Upload
rob-port
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 1/162
North Dakota
O V E
RALL G R A D
E
D
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 2/162
Acknowldgmns
StAteS
State education agencies remain our most important partners in this eort, and their gracious cooperation has helped
to ensure the actual accuracy o the nal product. Every state ormally received a drat o the Yearbook in July 2011
or comment and correction; states also received a nal drat o their reports a month prior to release. All but one state
responded to our inquiries. While states do not always agree with the recommendations, their willingness to acknowledge
the imperections o their teacher policies is an important rst step toward reorm.
We also thank the many state pension boards that reviewed our drats and responded to our inquiries.
FuNDerS
The primary unders or the 2011 Yearbook were:
n Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation n Gleason Family Foundationn Carnegie Corporation o New York n The Joyce Foundation
n George Gund Foundation
The National Council on Teacher Quality does not accept any direct unding rom the ederal government.
StAFF
Sandi Jacobs, Project Director
Sarah Brody, Project Assistant
Kathryn M. Doherty, Special Contributor
Kelli Michele, Lead Researcher
Meagan Staere Comb, Trisha M. Madden and Stephanie T. Maltz, Researchers
Thank you to the team at CPS Gumpert or their design o the 2011 Yearbook. Thanks also to Colleen Hale and Je Hale
at EFA Solutions or the original Yearbook design and ongoing technical support.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 3/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 NORTH DAKOTA
: 1
Executive Summary
Area Grades 2011 2009
Area 1 Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D D
Area 2 Expanding the Teaching Pool F F
Area 3 Identiying Eective Teachers D+ D-
Area 4 Retaining Eective Teachers D D
Area 5 Exiting Ineective Teachers D- D+
Highlights from recent progress in North Dakota include: ■ State data system with the capacity to provide evidence o teacher eectiveness
For ve years running, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) has tracked states’ teacher poli-cies, preparing a detailed and thorough compendium o teacher policy in the United States on topicsrelated to teacher preparation, licensure, evaluation, career advancement, tenure, compensation, pen-sions and dismissal.
The 2011 State Teacher Policy Yearbook includes NCTQ’s biennial, ull review o the state laws, rulesand regulations that govern the teaching proession. This year’s report measures state progress againsta set o 36 policy goals ocused on helping states put in place a comprehensive ramework in support opreparing, retaining and rewarding eective teachers. For the rst time, the Yearbook includes a progressrating or states on goals that have been measured over time. An overall progress ranking is also included,showing how states compare to each other in moving orward on their teacher policies.
North Dakota at a Glance
Overall 2011 Yearbook Grade: Dov 2009 y Gd: D-
Overall Progress
Progressranking
among states
Amount ofprogress
compared toother states
Low
34th
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 4/162
2 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 NORTH DAKOTA
How s North Dakota Farn?
Area 2 Expanding the Pool of Teachers F
Area 1 Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D
Policy Strengths
■ All new teachers must pass a pedagogy test.
Policy Strengths
Policy Weaknesses
■ Teacher candidates are not required to pass a test oacademic prociency as a criterion or admission to
teacher preparation programs.
■ Elementary teachers are not adequately prepared
to teach the rigorous content associated with the
Common Core Standards.
■ Teacher preparation programs are not required toaddress the science o reading, and candidates are not
required to pass a test to ensure knowledge.■ Neither teacher preparation program nor licensure test
requirements ensure that new elementary teachers are
adequately prepared to teach mathematics.
■ Middle school teachers are allowed to teach on a K-8generalist license.
■ Although most secondary teachers must pass a
content test to teach a core subject area, some
secondary science and social studies teachers are not
required to pass content tests or each discipline theyintend to teach.
■ The state oers a K-12 special education certication.
■ There are no requirements to ensure that student
teachers are placed with cooperating teachers who
were selected based on evidence o eectiveness.
■ The teacher preparation program approval process
does not hold programs accountable or the quality othe teachers they produce.
Policy Weaknesses ■ There are no alternate routes to certication.
■ Although out-o-state teachers are appropriately
required to meet the state’s testing requirements,
there are additional obstacles that do not supportlicensure reciprocity.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 5/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 NORTH DAKOTA
: 3
How s North Dakota Farn?
Area 5 Exiting Ineffective Teachers D-
Area 3 Identifying Effective Teachers D+
Policy Strengths
■
The state data system has the capacity to provideevidence o teacher eectiveness.
■ All teachers must be evaluated annually.
Area 4 Retaining Effective Teachers D
Policy Strengths ■ Districts are given ull authority or how teachers are
paid, although they are not discouraged rom basing
salary schedules solely on years o experience and
advanced degrees.
Policy Strengths
■ The state has taken steps to ensure that licensure
testing requirements are met by all teachers within
one year.
Policy Weaknesses
■ Objective evidence o student learning is not the
preponderant criterion o teacher evaluations.
■ Tenure decisions are not connected to evidence o
teacher eectiveness.
■ Licensure advancement and renewal are not based on
teacher eectiveness.
■ No school-level data are reported that can help
support the equitable distribution o teacher talent.
Policy Weaknesses
■ All new teachers do not receive mentoring or other
induction support.
■ Proessional development is not aligned with ndings
rom teachers’ evaluations.
■ The state does not support perormance pay or
additional compensation or relevant prior workexperience, working in high-need schools or teaching
in shortage subject areas.
■ Teachers are only oered a dened benet pension
plan, and pension policies are not portable, fexible or
air to all teachers.
■ The pension system is underunded and requiresexcessive contributions.
■ Retirement benets are determined by a ormula thatis not neutral, meaning that pension wealth does not
accumulate uniormly or each year a teacher works.
Policy Weaknesses
■ There is no assurance that teachers who receive
unsatisactory evaluations will be placed on structured
improvement plans or that they will be eligible or
dismissal i they ail to improve.
■ Ineective classroom perormance is not grounds ordismissal, and tenured teachers who are dismissed
have multiple opportunities to appeal.
■ Perormance is not considered in determining which
teachers to lay o during reductions in orce.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 6/162
4 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 NORTH DAKOTA
North Dakota Goal Summary
Area 1: Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
1-a: admssn nt ptn pgms
1-b: emnt Tc ptn
1-C: Tc ptn n rdnginstuctn
1-D: Tc ptn n Mtmtcs
1-e: Mdd Sc Tc ptn
1-F: Scnd Tc ptn
1-G: Scnd Tc ptn nScnc
1-h: Scnd Tc ptn nSc Studs
1-i: Sc eductn Tc ptn
1-J: assssng pfssn knwdg
1-k: Studnt Tcng
1-l: Tc ptn pgmaccuntt
Area 2: Expanding the Pool of Teachers
2-a: atnt rut egt
2-b: atnt rut ptn
2-C: atnt rut Usg nd pvds
2-D: pt Tm Tcng lcnss
2-e: lcnsu rcct
Area 3: Identifying Effective Teachers
3-a: Stt Dt Sstms
3-b: evutn f effctvnss
3-C: Fqunc f evutns
3-D: Tnu
3-e: lcnsu advncmnt
3-F: equt Dstutn
Area 4: Retaining Effective Teachers
4-a: inductn
4-b: pfssn Dvmnt
4-C: p Scs
4-D: Cmnstn f p Wexnc
4-e: Dffnt p
4-F: pfmnc p
4-G: pnsn Fxt
4-h: pnsn Sustnt
4-i: pnsn Nutt
Area 5: Exiting Ineffective Teachers
5-a: lcnsu ls
5-b: Unstsfct evutns
5-C: Dsmss f p pfmnc
5-D: rductns n Fc
Goal Breakdown
Bst Prat 0
Fu Mts 4
Nar Mts 1
Parta Mts 8
On Mts a Sma Part 3
Dos Not Mt 20
Progress on Goals Since 2009
3 1 25 7
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 7/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 NORTH DAKOTA
: 5
About the Yearbook
The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) has long argued that no educational improvement strategies
states take on are likely to have a greater impact than policies that seek to maximize teacher eectiveness. In this
th edition o the State Teacher Policy Yearbook, NCTQ provides a detailed examination o state laws, rules and
regulations that govern the teaching proession, covering the ull breadth o policies including teacher preparation,
licensure, evaluation, career advancement, tenure, compensation, pensions and dismissal.
The Yearbook is a 52-volume compendium o customized state reports or the 50 states and the District o
Columbia, as well as a national summary overview, measuring state progress against a set o 36 specic policy
goals. All o the reports are available rom NCTQ’s website at www.nctq.org/stpy.
The 36 Yearbook goals are ocused on helping states put in place a comprehensive policy ramework in support o
preparing, retaining and rewarding eective teachers. The goals were developed based on input and ongoing eed-
back rom state ocials, practitioners, policy groups and other education organizations, as well as rom NCTQ’s
own nationally respected advisory board. These goals meet ve criteria or an eective reorm ramework:
1. They are supported by a strong rationale, grounded in the best research available. The rationale and
research citations supporting each goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
2. They oer practical rather than pie-in-the-sky solutions or improving teacher quality.
3. They take on the teaching proession’s most pressing needs, including making the proession more
responsive to the current labor market.
4. They are, or the most part, relatively cost neutral.
5. They respect the legitimate constraints that some states ace so that the goals can work in all 50 states.
The need to ensure that all children have eective teachers has captured the attention o the public and policy-
makers across the country like never beore. The Yearbook oers state school chies, school boards, legislatures
and the many advocates who press hard or reorm a concrete set o recommendations as they work to maximize
teacher quality or their students.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 8/162
6 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 NORTH DAKOTA
How to Read the Yearbook
NCTQ rates state teacher policy in several ways.
For each o the 36 individual teacher policy goals, states receive two ratings. The rst rating indicates whether, or
to what extent, a state has met the goal. NCTQ uses these amiliar graphics to indicate the extent to which each
goal has been met:
A new eature o this year’s Yearbook is a progress rating or each goal NCTQ has measured over time. These ratings
are intended to give states a meaningul sense o the changes in teacher policy since the 2009 Yearbook was
published. Using the symbols below, NCTQ determines whether each state has advanced on the goal, i the state
policy has remained unchanged, or i the state has actually lost ground on that topic.
Some goals are marked with this symbol , which indicates that the bar has been raised or this goal since the
2009 Yearbook. With many states making considerable progress in advancing teacher eectiveness policy, NCTQ
raised the standards or some goals where the bar had been quite low. As this may have a negative impact on some
states’ scores, those goals are always marked with the above symbol.
States receive grades in the ve goal areas under which the 36 goals are organized: 1) delivering well prepared
teachers; 2) expanding the pool o teachers; 3) identiying eective teachers; 4) retaining eective teachers and
5) exiting ineective teachers. States also receive an overall grade that summarizes state perormance across the
ve goal areas, giving an overall perspective on how states measure up against NCTQ benchmarks. New this year,
states also receive an overall progress ranking, indicating how much progress each state has made compared to
other states.
As always, the Yearbook provides a detailed narrative accounting o the policy strengths and weaknesses in each
policy area or each state and or the nation as a whole. Best practices are highlighted. The reports are also chockull o reader-riendly charts and tables that provide a national perspective on each goal and serve as a quick reerence
on how states perorm relative to one another, goal by goal.
Another new eature this year makes it easier to distinguish strong policies rom weaker ones on our charts and
tables. The policies NCTQ considers strong practices or the ideal policy positions or states are capitalized. This
provides a quick thumbnail or readers to size up state policies against the policy option that aligns with NCTQ
benchmarks or meeting each policy goal. For example, on the chart below, “BEFORE ADMISSION TO PREP PROGRAM”
is capitalized, as that is the optimal timing or testing teacher candidates’ academic prociency.
2021
10
BEFORE ADMISSIONTO PREP PROGRAM
During or aftercompletion of
prep program
Basic skills testnot required
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 9/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 NORTH DAKOTA
: 7
Goals
AReA 1: DeliveRiNg Well PRePAReD TeAcHeRS PAge 9
1-A: Admission into Preparation Programs
The state should require undergraduate teacher preparation programs to admit only candidates with good
academic records.
1-B: Elementary Teacher Preparation
The state should ensure that its teacher preparation programs provide elementary teachers with a broad liberal
arts education, the necessary oundation or teaching to the Common Core Standards.1-C: Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
The state should ensure that new elementary teachers know the science o reading instruction.
1-D: Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
The state should ensure that new elementary teachers have sucient knowledge o the mathematics content
taught in elementary grades.
1-E: Middle School Teacher Preparation
The state should ensure that middle school teachers are suciently prepared to teach appropriate grade-level content.
1-F: Secondary Teacher Preparation
The state should ensure that secondary teachers are suciently prepared to teach appropriate grade-level content.
1-G: Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science
The state should ensure that science teachers know all the subject matter they are licensed to teach.
1-H: Secondary Teacher Preparation in Social Studies
The state should ensure that social studies teachers know all the subject matter they are licensed to teach.
1-I: Special Education Teacher Preparation
The state should ensure that special education teachers know the subject matter they will be required to teach.
1-J: Assessing Proessional Knowledge
The state should use a licensing test to veriy that all new teachers meet its proessional standards.
1-K: Student Teaching
The state should ensure that teacher preparation programs provide teacher candidates with a high-quality
clinical experience.
1-L: Teacher Preparation Program Accountability The state’s approval process or teacher preparation programs should hold programs accountable or the quality
o the teachers they produce.
AReA 2: exPANDiNg THe POOl OF TeAcHeRS PAge 57
2-A: Alternate Route Eligibility
The state should require alternate route programs to exceed the admission requirements o traditional preparation
programs while also being fexible to the needs o nontraditional candidates.
2-B: Alternate Route Preparation
The state should ensure that its alternate routes provide streamlined preparation that is relevant to the immediate
needs o new teachers.
2-C: Alternate Route Usage and Providers
The state should provide an alternate route that is ree rom regulatory obstacles that limit its usage and providers.
2-D: Part Time Teaching Licenses
The state should oer a license with minimal requirements that allows content experts to teach part time.
2-E: Licensure Reciprocity
The state should help to make licenses ully portable among states, with appropriate saeguards.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 10/162
8 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 NORTH DAKOTA
Goals
AReA 3: iDeNTiFyiNg eFFecTive TeAcHeRS PAge 77
3-A: State Data Systems
The state should have a data system that contributes some o the evidence needed to assess teacher eectiveness.
3-B: Evaluation o Eectiveness
The state should require instructional eectiveness to be the preponderant criterion o any teacher evaluation.
3-C: Frequency o Evaluations
The state should require annual evaluations o all teachers.
3-D: Tenure
The state should require that tenure decisions are based on evidence o teacher eectiveness.
3-E: Licensure Advancement
The state should base licensure advancement on evidence o teacher eectiveness.
3-F: Equitable Distribution
The state should publicly report districts’ distribution o teacher talent among schools to identiy inequities in
schools serving disadvantaged children.
AReA 4: ReTAiNiNg eFFecTive TeAcHeRS PAge 101
4-A: Induction
The state should require eective induction or all new teachers, with special emphasis on teachers in high-need schools.4-B: Proessional Development
The state should require proessional development to be based on needs identied through teacher evaluations.
4-C: Pay Scales
The state should give local districts authority over pay scales.
4-D: Compensation or Prior Work Experience
The state should encourage districts to provide compensation or related prior subject-area work experience.
4-E: Dierential Pay
The state should support dierential pay or eective teaching in shortage and high-need areas.
4-F: Perormance Pay
The state should support perormance pay but in a manner that recognizes its appropriate uses and limitations.
4-G: Pension Flexibility
The state should ensure that pension systems are portable, fexible and air to all teachers.
4-H: Pension Sustainability
The state should ensure that excessive resources are not committed to unding teachers’ pension systems.
4-I: Pension Neutrality
The state should ensure that pension systems are neutral, uniormly increasing pension wealth with each additional
year o work.
AReA 5: exiTiNg iNeFFecTive TeAcHeRS PAge 145
5-A: Licensure Loopholes
The state should close loopholes that allow teachers who have not met licensure requirements to continue teaching.
5-B: Unsatisactory Evaluations
The state should articulate consequences or teachers with unsatisactory evaluations, including speciying that
teachers with multiple unsatisactory evaluations should be eligible or dismissal.
5-C: Dismissal or Poor Perormance
The state should articulate that ineective classroom perormance is grounds or dismissal and ensure that the
process or terminating ineective teachers is expedient and air to all parties.
5-D: Reductions in Force
The state should require that its school districts consider classroom perormance as a actor in determining which
teachers are laid o when a reduction in orce is necessary.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 11/162
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 12/162
10 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
aNalySiSNorth Dakota does not require aspiring teachers to pass a test o academic prociency as a criterion
or admission to teacher preparation programs, instead delaying its basic skills assessment until teachercandidates are ready to apply or licensure.
Suppng rscNorth Dakota Education Standards and Practice Boardhttp://www.nd.gov/espb/progapproval/
reCommeNDatioN
■ requie teace candidates t pass a test academic pciency tat assesses eadin,witin and matematics sis as a citein admissin t teace pepaatinpams.
