preparation program during their first years of teaching

Overview of Proposed Regulations

Our goals for these proposed regulations stem from our first theory of action – to improve the training and quality of teachers entering the profession. Specifically these regulations will:

  • Raise the bar for entrance into the teaching profession, ultimately ensuring every teacher in NJ meets a threshold of quality for cognitive ability, content knowledge, and pedagogy

  • To the best of our ability, ensure NJ requirements for entry into the teaching profession are not significantly different from states that share reciprocity and significant mobility with our state

    Proposed Changes

  • Require a standardized assessment of basic skills for entry into a traditional preparation program and to obtain a CE

  • Raise GPA requirements

    • Raise the GPA required to enter a traditional program from 2.5 to 3.0

    • Raise the GPA required for certification from 2.75 to 3.0

  • Require a performance assessment for a CEAS


Flexibility has been built into proposed regulatory changes to allow a diverse set of candidates, who otherwise demonstrate high potential, to enter the profession.

1. The Department reviewed requests for two other flexibility measures - Praxis II and Accuplacer - but denied requests for those assessments

Adoption-Level Changes


  • The Department is proposing three changes at adoption level for the Board’s consideration

  • The proposed changes do not amend the requirements put forth in earlier version, but rather represent changes to implementation dates to better reflect current student’s matriculation timeline

  • The proposed changes came as a result of public stakeholder input, specifically from our teacher preparation programs

Adoption-Level Changes

  • Login