Teacher preparation programs that do not screen candidates end up investing considerable resourc-
es in individuals who may not be able to successully complete the program and pass licensing tests.Candidates needing additional support should complete remediation prior to program entry, avoid-ing the possibility o an unsuccessul investment o signicant public tax dollars.
■ requie pepaatin pams t use a cmmn test nmed t te enea cee-bundppuatin.
The basic skills tests in use in most states largely assess middle school-level skills. To improve theselectivity o teacher candidates—a common characteristic in countries whose students consis-tently outperorm ours in international comparisons—North Dakota should require an assessmentthat demonstrates that candidates are academically competitive with all peers, regardless o theirintended proession. Requiring a common test normed to the general college population wouldallow or the selection o applicants in the top hal o their class, as well as acilitate program com-parison.
■ Exempt candidates wit cmpaabe SAT ACT sces.
North Dakota should waive the basic skills test requirement or candidates whose SAT or ACT scoresdemonstrate that they are in the top hal o their class.
North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.
a 1: G a Nt Data anss
Stt Ds Nt Mt G b rsd ts G pgss Snc 2009
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 13/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 11
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Although there are a number o states that require
teacher candidates to pass a basic skills test as a cri-
terion or admission to a preparation program, Texas
is the only state that requires a test o academic pro-
ciency normed to the general college bound population
rather than just to prospective teachers. In addition, the
state’s minimum scores or admission appear to be
relatively selective when compared to other tests used
across the country.
yeS1 N2 N tstqud3
1. Strong Practice: Texas
2. Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Caliornia, Connecticut, Delaware,District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
3. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Ohio,South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
1
40
10
Fgu 2
Do states require a test o academic profciency that is normed to the general
college-going population?
1. Strong Practice: Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina,Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia, Wisconsin
2. Alabama, Alaska, Caliornia, Delaware, District o Columbia, Maine,Maryland, Massachussets, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,Pennsylvania, Vermont
3. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Ohio,South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Fgu 3
When do states test teacher candidates’ basic skills?
2021
10
BEFORE ADMISSIONTO PREP PROGRAM1
During or aftercompletion ofprep program2
Basic skills testnot required3
NorThDAkoTA
NorThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 14/162
12 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
Figure 4
T E S T N
O R M
E D T O
C O L L E G
E -
B O U N D P O
P U L A T I O
N P R I O
R T O
A D M I S S I O
N T O
P R E P P R O
G R A
M
T e s t n o r m
e d o n l y
t o t e a c h e r
c a n d i d a t e s b e f o r e
a d m i s s i o n
t o p r e p
p r o g r a m
T e s t n o r m
e d o n l y
t o t e a c h e r
c a n d i d a t e s d u r i n g
o r a f t e r
c o m p l e t i o n
o f p r e p p r o g r a m
N o t e s t r e q u i r e d
Do states appropriately test teacher candidates'academic proficiency?
1 20 20 10
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NorTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
a paSSiNGSCore iS
reQUireD ForeaCh SUbJeCT1
an cmst
sc cn usd2
N tstqud3
1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts,Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada,New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
2. Caliornia4, District o Columbia4, Hawaii4, Indiana, Iowa, Maine4,Maryland, New Hampshire4, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, North Dakota5, Pennsylvania4, Rhode Island4,Vermont, Virginia
3. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Ohio,South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
4. Minimum score must be met in each section.
5. Composite score can only be used i passing score is met on two
o three subtests.
25
16
10
Fgu 5
Do states measure perormance in reading,mathematics and writing?
NorTh
DAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 15/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 13
G Cpnns
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should require that its approvedteacher preparation programs deliver acomprehensive program o study in broadliberal arts coursework. An adequatecurriculum is likely to require approximately36 credit hours to ensure appropriate depthin the core subject areas o English, science,social studies and ne arts. (Mathematicspreparation or elementary teachers isdiscussed in Goal 1-D.)
2. The state should require elementary teachercandidates to pass a subject-matter testdesigned to ensure sucient contentknowledge o all subjects.
3. The state should require elementaryteacher candidates to complete a contentspecialization in an academic subject area.
In addition to enhancing content knowledge,this requirement also ensures that prospectiveteachers have taken higher level academiccoursework.
4. Arts and sciences aculty, rather thaneducation aculty, should in most cases teachliberal arts coursework to teacher candidates.
Bcgund
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Aea 1: Deivein We-Pepaed Teaces
G b – emnt Tc ptnTe state sud ensue tat its teace pepaatin pams pvide eementay
teaces wit a bad ibea ats educatin, te necessay undatin teacin tte Cmmn Ce Standads.
Fgu 6
How States are Faring in Elementary Teacher Preparation
0 bst pctc Stts
0 Stts Mt G
4 Stts N Mt G
Indiana⬆, Massachusetts,Minnesota⬆, New Hampshire
8 Stts pt Mt GCalifornia, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington
18 Stts Mt Sm pt GAlabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri,
New Jersey, New York, NorTh DAkoTA,
Oregon, Tennessee, Utah⬆, Virginia,
West Virginia
21 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland , Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada , North Carolina , Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina ,
South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Pgss n s G Snc 2009:
⬆ : 3 : 44 ⬇ : 4
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 16/162
14 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
Stt Mts Sm pt G pgss Snc 2009
aNalySiSAlthough North Dakota has adopted the Common Core Standards, the state does not ensure that its
elementary teacher candidates are adequately prepared to teach a broad range o elementary content.North Dakota requires candidates to pass the Praxis II test “Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruc-tion and Assessment,” which, unortunately, not only combines content with a pedagogy assessment butalso does not report teacher perormance in each subject area, meaning that it is possible to pass the testand still ail some subject areas, especially given the state’s low passing score. Further, based on availableinormation on the Praxis II, there is no reason to expect that the current version would be well alignedwith the Common Core Standards.
In addition, all teacher candidates in North Dakota must complete a general studies component thatincludes “liberal arts preparation” in areas that include the humanities, ne arts, natural sciences, behav-ioral sciences and symbolic systems. Although these are reasonable general requirements, the state’slanguage is not specic enough to ensure that these courses will be relevant to the topics covered in the
PK-6 classrooms.North Dakota does not speciy additional subject-matter coursework requirements or elementaryteacher candidates. Although elementary teachers must earn an elementary education major in orderto attain licensure, the state only appears to require methodology courses in subject areas. Thereore,coursework is most likely taught by education aculty, not arts and science aculty, and may ail to pro-vide strong oundational knowledge in these subject areas.
Finally, North Dakota articulates teacher standards in a broad range o topics relevant to PK-6 teaching,including reading and language; physical, lie, earth and space science; dance, music and theater; and his-tory, geography and social science. However, there are no standards or a number o equally importantsubject areas, including basic chemistry; American and world history; American, world and children’sliterature; writing, grammar and composition; and art history.
Suppng rscNorth Dakota Administrative Code 67.1-02-02-02
Program Approval Standards ND 50015http://www.nd.gov/espb/progapproval/standards.html
Praxis IIwww.ets.org
reCommeNDatioN
■ requie a cntent test tat ensues sucient nwede in a subjects.
North Dakota should ensure that its subject-matter test or elementary teacher candidates is wellaligned with the Common Core Standards, which represent an eort to signicantly raise the stan-dards or the knowledge and skills American students will need or college readiness and globalcompetitiveness.
The state should also require separate passing scores or each content area on the test becausewithout them it is impossible to measure knowledge o individual subjects. Further, to be meaning-ul, North Dakota should ensure that these passing scores refect high levels o perormance.
a 1: G b Nt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 17/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 15
■ Pvide bad ibea ats cusew eevant t te eementay cassm.
North Dakota should either articulate a more specic set o standards or establish more compre-
hensive coursework requirements that are specically geared to the areas o knowledge needed byPK-6 teachers. Further, the state should align its requirements or elementary teacher candidateswith the Common Core Standards to ensure that candidates will complete coursework relevant tothe common topics in elementary grades. An adequate curriculum is likely to require approximately36 credit hours in the core subject areas o English, science, social studies and ne arts.
■ requie at east an academic cncentatin.
An academic concentration, i not a ull academic major, would not only enhance North Dakotateachers’ content knowledge, but it would also ensure that prospective teachers have taken higher-level academic coursework. Further, it would provide an option or teacher candidates unable toulll student teaching or other proessional requirements to still earn a degree.
■ Ensue ats and sciences acuty teac ibea ats cusew.
Although an education proessor is best suited to teach eective methodologies in subject instruction,aculty rom the university’s college o arts and sciences should provide subject-matter oundation.
North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther inormation.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 18/162
16 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Although no state meets this goal, three states havenoteworthy policies. Massacusetts’s testing require-ments, which are based on the state’s curriculum, en-sure that elementary teachers are provided with a
broad liberal arts education. Indiana and Uta are therst two states to adopt the new Praxis II “ElementaryEducation: Multiple Subjects” content test, which re-quires candidates to pass separately scored subtests inreading/language arts, mathematics, social studies andscience.
Massachusetts
AlabamaAlaska
District of ColumbiaIdahoMaine
MarylandMississippiNebraska
New JerseyNorTh DAkoTA
OhioRhode IslandSouth Dakota
TennesseeVirginia
West VirginiaWyoming
ColoradoConnecticut
DelawareHawaiiIndianaKansas
KentuckyLouisianaMissouri
New HampshireSouth Carolina
TexasUtah
VermontWisconsin
ArkansasIowa
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
1 Based on the most recent technical data that could be obtained; data not available orArizona, Caliornia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, NewYork, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington. Montana and Nebraska do not requirea content test. Colorado score is or Praxis II, not PLACE. Indiana, Maryland, Nevada,South Carolina and Utah now require new Praxis tests or which the technical data arenot yet available; analysis is based on previously required test.
Fgu 7
Where do states set the passing score on elementary content licensure tests1
?
S sspssng sc n
(g sc
tst ts)
S ss sc wbw n
(n stndd dtn~16t cnt)
S ss sc bw n
(tw stndd dtns~2nd cnt)
50 Pcn
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 19/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 17
Fgu 9
What subjects does North Dakota expect elementary teachers to know?
ENglISh
SCIENCE
SoCIAl STUDIES
FINE ArTS
AmericanLiterature
Chemistry
amrcnhstory i
art hstory
World/BritishLiterature
pyscs
amrcnhstory ii
Musc
Writing/GrammarComposition
Gnr pyscScnc
amrcnGovrnmnt
Children’sLiterature
ertScnc
boogy/lfScnc
Word hstory(ancnt)
Word hstory(Modrn)
Word hstory(Non Wstrn)
Gogry
X
Stt qumnts mntn sujct
Stt qumnts c sujct n dt
Stt ds nt qu sujct
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
Fgu 8
Have states adopted the K-12 Common Core State Standards?
1. Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, Virginia
2. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District oColumbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington,West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
5
46
No1 YES2
NorThDAkoTA
X
X
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 20/162
18 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
FIN
ART
A r t H i s t o r y
M u s i c
SCIENCE
C h e m i s t r y
P h y s i c s
G e n e
r a l P h y s i c a l S c i e n c e
E a r t h S c i e n c
e
B i o l o g y / L i f e
S c i e n c e
SOCIAL STUDIES
A m e r i c a n
H i s t o r y
I
A m e r i c a n
H i s t o r y
I I
A m e r i c a n
G o v e r n m
e n t
W o r l d
H i s t o r y
( A n c i e n t )
W o r l d
H i s t o r y
( M o d e
r n )
W o r l d
H i s t o r y
( N o n - W
e s t e r n )
G e o g r a p
h y
ENGLISH
A m e r i c a n
L i t e r a t u r e
W o r l d / B r i t i s h
L i t e r a t u r e
W r i t i n g
/ G r a m
m a r /
C o m
p o s i t i o n
C h i l d r e n ' s L i t e r a t u r e
Figure 10
Do states expectelementary teachersto have in-depth
knowledge of core content?
Subject mentioned Subject covered in de
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NorTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 21/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 19
Fgu 11
Do states expect elementary teachers tocomplete an academic concentration?
aCaDeMiCMaJor
reQUireD1
MiNor orCoNCeNTraTioN
reQUireD2
Ntqud4
Mj mnqud, ut
t s3
1. Strong Practice: Colorado, Massachusetts, New Mexico
2. Strong Practice: Indiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma
3. Caliornia, Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri,New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, VirginiaThese states require a major, minor or concentration butthere is no assurance it will be in an academic subject area.
4. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District o Columbia,Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
3 4
33
11
NorThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 22/162
20 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
G Cpnns
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. To ensure that teacher preparation programsadequately prepare candidates in the scienceo reading instruction, the state shouldrequire that these programs train teachersin the ve instructional components shownby scientically based reading research to beessential to teaching children to read.
2. The state should require that new elementaryteachers pass a rigorous test o readinginstruction in order to attain licensure.The design o the test should ensure thatprospective teachers cannot pass withoutknowing the science o reading instruction.
Bcgund
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Aea 1: Deivein We-Pepaed Teaces
G C – emnt Tc ptn n rdng instuctnTe state sud ensue tat new eementay teaces nw te science eadin instuctin
Fgu 12
How States are Faring in Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
3 bst pctc SttsConnecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia
5 Stts Mt G Alabama⬆, Minnesota⬆, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania⬆, Tennessee
5 Stts N Mt GCalifornia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Texas
14 Stts pt Mt GArkansas, Colorado, Indiana⬆, Louisiana,
Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
New Mexico⬆, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia
2 Stts Mt Sm pt GArizona, New York
22 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, North Carolina, NorTh DAkoTA,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Pgss n s G Snc 2009:
⬆ : 5 : 46 ⬇ : 0
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 23/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 21
a 1: G C Nt Data anss
Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009
aNalySiSNorth Dakota does not require that teacher preparation programs or elementary teacher candidates
address the science o reading. The state has neither coursework requirements nor standards relatedto this critical area. North Dakota does require reading-related coursework or elementary and middleschool teacher candidates; however, this coursework does not explicitly require that teachers receivetraining in the ve essential components o reading instruction. The state also does not require teachercandidates to pass an assessment that measures knowledge o scientically based reading instructionprior to certication or at any point thereater.
Suppng rscNorth Dakota Administrative Code 67.1-02-02-02
reCommeNDatioN
■ Ensue tat teace pepaatin pams pepae eementay teacin candidates in te
science eadin instuctin.North Dakota should ensure that teacher preparation programs adequately prepare elementaryteacher candidates in the science o reading by requiring that these programs train candidates inthe ve instructional components o scientically based reading instruction: phonemic awareness,phonics, fuency, vocabulary and comprehension.
■ requie teace candidates t pass a ius assessment in te science eadininstuctin.
North Dakota should require a rigorous reading assessment tool to ensure that its elementaryteacher candidates are adequately prepared in the science o reading instruction beore enteringthe classroom. The assessment should clearly test knowledge and skills related to the science oreading, and i it is combined with an assessment that also tests general pedagogy or elementary
content, it should report a subscore or the science o reading specically. Elementary teachers whodo not possess the minimum knowledge in this area should not be eligible or licensure.
North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther inormation.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 24/162
22 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
yeS1 N2
1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado,Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland,Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio,Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia
2. Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, District o Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois,Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina,South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming
26 25
Fgu 13
Do states require preparation or elementary teachers in the science o reading?
yeS1 indquttst2
N3
1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts,Minnesota4, New Mexico5, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania5, Tennessee,Virginia
2. Arkansas, Caliornia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri,New York, Oregon, Texas
3. Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, District o Columbia, Hawaii,Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island,South Carolina , South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington,West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
4. Based on the limited inormation available about the test on thestate’s website.
5. Test is under development and not yet available or review.
9 10
32
Fgu 14
Do states measure new teachers’ knowledgeo the science o reading?
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Eight states meet this goal by requiring that preparationprograms or elementary teacher candidates address thescience o reading and requiring that candidates passcomprehensive assessments that specically test the
ve elements o instruction: phonemic awareness, pho-nics, fuency, vocabulary and comprehension. Indepen-dent reviews o the assessments used by Cnnecticut,Massacusetts and Viinia conrm that these testsare rigorous measures o teacher candidates’ knowledgeo scientically based reading instruction.
NorThDAkoTA
NorThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 25/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 23
Figure 15
Do states ensure that
elementary teachers
know the science of
reading?
F U L L Y A D D R E S S
R E A D I N G S C I E N C E
D o n o t a d d r e s s
r e a d i n g s c i e n c e
A P P R O P R I A T E T E S T
I n a d e q u a t e t e s t
N o r e a d i n g t e s t
PREPARATION
REQUIREMENTS
TESTING
REQUIREMENTS
1
2
2
26 25 9 10 32
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
IowaKansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NorTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming1. Based on the limited inormation available about the
test on the state’s website.
2. Test is under development and not yet available orreview.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 26/162
24 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
Fgu 16
How States are Faring in Teacher Preparationin Mathematics
1 bst pctc SttMassachusetts
0 Stts Mt G
1 Stt N Mts GIndiana⬆
5 Stts pt Mt GCalifornia, Florida, Minnesota⬆,
New Mexico, Utah⬆
30 Stts Mt Sm pt GAlabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, District
of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Iowa⬆, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New
Hampshire, New York, NorTh DAkoTA,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
Wyoming
14 Stts D Nt Mt GArkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,
West Virginia, Wisconsin
Pgss n s G Snc 2009:
⬆ : 4 : 47 ⬇ : 0
G Cpnns
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should require teacher preparationprograms to deliver mathematics content oappropriate breadth and depth to elementaryteacher candidates. This content shouldbe specic to the needs o the elementaryteacher (i.e., oundations, algebra andgeometry with some statistics).
2. The state should require elementaryteacher candidates to pass a rigorous testo mathematics content in order to attainlicensure.
3. Such test can also be used to test out ocourse requirements and should be designedto ensure that prospective teachers cannotpass without sucient knowledge omathematics.
BcgundA detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Aea 1: Deivein We-Pepaed Teaces
G D – emnt Tc ptn n MtmtcsTe state sud ensue tat new eementay teaces ave sucient nwede
te matematics cntent taut in eementay ades.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 27/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 25
aNalySiSNorth Dakota relies on both coursework requirements and its standards or teacher preparation pro-
grams as the basis or articulating its requirements or the mathematics content knowledge o elemen-tary teacher candidates.
The state requires all teacher candidates to complete general studies that include mathematics. How-ever, North Dakota neither species the requisite content o these classes nor that they must meet theneeds o the elementary teacher.
North Dakota has also articulated teaching standards that its approved teacher preparation programsmust use to rame instruction in elementary mathematics content. The state’s standards appropriatelyaddress content in mathematics oundations, but although they mention such areas as algebra, geom-etry and statistics, the standards lack the specicity needed to ensure that teacher preparation programsdeliver this mathematics content o appropriate breadth and depth to elementary teacher candidates.
North Dakota requires that all new elementary teachers pass a general subject-matter test, the Praxis II.
This commercial test lacks a specic mathematics subscore, so one can likely ail the mathematics por-tion and still pass the test. Further, while this test does cover important elementary school-level content,it barely evaluates candidates’ knowledge beyond an elementary school level, does not challenge theirunderstanding o underlying concepts and does not require candidates to apply knowledge in nonroutine,multistep procedures..
Suppng rscNorth Dakota Administrative Code 67.1-02-02-02
Program Approval Standards ND 50015 http://www.nd.gov/espb/progapproval/docs/11010.pd
www.ets.org/praxis
“No Common Denominator: The Preparation o Elementary Teachers in Mathematics by America’s Education Schools,”NCTQ, June 2008 http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/nctq_ttmath_ullreport.pd
reCommeNDatioN
■ requie teace pepaatin pams t pvide matematics cntent specicay eaedt te needs eementay teaces.
Although North Dakota requires knowledge in some key areas o mathematics, the state shouldrequire teacher preparation programs to provide mathematics content specically geared to theneeds o elementary teachers. This includes specic coursework in oundations, algebra and geom-etry, with some statistics.
■ requie teace candidates t pass a ius matematics assessment.
North Dakota should assess mathematics content with a rigorous assessment tool, such as the testrequired in Massachusetts, that evaluates mathematics knowledge beyond an elementary school
level and challenges candidates’ understanding o underlying mathematics concepts. Such a testcould also be used to allow candidates to test out o coursework requirements. Teacher candidateswho lack minimum mathematics knowledge should not be eligible or licensure.
North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis. The state added that it is in the process odiscussions regarding elementary teacher preparation and the Common Core Standards.
Stt Mts Sm pt G pgss Snc 2009
a 1: G D Nt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 28/162
26 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
yeS1 N2
1. Strong Practice: Indiana, Massachusetts
2. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia,Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
2
49
Fgu 17
Do states articulate appropriate mathematics preparation or elementary teachers?
yeS1 indquttst2
N3
1. Strong Practice: Massachusetts
2. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia,Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
3. Montana, Nebraska
1
48
2
Fgu 18
Do states measure new elementary teachers’ knowledge o math?
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Massacusetts is the only state that ensures thatits elementary teachers have sucient knowledge omathematics content. As part o its general curriculumtest, the state utilizes a separately scored mathemat-
ics subtest that covers topics specically geared to theneeds o elementary teachers.
NorThDAkoTA
NorThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 29/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 27
G Cpnns
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should encourage middle schoolcandidates who intend to teach multiplesubjects to earn minors in two core academicareas rather than earn a single major. Middleschool candidates intending to teach a singlesubject area should earn a major in that area.
2. The state should not permit middle schoolteachers to teach on a generalist licensethat does not dierentiate between thepreparation o middle school teachers andthat o elementary teachers.
3. The state should require that new middleschool teachers pass a licensing test in everycore academic area they intend to teach.
Bcgund
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Aea 1: Deivein We-Pepaed Teaces
G e – Mdd Sc Tc ptnTe state sud ensue tat midde sc teaces ae sucienty pepaed t teac
apppiate ade-eve cntent.
Fgu 19
How States are Faring in Middle SchoolTeacher Preparation
3 bst pctc SttsArkansas⬆, Georgia, Pennsylvania⬆
7 Stts Mt G Connecticut, Florida⬆, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, New Jersey, South Carolina⬆
8 Stts N Mt GAlabama, District of Columbia, Indiana,
Kansas, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia
11 Stts pt Mt GDelaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska,
Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia
11 Stts Mt Sm pt GArizona, Michigan, Minnesota⬆, Montana,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
NorTh DAkoTA, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming
11 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Illinois, Maine, North Carolina , Oregon,
South Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin
Pgss n s G Snc 2009:
⬆ : 5 : 45 ⬇ : 1
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 30/162
28 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
aNalySiSNorth Dakota oers middle-level certication (grades 5-8) or middle school teachers; candidates must
earn a “middle level major,” which includes 24 semester hours o content coursework in one contentarea. Teachers with secondary certicates are allowed to teach single subjects in middle school. Thosecandidates, too, are required to earn content-specic majors. Regrettably, North Dakota also allows mid-dle school teachers to teach on a generalist K/1-8 license.
All new middle school teachers in North Dakota are also required to pass a Praxis II subject-matter testto attain licensure. However, only secondary and middle school candidates are required to pass a single-subject Praxis II content test to attain licensure. Those seeking the elementary license are only requiredto pass the general content test or elementary education, in which subscores are not provided; thereore,there is no assurance that these middle school teachers will have sucient knowledge in each subjectthey teach.
Suppng rscNorth Dakota Administrative Code 67.1-02-02-02
www.ets.org/praxis
reCommeNDatioN
■ Eiminate k/1-8 eneaist icense.
North Dakota should not allow middle school teachers to teach on a generalist license that doesnot dierentiate between the preparation o middle school teachers and that o elementary teach-ers. These teachers are less likely to be adequately prepared to teach core academic areas at themiddle school level because their preparation requirements are not specic to the middle or sec-ondary levels and they need not pass a subject-matter test in each subject they teach. Adoptingmiddle school teacher preparation policies or all such teachers will help ensure that students ingrades 7 and 8 have teachers who are appropriately prepared to teach grade level content, which isdierent and more advanced than what elementary teachers teach.
■ Stenten midde sc teaces’ subject-matte pepaatin.
North Dakota should also encourage middle school teachers who plan to teach multiple subjectsto earn two minors in two core academic areas, rather than a single major. Further, although NorthDakota requires middle school candidates who intend to teach a single subject to earn a major inthat area, its requirement o only 24 credit hours alls short o the standard denition o a subjectarea major.
■ requie subject-matte testin midde sc teace candidates.
North Dakota should require subject-matter testing or all middle school teacher candidates inevery core academic area they intend to teach as a condition o initial licensure.
North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther explanation.
Stt Mts Sm pt G pgss Snc 2009
a 1: G e Nt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 31/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 29
Figure 20
Do states distinguish middle grade preparation from
elementary preparation?
K - 8 L I C
E N S E
N O T
O F F E R
E D
K - 8
l i c e n s e
o f f e
r e d
f o r
s e l f - c o
n t a i n
e d
c l a s s r o o m
s
K - 8 l i c e
n s e
o f f e
r e d
29 6 16
2
3
4
5
1
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NorTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1. Caliornia oers a K-12 generalist licenseor sel-contained classrooms.
2. Illinois oers K-9 license.
3. With the exception o mathematics.
4. Oregon oers 3-8 license.
5. Wisconsin oers 1-8 license.
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Aansas, geia and Pennsyvania ensure thatall middle school teachers are suciently preparedto teach middle school-level content. Teachers arerequired to earn at least two content-area minors.
Georgia and Pennsylvania also require passingscores on single-subject content tests, and Arkansasrequires a subject-matter assessment with separatepassing scores or each academic area.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 32/162
30 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
What academic preparation
do states require for a
middle school endorsement
or license?
Figure 21
M A J O R O R M O R E
M A J O R O R T W O M I N O R S
T W O M I N O R S
L e s s t h a n a m a j o r o r " l o o s e "
r e q u i r e m e n t s
N o r e q u i r e m e n t o f c o n t e n t
m a j o r o r m i n o r
13 3 9 12 14
1
2
1
1
1
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
IowaKansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NorTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1. State does not explicitly require two minors, butit has equivalent requirements.
2. Pennsylvania has two options. One optionrequires a 30 credit concentration in onesubject and nearly a minor (12 credits) in threeadditional subjects; the second option is 21credits in two subject-area concentrations with12 credits in two additional subjects.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 33/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 31
Fgu 22
How States are Faring in Secondary Teacher Preparation
2 bst pctc SttsIndiana, Tennessee
29 Stts Mt G Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,
NorTh DAkoTA, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin
0 Stts N Mt G
8 Stts pt Mt GDistrict of Columbia, Hawaii, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada,
New Mexico
0 Stts Mt Sm pt G
12 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island,
Wyoming
Pgss n s G Snc 2009:
Nw G
G Cpnns
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should require that secondaryteachers pass a licensing test in every subjectthey intend to teach.
2. The state should require that secondaryteachers pass a content test when adding
subject-area endorsements to an existinglicense.
Bcgund
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Aea 1: Deivein We-Pepaed Teaces
G F – Scnd Tc ptnTe state sud ensue tat secnday teaces ae sucienty pepaed t teac
apppiate ade-eve cntent.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 34/162
32 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
aNalySiSNorth Dakota requires that its secondary teacher candidates pass a Praxis II content test to teach any
core secondary subjects. Unortunately, North Dakota permits a signicant loophole to this importantpolicy by allowing both general science and general social studies licenses, without requiring subject-matter testing or each subject area within these disciplines (see Goals 1-G and 1-H).
Further, to add an additional eld to a secondary license, teachers must also pass a Praxis II content test.However, as stated above, North Dakota cannot guarantee content knowledge in each specic subjector those secondary teachers who add general science or general social studies endorsements.
Suppng rscNorth Dakota Administrative Code 67.1-02-02-02, 67.1-02-03-03
reCommeNDatioN
■ requie subject-matte testin a secnday teace candidates.
North Dakota wisely requires subject-matter tests or most secondary teachers but should addressany loopholes that undermine this policy (see Goals 1-G and 1-H). This applies to the addition oendorsements as well.
North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis but indicated there are pending regulatorychanges that may aect it. However, the state oered no additional inormation.
Stt Mts G pgss Snc 2009
a 1: G F Nt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 35/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 33
yeS1
yeS1
ys, ut sgnfcnt n
scnc nd/sc studs2
ys, ut sgnfcnt
nscnc nd/sc studs2
N3
N3
1. Strong Practice: Indiana, Tennessee
2. Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia,Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota,Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,Wisconsin. (For more on loopholes, see Goals 1-G and 1-H.)
3. Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska,New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wyoming
1. Strong Practice: Indiana, Tennessee
2. Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. (For more on loop-holes, see Goals 1-G and 1-H.)
3. Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, District o Columbia,Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,Oregon, Rhode Island, Wyoming
2
2
37
29
12
20
Fgu 23
Fgu 24
Do all secondary teachers have to pass acontent test in every subject area or licensure?
Do all secondary teachers have to pass a contenttest in every subject area to add an endorsement?
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Not only do Indiana and Tennessee require that sec-ondary teacher candidates pass a content test to teachany core secondary subjects, but these states also donot permit any signicant loopholes to this important
policy by allowing secondary general science or socialstudies licenses (see Goals 1-G and 1-H).
NorThDAkoTA
NorThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 36/162
34 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
G Cpnns
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should require secondary scienceteachers to pass a subject-matter test oeach science discipline they intend to teach.
2. The state should require middle schoolscience teachers to pass a subject-matter
test designed to ensure that prospectiveteachers cannot pass without sucientknowledge o science.
Bcgund
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Aea 1: Deivein We-Pepaed Teaces
G G – Scnd Tc ptn n ScncTe state sud ensue tat science teaces nw a te subject matte tey ae
icensed t teac.
Fgu 25
How States are Faring in Preparation to Teach Science
1 bst pctc SttNew Jersey
7 Stts Mt G Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, Virginia
11 Stts N Mt GArkansas, Georgia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia
16 Stts pt Mt GAlabama, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico,
NorTh DAkoTA, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington
4 Stts Mt Sm pt GArizona, Idaho, Illinois, Wisconsin
12 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, California, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan,
Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon,
Rhode Island, Texas, Wyoming
Pgss n s G Snc 2009:
Nw G
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 37/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 35
aNalySiSNorth Dakota oers a composite science endorsement or secondary teachers. Candidates are required
to pass the Praxis II “General Science” test. Teachers with this license are not limited to teaching generalscience but rather can teach any o the topical areas.
Middle school science teachers in North Dakota must earn a middle level major in science, which includes24 semester hours o content coursework. Commendably, candidates must pass the Praxis II “MiddleSchool Science” test. Regrettably, however, North Dakota also allows middle school teachers to teach ona generalist K/1-8 license i the school is classied as an elementary school (see Goal 1-E).
Suppng rscLicense Codeshttp://www.nd.gov/espb/licensure/codes.html
Praxis Testing Requirementswww.ets.org
reCommeNDatioN
■ requie secnday science teaces t pass tests cntent nwede eac sciencediscipine tey intend t teac.
States that allow general science certications—and only require a general knowledge scienceexam—are not ensuring that these secondary teachers possess adequate subject-specic con-tent knowledge. North Dakota’s required general assessment combines subject areas (e.g., biology,chemistry, physics) and does not report separate scores or each subject area. Thereore, candi-dates could answer many—perhaps all—chemistry questions, or example, incorrectly, yet still belicensed to teach chemistry to high school students.
North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther explanation.
Stt pt Mts G pgss Snc 2009
a 1: G G Nt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 38/162
36 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
Do states ensure that
secondary science teachers
have adequate subject-
matter knowledge?
Figure 26
S T A T E O F F E R S G E N E R A L S C I E N
C E
O R
C O M
B I N A T I O N
S C I E N C E
L I C E N S E S W I T H
A D E Q U A T E T E S T I N G
S t a t e o f f e r s g e n e r a l s c i e n c e
o r
c o m b i n a t i o n
s c i e n c e l i c e n s e s
w i t h o u t a d e q u a t e
t e s t i n g
S T A T E O F F E R S O
N L Y
S I N G L E -
S U B J E C T S C I E N C E L I C E N
S E S W I T H
A D E Q U A T E T E S T I N
G
S t a t e o f f e r s o n l y
s i n g l e - s u b j e c t
s c i e n c e l i c e n s e s w
i t h o u t
a d e q u a t e t e s t i n g
1 39 10 1
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
KansasKentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NorTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
yeS1 at tstngn mdd sc cns ut
nt n k-8gnst cns2
N3
1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas,Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi,Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia
2. Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin
3. Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina,Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming
24
10
17
Do states ensure that middle school teachers have adequate preparation to teach science?
Fgu 27
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
New Jesey does not oer certication in generascience or secondary teachers. Although the stateallows a combination physical science certicate, itensure adequate content knowledge in both chem-
istry and physics by requiring teacher candidates topass individual content tests in chemistry, physicsand general science. Further, middle school scienceteachers must pass a science-specic content test.
NorThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 39/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 37
Fgu 28
How States are Faring in Preparation to Teach Social Studies
1 bst pctc SttIndiana
2 Stts Mt GGeorgia, South Dakota
2 Stts N Mt GMinnesota, Oklahoma
32 Stts pt Mt GAlabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, NorTh DAkoTA, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, Wyoming
1 Stt Mts Sm pt GIllinois
13 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, New York,
North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas
Pgss n s G Snc 2009:
Nw G
G Cpnns
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should require secondary socialstudies teachers to pass a subject-matter testo each social studies discipline they intendto teach.
2. The state should require middle school social
studies teachers to pass a subject-matter testdesigned to ensure that prospective teacherscannot pass without sucient knowledge osocial studies.
Bcgund
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Aea 1: Deivein We-Pepaed Teaces
G h – Scnd Tc ptn n Sc StudsTe state sud ensue tat scia studies teaces nw a te subject matte tey
ae icensed t teac.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 40/162
38 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
aNalySiSNorth Dakota oers a composite social studies endorsement or secondary teachers. Candidates are
required to pass the Praxis II “Social Studies” content test. Teachers with this license are not limited toteaching general social studies but rather can teach any o the topical areas.
Middle school social studies teachers in North Dakota must earn a middle level major in social studies,which includes 24 semester hours o content coursework. Commendably, candidates must pass the Prax-is II “Middle School Social Studies” test. Unortunately, North Dakota also allows middle school teachersto teach on a generalist K/1-8 license, i the school is classied as an elementary school (see Goal 1-E).
Suppng rscLicense Codeshttp://www.nd.gov/espb/licensure/codes.html
Praxis Testing Requirementswww.ets.org
reCommeNDatioN
■ requie secnday scia studies teaces t pass tests cntent nwede eacscia studies discipine tey intend t teac.
States that allow general social studies certications—and only require a general knowledge socialstudies exam—are not ensuring that these secondary teachers possess adequate subject-speciccontent knowledge. North Dakota’s required general assessment combines subject areas (e.g., his-tory, geography, economics) and does not report separate scores or each subject area. Thereore,candidates could answer many history questions, or example, incorrectly, yet still be licensed toteach history to high school students.
North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiS
North Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther explanation.
Stt pt Mts G pgss Snc 2009
a 1: G h Nt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 41/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 39
Figure 29
Do states ensure that
secondary social studies
teachers have adequate
subject-matter
knowledge? O F F E R S
G E N
E R A L S O
C I A L
S T U D I E S
L I C E N S E W I T H
A D E Q U A T E
T E S T I N G
1
O f f e r s g e n e
r a l s o c i a l s t u d i e s
l i c e n s e w i t h o
u t a d e q u a t e
t e s t i n g
47
O F F E R S
O N L Y
S I N G L E
S U B J E C T
S O C I A L
S T U D I E S
L I C E N S E S
3
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts 1
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NorTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
yeS1 at tstngn mdd sc
cns utnt n k-8
gnst cns2
N3
23
9
19
Fgu 30
Do states ensure that middle school
teachers have adequate preparation toteach social studies?
1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas,Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey,Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont,Virginia, West Virginia
2. Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Washington
3. Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New York,North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas,Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Not only does Indiana ensure that its secondarysocial studies teachers possess adequate contentknowledge o all subjects they intend to teach—through both coursework and content testing—
but the state’s policy also does not make it overlyburdensome or social studies teachers to teachmultiple subjects. Other notable states includegeia and Sut Data, which also do not o-er secondary general social studies certications.
Fgu 29
1. Massachusetts does not oer a general social studies license, butoers combination licenses.
NorThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 42/162
40 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
G Cpnns
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should not permit specialeducation teachers to teach on a K-12license that does not dierentiate betweenthe preparation o elementary teachers andthat o secondary teachers.
2. All elementary special education candidatesshould have a broad liberal arts program ostudy that includes study in mathematics,science, English, social studies and ne artsand should be required to pass a subject-matter test or licensure that is no lessrigorous than what is required o generaleducation candidates.
3. The state should require that teacherpreparation programs graduate secondaryspecial education teacher candidates whoare highly qualied in at least two subjects.
The state should also customize a “HOUSSE”route or new secondary special educationteachers to help them achieve highlyqualied status in all the subjects they teach.
The components or this goal havechanged since 2009. In light o stateprogress on this topic, the bar or thisgoal has been raised.
Bcgund
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Aea 1: Deivein We-Pepaed Teaces
G i – Sc eductn Tc ptnTe state sud ensue tat specia educatin teaces nw te subject matte tey
wi be equied t teac.
Fgu 31
How States are Faring in Special EducationTeacher Preparation
0 bst pctc Stts
0 Stts Mt G
1 Stt N Mts G
Massachusetts
15 Stts pt Mt GAlabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, New Jersey⬆, New York, Oregon,
Pennsylvania⬆, Rhode Island, Texas⬆,
Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin
1 Stt Mts Sm pt GKansas
34 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
North Carolina, NorTh DAkoTA, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington,
Wyoming
Pgss n s G Snc 2009:
⬆ : 3 : 48 ⬇ : 0
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 43/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 41
aNalySiSRegrettably, North Dakota oers a K-12 special education certication, in addition to grade-specic
options.Although North Dakota does appropriately require its elementary special education teacher candidatesto pass the same subject-matter test as general education candidates, the state does not ensure that itselementary special education teachers—who are required to meet the same preparation requirementsas all elementary candidates—are provided with a broad liberal arts program o study relevant to theelementary classroom (see Goal 1-B).
Further, North Dakota ails to require that secondary special education teacher candidates are highlyqualied in at least two subject areas, and it does not customize a HOUSSE route or new secondaryspecial education teachers to help them achieve highly qualied status in all subjects they teach.
Suppng rscNorth Dakota Administrative Code 67.1-02-02-02
reCommeNDatioN
■ End icensue pactices tat ai t distinuis between te sis and nwede needed tteac eementay ades and secnday ades.
It is virtually impossible and certainly impractical or North Dakota to ensure that a K-12 specialeducation teacher knows all the subject matter he or she is expected to be able to teach, especiallyconsidering state and ederal expectations that special education students should meet the samehigh standards as other students. While the broad K-12 umbrella may be appropriate or teacherso low-incidence special education students, such as those with severe cognitive disabilities, it isdeeply problematic or the overwhelming majority o high-incidence special education students,who are expected to learn grade-level content.
■ Pvide a bad ibea ats pam study t eementay specia educatin candidates.
North Dakota should ensure that special education teacher candidates who will teach elementarygrades possess not only knowledge o eective learning strategies but also knowledge o the subjectmatter at hand. Although the state commendably requires the same content test as general educa-tion teachers, it should also require core-subject coursework relevant to the elementary classroom.Failure to ensure that teachers possess requisite content knowledge deprives special educationstudents o the opportunity to reach their academic potential.
Stt Ds Nt Mt G b rsd ts G pgss Snc 2009
a 1: G i Nt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 44/162
42 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
■ Ensue tat secnday specia educatin teace candidates aduate wit iy quaiedstatus in at east tw subjects, and custmize a hoUSSE ute s tat tey can acieve
iy quaied status in a subjects tey pan t teac.To make secondary special education teacher candidates more fexible and better able to serveschools and students, North Dakota should use a combination o coursework and testing to ensurethat they graduate with highly qualied status in two core academic areas. A customized HOUSSEroute can also help new secondary special education teacher candidates to become highly qualiedin multiple subjects by oering ecient means by which they could gain broad overviews o specicareas o content knowledge, such as content-driven university courses. Such a route is specicallypermitted in the 2004 reauthorization o the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther inormation.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 45/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 43
Figure 32
Do states distinguish
between elementary
and secondary special
education teachers?
D O E S
N O T
O F F E R
A
K - 1 2
C E R
T I F I C A T I O
N
O f f e r s
K - 1 2
a n d g r a d e - s p e c i f i c
c e r t i f i c a t i o n ( s )
O f f e r s
o n l y a K
- 1 2
c e r t i f i c a t i o n
16 16 19
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NorTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania1
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
yeS1 N2 N: onk-12 cns
d3
1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York,North Dakota, Oregon4, Pennsylvania5, Rhode Island, Texas,West Virginia, Wisconsin
2. Alaska, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee,Vermont, Washington, Wyoming
3. Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,District o Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Montana,Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,South Carolina, Utah, Virginia
4. Although Oregon requires testing, the state allows an “alternativeassessment” option or candidates who ail the tests twice to stillbe considered or a license.
5. In Pennsylvania, a candidate who opts or dual cer tication inelementary special education and as a reading specialist does nothave to take a content test.
17 15 19
Fgu 33
Do states require subject-matter testing or elementary special education licenses?
Fgu 32
1. Beginning January 1, 2013
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Unortunately, NCTQ cannot highlight any state’spolicy in this area. Preparation o special edu-cation teachers remains a topic in critical needo states’ attention. However, it is worth not-
ing that three states—luisiana, Pennsyva-nia and Texas—will no longer issue K-12 specialeducation certications. Only grade-level spe-cic options will be available to new teachers.
NorThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 46/162
44 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
G Cpnns
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should assess new teachers’knowledge o teaching and learning bymeans o a pedagogy test aligned to thestate’s proessional standards.
Bcgund
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Aea 1: Deivein We-Pepaed Teaces
G J – assssng pssn knwdgTe state sud use a icensin test t veiy tat a new teaces meet its
pessina standads.
Fgu 34
How States are Faring in AssessingProessional Knowledge
0 bst pctc Stts
23 Stts Mt G Arizona, Arkansas, California,
District of Columbia⬆, Florida, Illinois, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico,
New York, NorTh DAkoTA, Ohio, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, West Virginia
2 Stts N Mt GMaryland, Rhode Island
3 Stts pt Mt GIdaho, North Carolina, Utah
5 Stts Mt Sm pt GConnecticut, Indiana, Missouri,
Pennsylvania, Wyoming
18 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware,
Georgia, Hawaii , Iowa, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Montana, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin
Pgss n s G Snc 2009:
⬆ : 1 : 49 ⬇ : 1
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 47/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 45
aNalySiSNorth Dakota requires all new teachers to pass a popular pedagogy assessment rom the Praxis II series.
Suppng rschttp://www.ets.org/praxis/nd
reCommeNDatioN
■ Veiy tat cmmeciay avaiabe tests peday actuay ain wit state standads.
North Dakota should ensure that its selected test o proessional knowledge measures the knowl-edge and skills the state expects new teachers to have.
North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther explanation.
Stt Mts G pgss Snc 2009
a 1: G J Nt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 48/162
46 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
peDaGoGyTeST reQUireD
oF all NeWTeaCherS1
pdggtst qud sm nw
tcs2
N dggtst qud3
1. Strong Practice: Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, District o Columbia,Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota,Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio,Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia
2. Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina,Pennsylvania, Utah4, Wyoming
3. Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa,Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin
4. Not required until teacher advances rom a Level One to a LevelTwo license.
24
9
18
Fgu 35
Do states measure new teachers’ knowledgeo teaching and learning?
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Twenty-three states meet this goal, and although NCTQhas not singled out one state’s policies or “best practice”honors, it additionally commends the nine states (Aizna,Cainia, Fida, Iinis, Minnesta, New Mexic,
New Y, oama, Texas) that utilize their own assess-ments to measure pedagogical knowledge and skills.
NorThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 49/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 47
G Cpnns
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should require that studentteachers only be placed with cooperatingteachers or whom there is evidence o theireectiveness as measured by consistent gainsin student learning.
2. The state should require that teachercandidates spend at least 10 weeksstudent teaching.
Bcgund
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Aea 1: Deivein We-Pepaed Teaces
G k – Studnt TcngTe state sud ensue tat teace pepaatin pams pvide teace candidates
wit a i-quaity cinica expeience.
Fgu 36
How States are Faring in Student Teaching
0 bst pctc Stts
2 Stts Mt G Florida, Tennessee
1 Stt N Mts GKentucky
21 Stts pt Mt GAlabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii,
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
North Carolina, NorTh DAkoTA, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin
5 Stts Mt Sm pt GIndiana, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island,
South Dakota
22 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
New York, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia,
Wyoming
Pgss n s G Snc 2009:
Nw G
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 50/162
48 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
aNalySiSCommendably, North Dakota requires candidates to complete a “ull-time block” o student teaching,
which is construed as a ull day or 10 consecutive weeks.Although the state does outline a number o criteria in selecting cooperating teachers—such as a mini-mum o two semester hours in a student supervision course, three years o teaching experience and therecommendation o the school’s administration—it does not specically address cooperating teachers’eectiveness as measured by student learning.
Suppng rscNorth Dakota Administrative Code 67.1-02-01-01, -02
reCommeNDatioN
■ Ensue tat cpeatin teaces ave demnstated evidence eectiveness as measuedby student eanin.
Although North Dakota articulates some requirements or cooperating teachers, the state doesnot address the most essential: cooperating teachers’ classroom eectiveness. In addition to theability to mentor an adult, cooperating teachers should also be careully screened or their capac-ity to urther student achievement. Research indicates that the only aspect o a student teachingarrangement that has been shown to have an impact on student achievement is the positive eecto selection o the cooperating teacher by the preparation program, rather than the student teacheror school district sta.
■ Expicity equie tat student teacin be cmpeted cay, tus pibitin candidatesm cmpetin tis equiement abad.
Unless preparation programs can establish true satellite campuses to closely supervise studentteaching arrangements, placement in oreign or otherwise novel locales should be supplementary
to a standard student teaching arrangement. Outsourcing the arrangements or student teachingmakes it impossible to ensure the selection o the best cooperating teacher and adequate supervi-sion o the student teacher and may prevent training o the teacher on relevant state instructionalrameworks.
North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.
Stt pt Mts G pgss Snc 2009
a 1: G k Nt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 51/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 49
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Although no state has been singled out or “best practice”honors, Fida and Tennessee require teacher candidatesto complete at least 10 weeks o ull-time student teaching,and they have taken steps toward ensuring that cooperat-
ing teachers have demonstrated evidence o eectiveness asmeasured by student learning.
Figure 37
C O O P E R A T I N
G T E A C H
E R
S E L E C T E D B A S E D
O N
E F F E C T I V E N E S S
S T U D E N
T T E A C H
I N G L A S T S
A T L E A S T
1 0 W E E K S
Do states requirethe elements of a
high-quality student
teaching experience?
292
1
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NorTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1. Candidates can student teach or less than 12 weeksi determined to be procient.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 52/162
50 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
yeS1 N, ut stts t
qumnts sctn2
Nqumnts3
1. Strong Practice: Florida, Tennessee
2. Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska,New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania,Washington, Wisconsin
3. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado, Delaware, Districto Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana,Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississ ippi,Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,West Virginia, Wyoming
2
12
37
Fgu 38
Is the selection o the cooperating teacher based on some measure o eectiveness?
1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas,Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia5,Wisconsin
2. Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Virginia, Wyomi
3. Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, Utah
4. Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, Delaware, District o Columbia, Georgia,Maryland, Montana
5. Candidates can student teach or less than 12 weeks i determined to be procient.
aT leaST10 WeekS1
lss tn10 ws2
rqudut ngt
nt scfd3
Studnttcng tn
n scfcstudnt tcng
qumnt4
29
9
49
Fgu 39
Is the summative student teachingexperience o sufcient length?
NorThDAkoTA
NorThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 53/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 51
G Cpnns
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should collect value-added datathat connects student achievement gains toteacher preparation programs.
2. The state should collect other meaninguldata that refects program perormance,
including some or all o the ollowing:a. Average raw scores o teacher candidateson licensing tests, including basic skills, subjectmatter and proessional knowledge tests;
b. Number o times, on average, it takes teachercandidates to pass licensing tests;
c. Satisaction ratings by school principalsand teacher supervisors o programs’ studentteachers, using a standardized orm to permitprogram comparison;
d. Evaluation results rom the frst and/orsecond year o teaching;
e. Five-year retention rates o graduates in the
teaching proession.
3. The state should establish the minimumstandard o perormance or each categoryo data. Programs should be held accountableor meeting these standards, with articulatedconsequences or ailing to do so, includingloss o program approval.
4. The state should produce and publishon its website an annual report card thatshows all the data the state collects on
individual teacher preparation programs.
The components or this goal havechanged since 2009. In light o stateprogress on this topic, the bar or thisgoal has been raised.
Bcgund
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Aea 1: Deivein We-Pepaed Teaces
G l – Tc ptn pgm accunttTe state’s appva pcess teace pepaatin pams sud d pams
accuntabe te quaity te teaces tey pduce.
Fgu 40
How States are Faring in Teacher PreparationProgram Accountability
1 bst pctc SttFlorida
1 Stt Mts G Louisiana
5 Stts N Mt GAlabama, Colorado⬆, Georgia⬆,
Tennessee, Texas
6 Stts pt Mt GKentucky, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina,
Rhode Island, South Carolina
16 Stts Mt Sm pt GArizona, Illinois⬆, Iowa, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia⬆
22 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Arkansas , California, Connecticut,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Idaho, Indiana, Kansas , Maine, Minnesota,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
New York, NorTh DAkoTA, Oregon , South
Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Pgss n s G Snc 2009:
⬆ : 4 : 44 ⬇ : 3
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 54/162
52 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
aNalySiSNorth Dakota’s approval process or its teacher preparation programs does not hold programs account-
able or the quality o the teachers they produce.Most importantly, North Dakota does not collect value-added data that connect student achievementgains to teacher preparation programs.
The state also ails to collect other objective, meaningul data to measure the perormance o teach-er preparation programs, nor does it apply any transparent, measurable criteria or conerring programapproval. North Dakota collects programs’ annual summary licensure test pass rates (80 percent o pro-gram completers must pass their licensure exams). However, the 80 percent pass-rate standard, whilecommon among many states, sets the bar quite low and is not a meaningul measure o program per-ormance.
Further, in the past three years, no programs in the state have been identied as low perorming—anadditional indicator that programs lack accountability.
Finally, North Dakota’s website does not include a report card that allows the public to review and com-pare program perormance.
Suppng rscTitle II State Reports
https://title2.ed.gov
reCommeNDatioN
■ Cect data tat cnnect student acievement ains t teace pepaatin pams.
To ensure that programs are producing eective classroom teachers, North Dakota should consideracademic achievement gains o students taught by the programs’ graduates, averaged over the rst
three years o teaching. ■ gate te meaninu data tat efect pam pemance.
In addition to knowing whether programs are producing eective teachers, other objective, mean-ingul data can also indicate whether programs are appropriately screening applicants and i theyare delivering essential academic and proessional knowledge. North Dakota should gather datasuch as the ollowing: average raw scores o graduates on licensing tests, including basic skills, sub- ject matter and proessional knowledge tests; satisaction ratings by school principals and teachersupervisors o programs’ student teachers, using a standardized orm to permit program compari-son; evaluation results rom the rst and/or second year o teaching; and ve-year retention rateso graduates in the teaching proession.
■ Estabis te minimum standad pemance eac catey data.
Programs should be held accountable or meeting these standards, with articulated consequencesor ailing to do so, including loss o program approval ater appropriate due process.
Stt Ds Nt Mt G b rsd ts G pgss Snc 2009
a 1: G l Nt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 55/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 53
■ Pubis an annua ept cad n te state’s website.
To inorm the public with meaningul, readily understandable indicators o how well programs
are doing, North Dakota should present all the data it collects on individual teacher preparationprograms.
North Dakota reSPoNSe to aNalySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 56/162
54 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
Figure 41
Do states hold teacher
preparation programs
accountable?
O B J E C T I V E P R O
G R A M -
S P E C I F I C D A T A
C O L L E C T E D
M I N I M U M
S T A N D A R D S
F O R
P E R F O R M
A N C E S E T
D A T A P U
B L I C L Y
A V A I L A B L E O N W E B S I T E
O B J E C T I V E P R O
G R A M -
S P E C I F I C D A T A
C O L L E C T E D
M I N I M U M
S T A N D A R D S
F O R
P E R F O R M
A N C E S E T
D A T A P U
B L I C L Y
A V A I L A B L E O N W E B S I T E
TRADITIONAL
PREPARATION
ALTERNATIVE
PREPARATION
2
1
1
1
25 5 14 17 2 10
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
IowaKansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NorTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1. Reported institutional data do notdistinguish between candidates in thetraditional and alternate route programs.
2. The posted data do not allow thepublic to review and compare programperormance because data are notdisaggregated by program provider.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 57/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
: 55
yeS1 in rc t t
T n, utnt n c2
N3
1. Strong Practice: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee,Texas
2. Delaware, District o Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts,New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island
3. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Connecticut,Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan,Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota,Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,Wyoming
69
36
Fgu 42
Do states use student achievement data to hold teacher preparation programs accountable?
1. For alternate route only
Fgu 43
Which states collect meaningul data?
averaGe raW SCoreS oN liCeNSiNG TeSTSAlabama, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey,
Tennessee, West Virginia
SaTiSFaCTioN raTiNGS FroM SChoolSAlabama, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland1,Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey,Tennessee, Virginia, Washington1, West Virginia
evalUaTioN reSUlTS For proGraM GraDUaTeSAlabama, Arizona, Delaware1, Florida, Illiniois, Iowa,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,Texas, Vermont
STUDeNT learNiNG GaiNSColorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas
TeaCher reTeNTioN raTeS
Arizona, Colorado, Delaware1, Missouri, New Jersey
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Fida connects student achievement gains to teacherpreparation programs. The state also relies on otherobjective, meaningul data to measure the peror-mance o teacher preparation programs, and it applies
transparent, measurable criteria or conerring programapproval. Florida also posts an annual report on its website.
NorThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 58/162
56 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 North Dakota
What is the relationship
between state program
approval and national
accreditation?
Figure 44
N a t i o n a l a c
c r e d i t a t i o n c a n b e
s u b s t i t u t e d f o r s t a t e
a p p r o v a l
W h i l e n o t t e c h n i c a l l y r e q
u i r e d ,
t h e a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s i s
i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m a c c r e d i t a t i o n
W h i l e n o t t e c h n i c a l l y
r e q u i r e d ,
t h e r e i s s o m
e o v e r l a p
N a t i o n a l a c
c r e d i t a t i o n i s
r e q u i r e d
f o r s t a t e a p p r o v a l
10 4 8 6
S T A T E H A S I T S
O W N
A P P R O V A L S T A N
D A R D S
23
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona1
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii1
Idaho
Illinois1
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NorTh DAkoTA
Ohio1
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas1
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1. According to inormation posted onNCATE’s website.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 59/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 57
Fg 45
How States are Faring in Alternate Route Eligibility
2 bst pctc SttsDistrict of Columbia⬆, Michigan⬆
1 Stt Mts G Minnesota⬆
13 Stts N Mt GAlabama⬆, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois,
Louisiana, Maryland⬆, Massachusetts,
New York, Ohio⬆, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Tennessee
15 Stts pt Mt GArizona , Delaware⬆, Florida, Indiana⬆,
Iowa⬆, Kansas⬆, Kentucky, Mississippi,
New Jersey , North Carolina, South Dakota⬆,
Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia
13 Stts Mt Sm pt G
Alaska, California , Colorado , Georgia ,Idaho , Maine, Missouri, Nevada⬆,
New Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina,
Vermont, Wyoming
7 Stts D Nt Mt GHawaii , Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 12 : 32 ⬇ : 7
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. With some accommodation or workexperience, alternate route programs shouldscreen candidates or academic ability, suchas requiring a minimum 2.75 overall collegeGPA.
2. All alternate route candidates, includingelementary candidates and those having amajor in their intended subject area, shouldbe required to pass the state’s subject-matterlicensing test.
3. Alternate route candidates lacking a major inthe intended subject area should be able todemonstrate subject-matter knowledge bypassing a test o sucient rigor.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
ae 2: Expnding e Pl teces
G a – atnt rt egtte se suld equie lene ue pgms exceed e dmissin
equiemens diinl pepin pgms wile ls being exible eneeds nndiinl cndides.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 60/162
58 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
analySiSNorth Dakota does not classiy any programs as alternate routes to teacher certication.
Suppg rschttp://www.nd.gov/espb/licensure/types.html
reCommendation
■ Esblis n lene ue licensue.
North Dakota should develop a genuine alternate route to licensure that is fexible regarding theneeds o nontraditional candidates in order to broaden and deepen the available pool o teachers,particularly in the elds o mathematics and science. Establishing admission standards that exceedthose o traditional preparation provides an important saeguard.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther explanation.
Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009
a 2: G a N D anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 61/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 59
Figure 46
Are states' alternate
routes selective yet flexible in admissions?
A C A D E M
I C S T A N D A R D
F O R
A D M I S S I O
N E X C E E D
S
T R A D I T I O
N A L P R O
G R A
M S
S U B J E C T -
M A T T E R
T E S T
R E Q U I R E D
N O M A J O R R E Q
U I R E D
O R
T E S T C A N B E
U S E D
I N L I E U
O F M A J O R
13 24 27
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota1
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
WyomingFg 46
1. North Dakota does not have an alternate route to certication.
1. Strong Practice: Connecticut, District o Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, Tennessee
2. Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,South Carolina, So uth Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, Wyoming
3. Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon,Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin
4. North Dakota does not have an alternate route to cer tication.
aCaDeMiC
STaNDarD
exCeeDS ThaT
oF TraDiTioNal
proGraMS1
acdmc
stndd
t 2
N cdmc
stndd3,4
13
18 19
Fg 47
Do states require alternate routes to be selective?
SubjeCT-MaTTer
TeST reQuireD
For aDMiSSioN1
insfcnt
tstng
qmnts2,3
1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut4, District oColumbia, Florida, Illinois4, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts,Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia
2. State does not require test at all, exempts some candidates or does notrequire passage until program completion. Alaska, Caliornia, Colorado,Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Missouri,Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming
3. North Dakota does not have an alternate route to cer tication.
4. Required prior to entering the classroom.
2426
Fg 48
Do states ensure that alternate route teachers have subject-matter knowledge?
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 62/162
60 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Caliornia, Colorado, Connecticut6, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland,North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas
2. Strong Practice: Arizona, Arkansas, District o Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts,Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Virginia, Washington
3. Alaska, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont,West Virginia, Wyoming
4. Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin
5. North Dakota does not have an alternate route to cer tication.
6. Test out option available to candidates in shortage areas only.
Fg 49
Do states accommodate the nontraditional background of alternateroute candidates?
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
The Disic Clumbi and Micign require candidates to demonstrateabove-average academic perormance as conditions o admission to an alternateroute program, with both requiring applicants to have a minimum 3.0 GPA. Inaddition, neither state requires a content-specic major; subject-area knowledge
is demonstrated by passing a test, making their alternate routes fexible to theneeds o nontraditional candidates.
TeST CaN be uSeD
iN lieu oF Major
or CourSework
reQuireMeNTS1
No Major or
SubjeCT area
CourSework
reQuireMeNTS2
M cs
qd t n
tst t tn3
N stt c;
gms cn
q m
cs t n
tst t tn4,5
14 13
18
5
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 63/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 61
Fg 50
How States are Faring in Alternate Route Preparation
1 bst pctc SttConnecticut
4 Stts Mt G Arkansas, Delaware⬆, Georgia, New Jersey
7 Stts N Mt GAlabama, Florida, Maryland⬆, Mississippi,
Rhode Island⬆, South Carolina, Virginia
11 Stts pt Mt GAlaska, California, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Nevada⬆, New Mexico,
New York, Ohio⬆, South Dakota,
West Virginia
18 Stts Mt Sm pt GArizona, Colorado, District of Columbia,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa , Kansas⬆,
Michigan⬆, Minnesota⬆, Missouri,Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Washington, Wyoming
10 Stts D Nt Mt GHawaii, Maine, Montana, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 8 : 42 ⬇ : 1
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should ensure that the amounto coursework it either requires or allows ismanageable or a novice teacher. Anythingexceeding 12 credit hours o coursework in therst year may be counterproductive, placing toogreat a burden on the teacher. This calculation ispremised on no more than six credit hours in thesummer, three in the all and three in the spring.
2. The state should ensure that alternate routeprograms oer accelerated study not to exceedsix (three credit) courses or secondary teachersand eight (three credit) courses or elementaryteachers (exclusive o any credit or practiceteaching or mentoring) over the duration o theprogram. Programs should be limited to two years, at which time the new teacher should beeligible or a standard certicate.
3. All coursework requirements should targetthe immediate needs o the new teacher (e.g.,seminars with other grade-level teachers, trainingin a particular curriculum, reading instruction andclassroom management techniques).
4. The state should ensure that candidates havean opportunity to practice teach in a summertraining program. Alternatively, the state canrequire an intensive mentoring experience,beginning with a trained mentor assigned ulltime to the new teacher or the rst criticalweeks o school and then gradually reduced.
The state should support only inductionstrategies that can be eective even in a poorlymanaged school: intensive mentoring, seminarsappropriate to grade level or subject area, areduced teaching load and requent release timeto observe eective teachers.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
ae 2: Expnding e Pl teces
G b – atnt rt ptnte se suld ensue is lene ues pvide semlined pepin
is elevn e immedie needs new eces.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 64/162
62 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
analySiSNorth Dakota does not currently oer any alternate routes to licensure.
Suppg rschttp://www.nd.gov/espb/progapproval/
reCommendation
■ Esblis n lene ue licensue.
North Dakota should develop a genuine alternate route to licensure that oers streamlined prepa-ration relevant to the immediate needs o new teachers. An alternative pathway can help broadenand deepen the available pool o teachers, particularly in the elds o mathematics and science.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiS
North Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther explanation
a 2: G b N D anss
Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 65/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 63
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Cnnecicu ensures that its alternate routeprovides streamlined preparation that meetsthe immediate needs o new teachers. Thestate requires a manageable number o credithours, relevant coursework, a eld placementand intensive mentoring. Other notable statesinclude anss, Delwe, Gegi andNew Jesey. These states provide streamlined,relevant coursework with intensive mentoring.
Do states' alternate routes provide streamlined preparation that meetsthe immediate needs of
new teachers? S T R E A M
L I N E D
C O U R S E W
O R K
R E L E V A N T
C O U R S E W
O R K
R E A S O N A B L E
P R O G R A M
L E N G T H
P R A C T I C E T E A C H
I N G
O P P O
R T U N I T Y
I N T E N
S I V E S U P P O
R T
Figure 51
13 12 29 18 13
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida1
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota2
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming1. Florida requires practice teaching or intensive mentoring.
2. North Dakota does not have an alternate route to certication.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 66/162
64 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
yeS1 Smt2 N3,4
1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey,Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia
2. Indiana, Nevada, Wyoming
3. Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, District o Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
4. North Dakota does not have an alternate route to
certication.
13
3
34
Fg 52
Do states curb excessive courseworkrequirements?
1. Strong Practice: Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska,New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia
2. Strong Practice: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York,West Virginia
3. Strong Practice: Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia,Florida6, Maryland, Massachusetts
4. Alabama, Caliornia, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine,Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, U tah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming
5. North Dakota does not have an alternate route to certication.
6. Candidates are required to have one or the other, not both.
praCTiCe
TeaChiNG1
iNTeNSive
MeNToriNG2
Nt4,5boTh3
11
6 7
26
Fg 53
Do states require practice teaching or intensivementoring?
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 67/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 65
Fg 54
How States are Faring in Alternate Route Usageand Providers
0 bst pctc Stts
26 Stts Mt G Arizona⬆, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Connecticut⬆, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois⬆, Kentucky,Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan⬆, Nevada⬆, New Hampshire,
New York⬆, North Carolina, Ohio⬆,
Pennsylvania⬆, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, Washington⬆
4 Stts N Mt GMinnesota⬆, New Jersey, South Dakota, Utah
7 Stts pt Mt GAlabama⬆, Indiana, Montana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia,
Wisconsin
4 Stts Mt Sm pt GIdaho⬆, Mississippi, South Carolina, Vermont
10 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Wyoming
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 12 : 39 ⬇ : 0
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should not treat the alternateroute as a program o last resort or restrictthe availability o alternate routes to certainsubjects, grades or geographic areas.
2. The state should allow districts and nonprot
organizations other than institutions ohigher education to operate alternate routeprograms.
3. The state should ensure that its alternateroute has no requirements that would bedicult to meet or a provider that is notan institution o higher education (e.g.,an approval process based on institutionalaccreditation).
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
ae 2: Expnding e Pl teces
G C – atnt rt usg nd pdste se suld pvide n lene ue is ee m eguly bscles
limi is usge nd pvides.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 68/162
66 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
analySiSNorth Dakota does not currently oer any alternate routes to licensure.
Suppg rschttp://www.nd.gov/espb/progapproval/
reCommendation
■ Esblis n lene ue licensue.
The state should develop a genuine alternate route to licensure that is ree rom regulatory obsta-cles that inappropriately limit its usage and providers. An alternative pathway can help broaden anddeepen the available pool o teachers, particularly in the elds o mathematics and science.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiS
North Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther explanation.
Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009
a 2: G C N D anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 69/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 67
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Twenty-six states meet this goal, and although NCTQhas not singled out one state’s policies or “best prac-tice” honors, it commends all states that permit bothbroad usage and a diversity o providers or their alter-nate routes.
Figure 55
B R O A D U S A
G E A C R O
S S
S U B J E C
T S , G R A D E S
A N D
G E O
G R A P H
I C A R E A
S
D I V E R
S I T Y O F P R
O V I D E R
S
Are states' alternate
routes free from
limitations?
2932
Alabama1
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota2
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Fg 55 nd 56
1. Alabama oers routes without restrictions or candidates with master’sdegrees. The route or candidates with bachelor’s degrees is limited tocertain subjects.
2. North Dakota does not have an alternate route to certication.
yeS N
32
18
Fg 56
Can alternate route teachers teach any subjector grade anywhere in the state?
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 70/162
68 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
DiSTriCT-ruN
proGraMS aND
NoN-proFiT
proviDerS
perMiTTeD1
DiSTriCT-ruN
proGraMS
perMiTTeD2
Cg nd
nst
ds n3,4
1. Strong Practice: Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Districto Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York,Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas,Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin
2. Strong Practice: Caliornia, Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina,Vermont5, West Virginia
3. Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho6, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,Minnesota, Mississippi6, Missouri6, Montana, Nebraska,New Jersey7, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina6,South Dakota, Utah6, Wyoming
4. North Dakota does not have an alternate route to
certication.5. Districts can run Peer Review programs only.
6. ABCTE is also an approved provider.
7. Permits school districts to provide programs without universitypartnerships in some circumstances.
24
6
20
Fg 57
Do states permit providers other thancolleges or universities?
Figure 58
Do states provide real
alternative pathways
to certification?
G E N U I N E O R N E A R L Y
G E N U I N E A L T E R N A T E R O U T E
A l t e r n a t e r o u t e t h a t n e e d s
s i g n i f i c a n t i m p r o v e m e n t s
O f f e r e d r o u t e i s d i s i n g e n u o u s
7 25 18
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota1
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
WyomingFg 58
1. North Dakota does not have an alternate route to certication.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 71/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 69
Figure 59
What are the
characteristics of
states’ alternate
routes? P R E R E Q
U I S I T E
O F S T R O
N G
A C A D E M I C P E R F O
R M A N
C E
V E R I F I C A T I O N
O F S U B J E C T
M A T T E R
K N O W L E D G
E
A V A I L A B I L I T Y O F T E S T
O U T
O P T I O
N S
S T R E A M L I N
E D C O U R S E W
O R K
R E L E V A N T
C O U R S E W
O R K
R E A S O N A B L E
P R O G R A M
L E N G T H
P R A C T I C E T E A C H
I N G A N D / O
R
I N T E N
S I V E M E N
T O R I N
G
B R O A D
U S A G E
D I V E R S I T Y O F P R O
V I D E R S
13 24 27 13 12 29 24 32 29
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
IowaKansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 72/162
70 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
Fg 60
How States are Faring in Part Time Teaching Licenses
1 bst pctc SttArkansas
2 Stts Mt G Florida, Georgia
5 Stts N Mt GKentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah
4 Stts pt Mt GCalifornia, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma
6 Stts Mt Sm pt GColorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana,
New York, Washington
33 Stts D Nt Mt G
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut,Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
nw G
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. Either through a discrete license or bywaiving most licensure requirements, thestate should authorize individuals withcontent expertise to teach as part-timeinstructors.
2. All candidates or a part-time teachinglicense should be required to pass a subject-matter test.
3. Other requirements or this license shouldbe limited to those addressing public saety(e.g., background screening) and those oimmediate use to the novice instructor (e.g.,classroom management training).
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
ae 2: Expnding e Pl teces
G D – pt-Tm Tcng lcnsste se suld e license wi miniml equiemens llws cnen
expes ec p ime.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 73/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 71
analySiSNorth Dakota does not oer a license with minimal requirements that would allow content experts to
teach part time.
reCommendation
■ oe license llws cnen expes seve s p-ime insucs.
North Dakota should permit individuals with deep subject-area knowledge to teach a limited num-ber o courses without ullling a complete set o certication requirements. The state shouldveriy content knowledge through a rigorous test and conduct background checks as appropriate,while waiving all other licensure requirements. Such a license would increase districts’ fexibility tosta certain subjects, including many STEM areas, that are requently hard to sta or may not havehigh enough enrollment to necessitate a ull-time position.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther explanation.
Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009
a 2: G D N D anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 74/162
72 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
anss oers a license with minimal requirements that allowscontent experts to teach part time. Individuals seeking this licensemust pass a subject-matter test and are also required to completespecially-designed pedagogy training that is not overly burdensome.
Figure 61
Do states offer a license with minimal
requirements that allows content experts
to teach part-time?
YES No
16 35
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia 1
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas 2
Kentucky
Louisiana 1
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi 2
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York 2
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio 1
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington 2
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming1. License has restrictions.
2. It appears that the state has a license that may be used or this purpose; guidelines are vague.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 75/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 73
Fg 62
How States are Faring in Licensure Reciprocity
2 bst pctc SttsAlabama, Texas
0 Stts Mt G
3 Stts N Mt G
Idaho, Ohio, Washington
13 Stts pt Mt GAlaska, Delaware, Illinois⬆, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin
15 Stts Mt Sm pt GColorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon⬆, Rhode
Island, Tennessee, Virginia, Wyoming
18 Stts D Nt Mt GArizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut,
District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,
South Carolina, Vermont
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 2 : 49 ⬇ : 0
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should oer a standard license toully certied teachers moving rom otherstates, without relying on transcript analysisor recency requirements as a means o judging eligibility. The state can and shouldrequire evidence o good standing in previousemployment.
2. The state should uphold its standards or allteachers by insisting that certied teacherscoming rom other states meet the incomingstate’s testing requirements.
3. The state should accord the same license toteachers rom other states who completedan approved alternate route program thatit accords teachers prepared in a traditionalpreparation program.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
ae 2: Expnding e Pl teces
G e – lcns rcctte se suld elp me licenses ully pble mng ses, wi pppie
seguds.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 76/162
74 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
analySiSNorth Dakota does not support licensure reciprocity or certied teachers rom other states.
Commendably, North Dakota does not appear to grant any waivers o its testing requirements. All out-o-state teachers, no matter how many years o experience they have, must meet the state’s passingscores on licensing tests.
However, other aspects o the state’s policy create obstacles or teachers rom other states seekinglicensure in North Dakota. Teachers with valid out-o-state certicates are eligible or North Dakota’sInterim Reciprocal License or its Initial License once state requirements are met. North Dakota routinelyreviews the college transcripts o licensed out-o-state teachers, an exercise that oten leads the state torequire additional coursework beore it will oer its license. States that reach a determination about anapplicant’s licensure status on the basis o the course titles listed on the applicant’s transcript may endup mistakenly equating the amount o required coursework with the teacher’s qualications.
North Dakota also requires all out-o-state teachers to take coursework in Native American and multi-
cultural studies and does not oer a test-out option.
North Dakota is also a participant in the NASDTEC Interstate Agreement; however, the latest iterationo this agreement no longer purports to be a reciprocity agreement among states and thus is no longerincluded in this analysis.
Suppg rscNorth Dakota Administrative Code 67.1-02-02
reCommendation
■ oe sndd license ceifed u--se eces, bsen unnecessyequiemens.
North Dakota should reconsider its policy o transcript reviews. Such reviews are not a particularlymeaningul or ecient exercise and are likely to result in additional coursework requirements, evenor traditionally prepared teachers; alternate route teachers, on the other hand, may have to virtu-ally begin anew, repeating some, most or all o a teacher preparation program in North Dakota.
Also, the state’s Native American and multicultural studies coursework requirements are reason-able; however, it should oer out-o-state teachers a test-out option.
■ accd e sme license u--se lene ue eces s wuld be ccded diinlly peped eces.
Regardless o whether a teacher was prepared through a traditional or alternate route, all certi-ed out-o-state teachers should receive equal treatment. State policies that discriminate againstteachers who were prepared in an alternate route are not supported by evidence. In act, a sub-
stantial body o research has ailed to discern dierences in eectiveness between alternate andtraditional route teachers.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota disagreed with this analysis but did not oer any urther explanation.
a 2: G e N D anss
Stt pt Mts G pgss Snc 2009
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 77/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 75
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
albm and texs appropriately support licensurereciprocity by only requiring certied teachers romother states to meet each state’s own testing require-ments and by not speciying any additional coursework
or recency requirements to determine eligibility or eithertraditional or alternate route teachers.
yeS1 N2
1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts,Minnesota, New York3, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania3,South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington3, Wisconsin
2. Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi,Missouri, Montana4, Nebraska4, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon,Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia,West Virginia, Wyoming
3. Exception or teachers with National Board Certication.
4. No subject-matter testing or any teacher cer tication.
15
36
Fg 63
Do states require all out-of-state teachersto pass their licensure tests?
Figure 64
What do states require
of teachers transferring
from other states?
L I C E N S E
R E C I P R O C I T Y
W I T H
N O
S T R I N G S
A T T A C H E D
T r a n s c r i p t a n a l y s i s
R e c e n c y r e q u i r e m
e n t s
9 41 12
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York 1
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island 1
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington 2
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming 1Fg 64
1. For traditionally prepared teachers only.
2. Transcript review required or those with less than 3 years experience.
NorthDakota
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 78/162
76 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
Figure 65
Do states treat out-of-stateteachers the same whether they were prepared in atraditional or an alternateroute program?
S T A T E T R E A T S T E A C H E R S
E Q U A L L Y
S t a t e
s p e c i fi
e s d i f f e
r e n t
r e q u i r e
m e n t s f o r a l t e r n a t e
r o u t e t e a c h
e r s
S t a t e h
a s p o l i c i e s
w i t h
t h e
p o t e n t i a l t o
c r e a t e
o b
s t a c l e s
f o r a l t e r n a t e r o u t e t e a c h
e r s
6 6 39
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 79/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 77
Fg 66
How States are Faring in the Development o Data Systems
0 bst pctc Stts
35 Stts Mt G Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Idaho⬆, Illinois⬆, Indiana⬆, Iowa⬆,
Kansas⬆, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland⬆,
Massachusetts⬆, Minnesota⬆, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska⬆, New Hampshire⬆, New
Mexico, New York⬆, North Carolina,
North Dakota⬆, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, Washington⬆, West Virginia,
Wisconsin⬆, Wyoming
0 Stts N Mt G
15 Stts pt Mt GAlaska, Arizona⬆, Colorado, Connecticut,
District of Columbia⬆, Maine, Michigan,Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon,
South Dakota⬆, Texas, Vermont, Virginia
0 Stts Mt Sm pt f G
1 Stt Ds Nt Mt GCalifornia
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 17 : 33 ⬇ : 1
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should establish a longitudinaldata system with at least the ollowing keycomponents:
a. A unique statewide student identiernumber that connects student data across
key databases across years;b.A unique teacher identier system thatcan match individual teacher records withindividual student records; and
c. An assessment system that can matchindividual student test records rom year to year in order to measure academic growth.
2. Value-added data provided through thestate’s longitudinal data system shouldbe considered among the criteria used todetermine teachers’ eectiveness.
3. To ensure that data provided through thestate data system is actionable and reliable,the state should have a clear denition o“teacher o record” and require its consistentuse statewide.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
ae 3: Ideniying Eecive teces
G a – Stt Dt Sstmste se suld ve d sysem cnibues sme e evidence needed
ssess ece eeciveness.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 80/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
78
analySiSNorth Dakota has a data system with the capacity to provide evidence o teacher eectiveness.
North Dakota has all three necessary elements o a student- and teacher-level longitudinal data system.The state has assigned unique student identiers that connect student data across key databases across years and has assigned unique teacher identiers that enable it to match individual teacher records withindividual student records. It also has the capacity to match student test records rom year to year inorder to measure student academic growth.
Suppg rscData Quality Campaign
www.dataqualitycampaign.org
reCommendation
■ Develp cle defniin “ece ecd.”
North Dakota has not yet established a denition o teacher o record, which is essential in order touse the student-data link or the purpose o providing value-added evidence o teacher eectiveness.To ensure that data provided through the state data system are actionable and reliable, North Dakotashould articulate a denition o teacher o record and require its consistent use throughout the state.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis, but indicated there are pending regulatorychanges that may aect this goal. However, the state oered no additional explanation.
Stt Mts G pgss Snc 2009
a 3: G a N D anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 81/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 79
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Although NCTQ has not singled out one state’spolicies or “best practice” honors, it commends the35 states that have a data system with the capacityto provide evidence o teacher eectiveness.
Figure 67
Do state data systems
have the capacity to
assess teacher
effectiveness?
U N I Q U E S T U
D E N
T I D E N
T I F I E R
U N I Q U E T E A
C H E R
I D E N
T I F I E R
S Y S T E M
T H A T C A N M A T C H
T E A
C H E R
R E C
O R D S T O
S T U D E N
T R E C
O R D S
T E S T
R E C
O R D S M A T C H
O V E R
T I M E
50 35 50
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming k
indicates that the state assigns teacher identication numbers, but itcannot match individual teacher records with individual student records.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 82/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
80
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should either require a commonevaluation instrument in which evidenceo student learning is the most signicantcriterion or specically require that studentlearning be the preponderant criterionin local evaluation processes. Evaluationinstruments, whether state or locallydeveloped, should be structured to preclude ateacher rom receiving a satisactory rating iound ineective in the classroom.
2. Evaluation instruments should requireclassroom observations that ocus on anddocument the eectiveness o instruction.
3. Teacher evaluations should consider objectiveevidence o student learning, includingnot only standardized test scores but alsoclassroom-based artiacts such as tests,
quizzes and student work.4. The state should require that evaluation
instruments dierentiate among variouslevels o teacher perormance. A binarysystem that merely categorizes teachers assatisactory or unsatisactory is inadequate.
The components or this goal havechanged since 2009. In light o stateprogress on this topic, the bar or thisgoal has been raised.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Fg 68
How States are Faring in Evaluating Teacher Eectiveness
0 bst pctc Stts
10 Stts Mt G Colorado⬆, Delaware⬆, Florida⬆,
Maryland⬆, Michigan⬆, Nevada⬆, Ohio⬆,
Oklahoma⬆, Rhode Island⬆, Tennessee⬆
4 Stts N Mt GArizona⬆, Idaho⬆, Louisiana⬆, New York⬆
9 Stts pt Mt GArkansas⬆, Connecticut⬆, Georgia⬆,
Illinois⬆, Indiana⬆, Massachusetts⬆,
Minnesota⬆, Utah⬆, Washington⬆
18 Stts Mt Sm pt f GAlabama, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Kansas,
Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey,
New Mexico, North Carolina⬆, Oregon⬆,Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming⬆
10 Stts D Nt Mt GDistrict of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 26 : 25 ⬇ : 0
ae 3: Ideniying Eecive teces
G b – etn f effctnsste se suld equie insucinl eeciveness be e pepnden ciein
ny ece evluin.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 83/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 81
analySiSNorth Dakota does not require that objective evidence o student learning be the preponderant criterion
o its teacher evaluations.The state gives local school districts the authority to conduct teacher evaluations; however, North Dako-ta policy is silent about the content o and expectation or these evaluations.
Suppg rscNorth Dakota Century Code Title 15.1-15
reCommendation
■ requie insucinl eeciveness be e pepnden ciein ny eceevluin.
North Dakota should either require a common evaluation instrument in which evidence o studentlearning is the most signicant criterion, or it should specically require that student learning be thepreponderant criterion in local evaluation processes. Whether state or locally developed, a teachershould not be able to receive a satisactory rating i ound ineective in the classroom.
■ Ensue clssm bsevins specifclly cus n nd dcumen e eeciveness insucin.
North Dakota should not only require that its evaluations include classroom observations, but alsothe state should specically articulate that these observations ocus on eectiveness o instruc-tion. The primary component o a classroom observation should be the quality o instruction, asmeasured by student time on task, student grasp or mastery o the lesson objective, and ecientuse o class time.
■ Uilize ing cegies meningully dieenie mng vius levels ecepemnce.
To ensure that the evaluation instrument accurately dierentiates among levels o teacher peror-mance, North Dakota should require districts to utilize multiple rating categories, such as highlyeective, eective, needs improvement and ineective. A binary system that merely categorizesteachers as satisactory or unsatisactory is inadequate.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.
Stt Ds Nt Mt G b rsd f ts G pgss Snc 2009
a 3: G b N D anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 84/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
82
Figure 69
Do states consider
classroom effectiveness
as part of teacher
evaluations? R E Q
U I R E S T H A
T S T U D
E N T
A C H I E V E M E N T / G R
O W T H I S
T H E P R E P O
N D E R A N T C R I T E R I O
N
T e a c h e r e v a l u a t i o n s a r e t o b e
s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f o r m e d b y
s t u d e n t a c h i e v
e m e n t / g r o w t h
T e a c h e r e v a l u a t i o n s m u s t
i n c l u d e
o b j e c t i v e
e v i d e n c e o f
s t u d e n t l e a
r n i n g
S t u d e n t a c h i e
v e m e n t d a t a
n o t r e q u i r e d
12 5 7 27
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia1
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
KansasKentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Fg 69
1. District o Columbia Public Schools requires that studentlearning be the preponderant criterion o its teacher evaluations
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
NCTQ has not singled out any one state o“best practice” honors. Many states have madesignicant strides in the area o teacher evaluation by requiring that objective evidence o
student learning be the preponderant criterionBecause there are many dierent approachesthat result in student learning being the pre-ponderant criterion, all 10 states that meet thisgoal are commended or their eorts.
Fg 70
Using state data in teacher evaluations
Stts t rqmnts f Stdnt
acmnt Dt t lcng Dt
Sstm Cct
Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Michigan,
Nevada
Stts t Dt Sstm Cct t
N Stdnt acmnt rqmnts
am, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 85/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 83
Fg 71
Sources o objective evidence o student
learning
Many educators struggle to identiy possible sourceso objective student data. Here are some examples:
n Standardized test scores
n Periodic diagnostic assessments
n Benchmark assessments that show student growth
nArtiacts o student work connected to specic
student learning standards that are randomly selected
or review by the principal or senior aculty, scored
using rubrics and descriptors
n
Examples o typical assignments, assessed or theirquality and rigor
n Periodic checks on progress with the curriculum
coupled with evidence o student mastery o the
curriculum rom quizzes, tests and exams
yeS1 N2
1. Strong Practice: Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada,New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington
2. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Connecticut, District oColumbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina,North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia,Wisconsin, Wyoming
17
34
Fg 72
Do states require more than two categories or teacher evaluation ratings?
NorthDakota
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 86/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
84
Figure 73
Do states direct how
teachers should be
evaluated?
S i n g l e s t a t e w
i d e t e a c h e r
e v a l u a t i o n s y s t e m
S t a t e - d e s i g n e d
t e a c h e r
e v a l u a t i o n w i t h
d i s t r i c t o p t - i n
D i s t r i c t -
d e s i g n e d s y s t e m
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h
s t a t e
f r a m e w
o r k / c r i t e r i a
D i s t r i c t -
d e s i g n e d s y s t e m
w i t h
m i n i m
a l i n p u t f r o m
s t a t e
N o s t a t e
p o l i c y
9 10 24 5 3
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida 1
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho 1
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
KansasKentucky 1
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland 1
Massachusetts
Michigan 2
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska 1
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina 2
South DakotaTennessee 2
Texas 2
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming 1. State approval required.
2. The state model is presumptive;districts need state approval toopt out.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 87/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 85
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should require that all teachersreceive a ormal evaluation rating each year.
2. While all teachers should have multipleobservations that contribute to their ormalevaluation rating, the state should ensure
that new teachers are observed and receiveeedback early in the school year.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Fg 74
How States are Faring in Frequency o Evaluations
0 bst pctc Stts
9 Stts Mt G Alabama⬆, Idaho, Nevada, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island⬆,
Tennessee⬆, Washington
13 Stts N Mt GArizona, Colorado⬆, Delaware⬆, Florida⬆,
Georgia, Indiana⬆, Minnesota⬆, New York,
North Carolina⬆, Ohio⬆, Pennsylvania,
Utah⬆, Wyoming
9 Stts pt Mt GConnecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana⬆,
Maryland, Michigan⬆, Nebraska,
South Carolina, West Virginia
2Stts Mt Sm pt f GArkansas , Missouri
18 Stts D Nt Mt GAlaska, California, District of Columbia,
Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas,
Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 13 : 37 ⬇ : 1
ae 3: Ideniying Eecive teces
G C – Fqnc f etnste se suld equie nnul evluins ll eces.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 88/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
86
Stt Mts G pgss Snc 2009
a 3: G C N D anss
analySiSCommendably, all teachers in North Dakota must be evaluated at least annually.
Nonprobationary teachers are required to be evaluated once a year. New teachers in North Dakota mustbe evaluated twice a year. The rst written report o the teacher’s perormance must be completed byDecember 15 and the second by March 15.
Suppg rsc
North Dakota Statute 15.1-15-01
reCommendation
■ Bse evluins n muliple bsevins.
To guarantee that annual evaluations are based on an adequate collection o inormation, NorthDakota should require multiple observations or all teachers, even those who have nonprobationary
status. Further, as evaluation instruments become more data driven, it may not be easible to issuemultiple ormal evaluation ratings during a single year. Applicable student data will likely not beavailable to support multiple ratings.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 89/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 87
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Although not awarding “best practice” honors or re-quency o evaluations, NCTQ commends all nine statesthat meet this goal not only by requiring annual evalu-ations or all teachers, but also or ensuring that new
teachers are observed and receive eedback during therst hal o the school year.
Figure 75
A N N U A L E V A L U
A T I O N
O F A L L
V E T E R A N
T E A C H E R S
A N N U A L E V
A L U A T I O
N
O F A L L
N E W
T E A C H E R S
Do states require
districts to evaluate
all teachers each year?
22 43
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware1
District of Columbia2
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Fgs 75 nd 76
1. Although highly eective teachers are only required to receivea summative evaluation once every two years, the studentimprovement component is evaluated annually.
2. All District o Columbia Public Schools teachers are evaluated atleast annually.
yeS N
22
29
Fg 76
Do states require districts to evaluate all
teachers each year?
NorthDakota
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 90/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
88
at st n2Two or
More eaCh
year1
Nt qd3
18
20
13
Fg 77
Do states require classroom observations?
1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Alaska4
, Arkansas, Colorado4
,Delaware, Florida4, Georgia, Kentucky4, Maryland, Michigan,Missouri4, Nevada4, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon4,Rhode Is land, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia4
2. Arizona, Caliornia, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico,Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin
3. District o Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Montana,Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota,Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming
4. For new teachers.
yeS1 N2
1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mary-land, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, NorthDakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina,Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia
2. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado, Connecticut,Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
18
33
Fg 78
Do states require that new teachers areobserved early in the year?
NorthDakota
NorthDakota
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 91/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 89
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. A teacher should be eligible or tenure ater acertain number o years o service, but tenureshould not be granted automatically at that juncture.
2. Evidence o eectiveness should be the
preponderant criterion in tenure decisions.3. The state should articulate a process, such as
a hearing, that local districts must administerin considering the evidence and decidingwhether a teacher should receive tenure.
4. The minimum years o service needed toachieve tenure should allow sucient datato be accumulated on which to base tenuredecisions; ve years is the ideal minimum.
The components or this goal havechanged since 2009. In light o stateprogress on this topic, the bar or thisgoal has been raised.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Fg 79
How States are Faring on Tenure
1 bst pctc SttMichigan⬆
2 Stts Mt G Colorado⬆, Florida⬆
5 Stts N Mt GDelaware⬆, Nevada⬆, Oklahoma⬆,
Rhode Island⬆, Tennessee⬆
3 Stts pt Mt GIllinois⬆, Indiana⬆, New York⬆
9 Stts Mt Sm pt f GConnecticut, Idaho⬆, Kentucky,
Massachusetts⬆, Minnesota, Missouri,
New Hampshire⬆, North Carolina, Ohio
31 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii,
Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine⬆, Maryland,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 15 : 36 ⬇ : 0
ae 3: Ideniying Eecive teces
G D – Tnte se suld equie enue decisins e bsed n evidence ece
eeciveness.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 92/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
90
analySiSNorth Dakota does not connect tenure decisions to evidence o teacher eectiveness.
Teachers in North Dakota are awarded tenure automatically ater a two-year probationary period, absentan additional process that evaluates cumulative evidence o teacher eectiveness.
Suppg rscNorth Dakota Administrative Rules 67.1-02-05-06
reCommendation
■ End e umic wding enue.
The decision to grant tenure should be a deliberate one, based on consideration o a teacher’s com-mitment and actual evidence o classroom eectiveness.
■ Ensue evidence eeciveness is e pepnden ciein in enue decisins.
North Dakota should make evidence o eectiveness, rather than the number o years in the class-room, the most signicant actor when determining this leap in proessional standing.
■ aicule pcess lcl disics mus dminise wen deciding wic eces geenue.
North Dakota should require a clear process, such as a hearing, to ensure that the local districtreviews a teacher’s perormance beore making a determination regarding tenure.
■ requie lnge pbiny peid.
North Dakota should extend its probationary period, ideally to ve years. This would allow or anadequate collection o sucient data that refect teacher perormance.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.
Stt Ds Nt Mt G b rsd f ts G pgss Snc 2009
a 3: G D N D anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 93/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 91
How long before a teacher earns tenure?
Figure 80
Nopolicy
1 year
2 years
3 years
4YEARS
5YEARS
STATE ONLYAWARDSANNUAL
CONTRACTS
1 1 5 32 4 5 3
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma 1
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1. Teachers may also earn careerstatus with an average rating oat least eective or a our-yearperiod and a rating o at leasteective or the last two years.
2. Teachers who receive two yearso ineective evaluations aredismissed.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 94/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
92
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Micign has increased its probationary period to ve years and requires that evidence o eectiveness be theprimary criterion in awarding tenure.
Figure 81
How are tenure
decisions made?
E V I D
E N C E
O F
S T U D E N
T
L E A R N
I N G I S
T H E
P R E P O N
D E R
A N
T C R I T E R I O
N
S o m e e v i d e n c e
o f s t u d e n t
l e a r n i n g i s
c o n s i d e r e d
V i r t u a l l y
a u t o m a t i c a l l y
8 4 39
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia 1
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma 2
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Fg 81
1. No state-level policy; however, the contract between DCPS and theteachers’ union represents signicant advancement in the area oteacher tenure.
2. The state has created a loophole by essentially waiving student learningrequirements and allowing the principal o a school to petition orcareer-teacher status.
eviDeNCe
oF STuDeNT
learNiNG iS The
prepoNDeraNT
CriTerioN
Sm
dnc f
stdnt nng
s cnsdd
vt
tmtc
84
39
Fg 82
How are tenure decisions made?
NorthDakota
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 95/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 93
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should base advancement rom aprobationary to a nonprobationary license onevidence o teacher eectiveness.
2. The state should not require teachers toulll generic, unspecied coursework
requirements to advance rom a probationaryto a nonprobationary license.
3. The state should not require teachers tohave an advanced degree as a condition oproessional licensure.
4. Evidence o eectiveness should be a actorin the renewal o a proessional license.
The components or this goal havechanged since 2009. In light o stateprogress on this topic, the bar or thisgoal has been raised.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Fg 83
How States are Faring on Licensure Advancement
1 bst pctc SttRhode Island⬆
1 Stt Mts G Louisiana⬆
0 Stts N Mt G
3 Stts pt Mt GDelaware⬆, Illinois⬆, Maryland
6 Stts Mt Sm pt f GAlaska, Arkansas, California, Georgia,
New Mexico, Washington
40 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut,
District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina , North Dakota,
Ohio , Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, Wyoming
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 4 : 45 ⬇ : 2
ae 3: Ideniying Eecive teces
G e – lcns adncmntte se suld bse licensue dvncemen n evidence ece eeciveness.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 96/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
94
analySiSNorth Dakota’s requirements or licensure advancement and renewal are not based on evidence o
teacher eectiveness.To advance rom an Initial license to a regular Five-year Renewal license, teachers are required to teachor 18 months and complete our semester hours o re-education credit.
North Dakota does not include evidence o eectiveness as a actor in the renewal o a proessionallicense. North Dakota teachers must renew their Regular licenses every ve years by completing our re-teaching hours and being under contract or at least 30 days o the previous ve years.
Suppg rschttp://www.nd.gov/espb/licensure/renewal.html
North Dakota Administrative Code 67.1-02-02-04http://www.nd.gov/espb/licensure/
reCommendation
■ requie evidence eeciveness s p ece licensing plicy.
North Dakota should require evidence o teacher eectiveness to be a actor in determining wheth-er teachers can renew their licenses or advance to a higher-level license.
■ Discninue licensue equiemens wi n diec cnnecin clssm eeciveness.
While targeted requirements may potentially expand teacher knowledge and improve teacher prac-tice, North Dakota’s general, nonspecic coursework requirements or license advancement andrenewal merely call or teachers to complete a certain amount o seat time. These requirements donot correlate with teacher eectiveness.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.
Stt Ds Nt Mt G b rsd f ts G pgss Snc 2009
a 3: G e N D anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 97/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 95
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
rde Islnd is integrating certication, cer-tication renewal and educator evaluation.Teachers who receive poor evaluations or veconsecutive years are not eligible to renew their
certication. In addition, teachers who consis-tently receive ‘highly eective’ ratings will beeligible or a special license designation.
1. Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi,Montana, New York and Oregon all require a master’s degreeor coursework equivalent to a master’s degree
2. Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Tennessee
3. Alabama, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio,South Carolina, U tah, Virginia, West Virginia
4. Strong Practice: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado,Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas,Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont,Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming
rqd f
fssn
cns1
rqd
f
tndncd
cns3
otn f
fssn
cns ncgd
stt
c2
No4
811
4
28
Fg 85
Do states require teachers to earnadvanced degrees beore conerring
proessional licensure?
Figure 84
Do states require teachersto show evidence of effectiveness before
conferring professionallicensure? C
o n s i d e
r a t i o n g i v e
n t o
t e a c h e
r
p e r f o r m a n c
e b u t p e r f o r m
a n c e i s
n o t t i e d
t o c l a s
s r o o m
e f f e c t i v e
n e s s
S o m e o b j e c
t i v e e v i d e
n c e o f
e f f e c t i v e
n e s s i s
c o n s i d e
r e d
O B J E C
T I V E E V
I D E N
C E O F
E F F E C T I V
E N E S S
I S R E Q
U I R E D
P e r f o r m
a n c e n o t c
o n s i d e
r e d
3 3 11 34
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois1
Indiana
Iowa
KansasKentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland2
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Fg 84
1. Illinois allows revocation o licenses based on ineectiveness.
2. Maryland uses some objective evidence through their evalu-ation system or renewal, but advancement to proessionallicense is still based on earning an advanced degree.
NorthDakota
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 98/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
96
ys1 No2
1. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina,North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
2. Strong Practice: Caliornia, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, New Jersey,New Mexico, Rhode Island
44
7
Fg 86
Do states require teachers to take additional, nonspecifc coursework beore conerring or renewing proessional licenses?
ys1 No2
1. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia
2. Strong Practice: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia,Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida,Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming
3
48
Fg 87
Do states award lietime proessional licenses?
NorthDakota
NorthDakota
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 99/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 97
Fg 88
How States are Faring on Equitable Distribution
0 bst pctc Stts
0 Stts Mt G
0 Stts N Mt G
6 Stts pt Mt GConnecticut, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina
36 Stts Mt Sm pt f GAlaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho⬆, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania⬆,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah⬆
,Vermont⬆, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin
9 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan,
New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Wyoming
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 4 : 47 ⬇ : 0
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
T stt sd m t fng dtc :
1. An “Academic Quality” index or each schoolthat includes actors research has ound to beassociated with teacher eectiveness, such as:
a. percentage o new teachers;
b. percentage o teachers ailing basic skillslicensure tests at least once;
c. percentage o teachers on emergencycredentials;
d. average selectivity o teachers’undergraduate institutions; and
e. teachers’ average ACT or SAT scores;
2. The percentage o highly qualied teachersdisaggregated by both individual school and
by teaching area;3. The annual teacher absenteeism rate
reported or the previous three years,disaggregated by individual school;
4. The average teacher turnover rate or theprevious three years, disaggregated byindividual school, by district and by reasonsthat teachers leave.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research or
this goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
ae 3: Ideniying Eecive teces
G F – eqt Dsttnte se suld publicly ep disics’ disibuin ece len mng scls
ideniy inequiies in scls seving disdvnged cilden.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 100/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
98
a 3: G F N D anss
analySiSProviding comprehensive reporting may be the state’s most important role or ensuring the equitable
distribution o teachers among schools. North Dakota does not report school-level data that can helpsupport the equitable distribution o teacher talent.
North Dakota does not collect or publicly report any o the data recommended by NCTQ. The statedoes not provide a school-level teacher quality index that demonstrates the academic backgrounds o aschool’s teachers and the ratio o new to veteran teachers. North Dakota also does not report on teacherabsenteeism or turnover rates.
North Dakota provides 2009-2010 data on the disparities between the percentage o highly qualiedteachers, depending upon poverty levels and years o teacher experience. North Dakota’s Equity Plan,published in 2006, reports on the percentage o highly qualied teacher at the school level. However,these data have not been updated.
Suppg rsc
North Dakota Highly Qualied Teachers 2009-2010http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/dpi/reports/Prole/0910/ProleDistrict/HQ.pd
North Dakota’s Equity Planhttp://www.dpi.state.nd.us/grants/hqt/NDRevisedStatePlan.pd
reCommendation
■ Use ece quliy index ep publicly bu ec scl.
A teacher quality index, such as the one developed by the Illinois Education Research Council, withdata including teachers’ average SAT or ACT scores, the percentage o teachers ailing basic skillslicensure tests at least once, the selectivity o teachers’ undergraduate colleges and the percent-age o new teachers, can shine a light on how equitably teachers are distributed both across andwithin districts. North Dakota should ensure that individual school report cards include such datain a manner that translates these actors into something easily understood by the public, such as acolor-coded matrix indicating a school’s high or low score.
■ Publis e d cilie cmpisns css scls.
North Dakota should collect and report other school-level data that refect the stability o a school’saculty, including the rates o teacher absenteeism and turnover.
■ Pvide cmpive d bsed n scl demgpics.
Providing comparative data or schools with similar poverty and minority populations would yieldan even more comprehensive picture o gaps in the equitable distribution o teachers.
■ rep d e scl level.
North Dakota should ensure that it is reporting all currently collected data at the school-level,rather than aggregated by district.
Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 101/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 99
■ Ensue d e cuen.
It is important to keep data updated and current in order to provide the public with an accurate
picture o teacher distribution across schools in districts. North Dakota should update the data itreports on the percentage o highly qualied teachers at the school level, as the state has not doneso since 2006.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 102/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
100
examPleS of BeStPraCtiCe
No state has an outstanding recordwhen it comes to public reporting oteacher data that can help to ame-
liorate inequities in teacher qualityHowever, Cnnecicu, New Jesey
New Y, N Clin, rde
Islnd and Su Clin repormore school-level data than othestates.
Do states publicly
report school-level
data about teachers?
A N I N D E X
F O R E A C
H S C H
O O L
T H A T I N
C L U D E S F A C
T O R S
A S S O C I A T E D
W I T H
T E A C H E R
Q U A L I T Y
P E R C E N T A G
E O F N E W
T E A C H E R S
1
P E R C E N T A G
E O F T E A C
H E R S
O N
E M E R G
E N C Y
C R E D E N T I A L S
1
P E R C E N T A G
E O F H I G H L Y
Q U A L I F I E D
T E A C H E R S
A N N U A L T U R N
O V E R
R A T E
T E A C H E R
A B S E N T E E I S M
R A T E
Figure 89
180 10 41 6 5
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming1. Ideally, percentage o new teachers and
percentage o teachers on emergencycredentials would be incorporated into ateacher quality index.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 103/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 101
Area 4: Retaining Eective Teacers
G a – indctnTe state suld require eective inductin r all new teacers, wit special
empasis n teacers in ig-needs scls.
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should ensure that new teachersreceive mentoring o sucient requency andduration, especially in the rst critical weekso school.
2. Mentors should be careully selected
based on evidence o their own classroomeectiveness and subject-matter expertise.Mentors should be trained, and theirperormance as mentors should be evaluated.
3. Induction programs should includeonly strategies that can be successullyimplemented, even in a poorly managedschool. Such strategies include intensivementoring, seminars appropriate to gradelevel or subject area, a reduced teachingload and requent release time to observeeective teachers.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Fg 90
How States are Faring on Induction
1 bst pctc SttSouth Carolina
7 Stts Mt GAlabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, North Carolina, West Virginia
17 Stts N Mt GCalifornia, Colorado, Connecticut⬆,
Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland⬆,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,
New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah,
Virginia
11 Stts pt Mt GAlaska, Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico,
NoRTh DAkoTA⬆, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington,
Wisconsin
6 Stts Mt Sm pt f G
Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota⬆,Montana, Texas
9 Stts D Nt Mt GDistrict of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana ,
Louisiana , Nevada, New Hampshire,
South Dakota , Vermont, Wyoming
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 4 : 44 ⬇ : 3
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 104/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
102
a 4: G a Nrt Data anss
Stt pt Mts G pgss Snc 2009
analySiSNorth Dakota provides mentoring to new teachers through a two-year Teacher Support System Grant
Program unded until June 30, 2011. Districts must apply and be selected to participate in this mentoringprogram.
Mentors may only work with one beginning teacher each semester. Building administrators should selectmentors who have a minimum o three years o teaching experience and have been teaching in thepresent district or a minimum o two years. Mentors must participate in training and have a minimumo 18 hours o one-on-one conerencing time with the beginning teachers. Both mentors and beginningteachers must have at least one ull day o release time or observation. Mentors will receive an $800stipend per semester.
Suppg rscNorth Dakota Teacher Support System Grant Program
http://www.nd.gov/espb/TSSGPMentoringRFP.pd
reCommendation
■ Ensure tat a ig-quality mentring experience is available t all new teacers, especiallytse in lw-perrming scls.
Although North Dakota does provide mentoring to some o its new teachers, the state shouldensure that all new teachers—especially any teacher in a low-perorming school—receive mentor-ing support, especially in the rst critical weeks o school. North Dakota should consider expandingits program throughout the state and continuing it beyond the current grant period.
■ Set mre specic parameters.
To ensure that all teachers receive high-quality mentoring, North Dakota should set a timeline inwhich mentors are assigned to all new teachers throughout the state, soon ater the commencing
o teaching, to oer support during those rst critical weeks o school. Mentors should be requiredto be trained in a content area or grade level similar to that o the new teacher.
■ Ensure tat mentring is sucient duratin and requency.
North Dakota requires just 18 contact hours between new teachers and their mentors over thecourse o the school year. The state should consider whether time requirement that ensures newteachers receive adequate support, especially in the rst critical weeks o school.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 105/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 103
Do states have policies
that articulate the
elements of effective
induction?
M E N
T O R I N
G F O
R A L L
N E W
T E A C H E R S
M E N T O
R I N G P R O
V I D E D
A T T H E
B E G I N N I N
G O F T H E S C H
O O L Y E A R
M E N T O R I N
G O F S U F F I C I E N
T
F R E Q U E N
C Y A N D D U R A T I O
N
C A R E F U L S E L E C T I O
N O F M E N T O
R S
M E N
T O R S
M U S T B E
T R A I N E D
M E N
T O R S / P R O
G R A M
M U S T
B E E V
A L U A T E D
Figure 91
30 18 9 17 28 12
U S E
O F A V A R I E T Y
O F E F F E C
T I V E
I N D U C T I O
N S T R A T E G
I E S
17
M E N
T O R I S
C O M P E N
S A T E D
21
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NoRTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 106/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
104
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Sut Carlina requires that all new teachers, prior to thestart o the school year, be assigned mentors or at leastone year. Districts careully select mentors based on experi-ence and similar certications and grade levels, and men-
tors undergo additional training. Adequate release timeis mandated by the state so that mentors and new teach-ers may observe each other in the classroom, collaborate oneective teaching techniques and develop proessionalgrowth plans. Mentor evaluations are mandatory andstipends are recommended.
STroNG
iNDuCTioN1
lmtd/w
ndctn2
N ndctn3
1. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado,Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island,South Carolina, U tah, Virginia, West Virginia
2. Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana,New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,South D akota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin
3. District o Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana,Nevada, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wyoming
2517
9
Fg 92
Do states have policies that articulate theelements o eective induction?
NoRThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 107/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 105
Area 4: Retaining Eective Teacers
G b – pfssn DmntTe state suld require pressinal develpment t be based n needs identied
trug teacer evaluatins.
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should require that evaluationsystems provide teachers with eedbackabout their perormance.
2. The state should direct districts to alignproessional development activities with
ndings rom teachers’ evaluations.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Fg 93
How States are Faring on ProessionalDevelopment
0 bst pctc Stt
10 Stts Mt G Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana,
Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Wyoming
7 Stts N Mt GFlorida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky,
New Mexico, New York, Texas
10 Stts pt Mt GColorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee,
Washington, West Virginia
12 Stts Mt Sm pt f GAlabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho,
Kansas, Maryland, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Utah
12 Stts D Nt Mt GDistrict of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, NoRTh DAkoTA,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont,
Virginia, Wisconsin
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
n G
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 108/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
106
Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009
a 4: G b Nrt Data anss
analySiSNorth Dakota does not have state-level policy that connects proessional development to teachers’
evaluations.
reCommendation
■ Require tat evaluatin systems prvide teacers wit eedbac abut teir perrmance.
In order to increase their eectiveness in the classroom, teachers need to receive eedback onstrengths and areas that need improvement identied in their evaluations. As such, North Dako-ta should require that evaluation systems provide teachers with eedback about their classroomperormance.
■ Ensure tat pressinal develpment is aligned wit ndings rm teacers’ evaluatins.
Proessional development that is not inormed by evaluation results may be o little value to teach-
ers’ proessional growth and aim o increasing their eectiveness in the classroom. North Dakotashould ensure that districts utilize teacher evaluation results in determining proessional develop-ment needs and activities.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 109/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 107
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Ten states meet this goal, and although NCTQ has notsingled out one state’s policies or “best practice” honors,Luisiana is commended or clearly articulating that theeedback provided to a teacher in a post-observation coner-
ence must include a discussion o a teacher’s strengths andweaknesses.
Figure 95
A L L T E A
C H E R
S
R E C E I V
E F E E D
B A C K
E V A L U
A T I O N I N F O
R M S
P R O F E S S I O
N A L
D E V E L O
P M E N
T
Do states ensure that
evaluations are used to
help teachers improve?
24 12
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NoRTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1. Strong Practice: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Miss issippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island,South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming
2. Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland,Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma
3. Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Utah
4. Alabama, District o Columbia, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nebraska,New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin
Fg 94
Do teachers receive eedback on their evaluations?
ALL TEACHERSRECEIVE FEEDBACK1
Teachers only receive copiesof their evaluations2
No related policy orpolicy unclear4
24 11
3
13 No3
NoRThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 110/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
108
1. Strong Practice: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana,Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Rhode Island,South Carolina, Wyoming
2. Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Texas
3. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Caliornia, District o Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa,Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi4, Montana,Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin4. Mississippi requires proessional development based on evaluation results
only or teachers in need o improvement in school identied as at-risk.
yeS1 on f tcs
w c
nstsfct
tns2
N/n
td
c3
12
5
34
Fg 96
Do states require that teacher evaluations inorm proessional development?
NoRThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 111/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 109
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. While the state may nd it appropriate toarticulate teachers’ starting salaries, itshould not require districts to adhere to astate-dictated salary schedule that denessteps and lanes and sets minimum pay ateach level.
2. The state should discourage districts romtying additional compensation to advanceddegrees. The state should eliminate salaryschedules that establish higher minimumsalaries or other requirements to pay more toteachers with advanced degrees.
3. The state should discourage salary schedulesthat imply that teachers with the mostexperience are the most eective. The stateshould eliminate salary schedules thatrequire that the highest steps on the pay
scale be determined solely be seniority.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Area 4: Retaining Eective Teacers
G C – p ScsTe state suld give lcal districts autrity ver pay scales.
Fg 97
How States are Faring in Pay Scales
2 bst pctc SttsFlorida⬆, Indiana⬆
1 Stt Mts G Idaho⬆
1Stt N Mts GMinnesota
29 Stts pt Mt GAlaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, NoRTh DAkoTA,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
3 Stts Mt Sm pt f GIllinois, Rhode Island, Texas
15 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia,
Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 3 : 48 ⬇ : 0
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 112/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
110
analySiSNorth Dakota gives local districts the authority or pay scales, eliminating barriers such as state salary
schedules and other regulations that control how districts pay teachers. Local districts are given theauthority to “contract with, employ, and compensate school district personnel.”
Suppg rscNorth Dakota Century Code 15.1-09-33 (20)
reCommendation
■ Discurage districts rm tying cmpensatin t advanced degrees.
While still leaving districts the fexibility to establish their own pay scale, North Dakota shouldarticulate policies that denitively discourage districts rom tying compensation to advanceddegrees, in light o the extensive research showing that such degrees do not have an impact onteacher eectiveness.
■ Discurage salary scedules tat imply tat teacers wit te mst experience are temst eective.
Similarly, North Dakota should articulate policies that discourage districts rom determining thehighest steps on the pay scale solely by seniority.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota disagreed with this analysis but oered no urther explanation.
Stt pt Mts G pgss Snc 2009
a 4: G C Nrt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 113/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 111
Figure 98
What role does the state
play in deciding teacher
pay rates?
D I S T R
I C T S
S E T S A L A
R Y
S C H E D
U L E
S e t s m i n i m
u m s a l a r y
S e t s m i n i m
u m
s a l a r y s c h e d u l e
16 8 27
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado1
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NoRTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island2
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming1. Colorado gives districts the option o a salary schedule,
a perormance pay policy or a combination o both.
2. Rhode Island requires that local district salary schedules arebased on years o service, experience and training.
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Flrida and Indiana allow local districts todevelop their own salary schedules while pre-venting districts rom ocusing on elementsnot associated with teacher eectiveness. In
Florida, local salary schedules must ensurethat the most eective teachers receive salaryincreases greater than the highest annual salaryadjustment available. Indiana requires local sal-ary scales to be based on a combination o ac-tors and limits the years o teacher experience andcontent-area degrees to account or no more thanone-third o this calculation.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 114/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
112
1. Rhode Island requires local district salary schedules to includeteacher “training”.
2. Texas has a minimum salary schedule based on years o experience.Compensation or advanced degrees is let to district discretion.
Figure 99
Do states discouragedistricts from basing
teacher pay on advanced degrees?
R e q u i r e s
c o m
p e n s a t i o n
f o r a d v a n c
e d d e
g r e e s
L e a v e s p a y
t o
d i s t r i c t d i s c r e t i o
n
R E Q
U I R E S
P E R F O
R M A N C E
T O C O U N T M O R E T H A N
A D V A N C E D
D E G R E E S
3 32 16
2
1
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NoRTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 115/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 113
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should encourage districts tocompensate new teachers with relevant priorwork experience through mechanisms suchas starting these teachers at an advancedstep on the pay scale. Further, the stateshould not have regulatory language thatblocks such strategies.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Area 4: Retaining Eective Teacers
G D – Cmnstn f p W encTe state suld encurage districts t prvide cmpensatin r related prir
subject-area wr experience.
Fg 100
How States are Faring in Compensation or Prior Work Experience
1 bst pctc SttNorth Carolina
1 Stt Mts G California
0 Stts N Mt G
4 Stts pt Mt GDelaware, Georgia, Texas, Washington
0 Stts Mt Sm pt f G
45 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, NoRTh DAkoTA,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 0 : 51 ⬇ : 0
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 116/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
114
Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009
analySiSNorth Dakota does not encourage local districts to provide compensation or related prior subject-area
work experience. However, the state does not seem to have regulatory language blocking such strategies.
reCommendation
■ Encurage lcal districts t cmpensate new teacers wit relevant prir wr experience.
While still leaving districts with the fexibility to determine their own pay scales, North Dakotashould encourage districts to incorporate mechanisms such as starting these teachers at a highersalary than other new teachers. Such policies would be attractive to career changers with relatedwork experience, such as in the STEM subjects.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiS
North Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.
a 4: G D Nrt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 117/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 115
yeS1 N2
1. Strong Practice: Caliornia, Delaware, Georgia, North Carolina,Texas, Washington
2. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Districto Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Da-
kota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, SouthCarolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, WestVirginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
6
45
Fg 101
Do states direct districts to compensateteachers or related prior work experience?
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Nrt Carlina compensates new teachers withrelevant prior-work experience by awarding them one
year o experience credit or every year o ull-timework ater earning a bachelor’s degree that is related to
their area o licensure and work assignment. One yearo credit is awarded or every two years o work expe-rience completed prior to earning a bachelor’s degree.
NoRThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 118/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
116
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should support dierential pay oreective teaching in shortage subject areas.
2. The state should support dierential pay oreective teaching in high-need schools.
3. The state should not have regulatory
language that would block dierential pay.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Area 4: Retaining Eective Teacers
G e – Dffnt pTe state suld supprt dierential pay r eective teacing in srtage
and ig-need areas.
Fg 102
How States are Faring on Dierential Pay
1 bst pctc SttGeorgia
12 Stts Mt G Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas
3 Stts N Mt GMaryland, Virginia, Washington
8 Stts pt Mt GColorado, Hawaii , Idaho⬆, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania , Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming
10 Stts Mt Sm pt f GConnecticut, Illinois, Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, Oregon, Rhode Island⬆,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont
17 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Indiana, Iowa , Kansas,
Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
NoRTh DAkoTA, West Virginia
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 2 : 45 ⬇ : 4
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 119/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 117
a 4: G e Nrt Data anss
Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009
analySiSNorth Dakota neither supports dierential pay by which a teacher can earn additional compensation by
teaching certain subjects nor oers incentives to teach in high-needs schools. However, the state has noregulatory language that would directly block districts rom providing dierential pay.
North Dakota may oer teacher signing bonuses or accepting positions that are unlled 45 days priorto the start o the school year. To qualiy, a teacher must be highly qualied and must not have taughtin the state during the previous 12 months.
Teachers who are National Board Certied are eligible to receive a $1,000 annual supplement. However,this dierential pay is not tied to high-needs schools or subject-area shortages.
Suppg rscNorth Dakota Century Code 15.1-16-21; 15.1-18.1-02
reCommendation
■ Supprt dierential pay initiatives r eective teacers in bt subject srtage areas andig-needs scls.
North Dakota should encourage districts to link compensation to district needs. Such policies canhelp districts achieve a more equitable distribution o teachers.
■ Cnsider tying Natinal Bard supplements t teacing in ig-needs scls.
This dierential pay could be an incentive to attract some o the state’s most eective teachers toits low-perorming schools.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 120/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
118
Figure 103
Do states provide
incentives to teach in
high-need schools
or shortage subject
areas? D I F F E R
E N T I A
L
P A Y
L o a n F o
r g i v e n e s s
L o a n F o
r g i v e n e s s
D I F F E R
E N T I A
L
P A Y
N o s u p p
o r t
HIGH NEED
SCHOOLS
SHORTAGE
SUBJECT
AREAS
4
21 7 17 11 17
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut1
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland2
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NoRTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota3
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1. Connecticut oers mortgage assistance andincentives to retired teachers working inshortage subject areas.
2. Maryland oers tuition reimbursement orteacher retraining in specied shortagesubject areas and oers a stipend oralternate route candidates teaching inshortage subject areas.
3. South Dakota oers signing bonusesand scholarships to ll shortages inhigh-need schools.
4. Shortage subject area dierential pay islimited to the Middle School TeacherCorps program.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 121/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 119
1. Strong Practice: Arkansas, Caliornia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas,Virginia
2. Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, North Carolina, Washington,Wisconsin, Wyoming
3. Idaho, Pennsylvania, Utah
4. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia,Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,Vermont, West Virginia
Nt4hg nd
scs
n2
7
Stg
sjcts
n3
3
boTh1
14
27
Fg 104
Do states support dierential pay or teaching in high need schools and shortage subjects?
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Gergia supports dierential pay by which teachers canearn additional compensation by teaching certain subjects.The state is especially commended or its new compensationstrategy or math and science teachers, which moves teachers
along the salary schedule rather than just providing a bonusor stipend. The state also supports dierential pay initiativesto link compensation more closely with district needs and toachieve a more equitable distribution o teachers. Georgia’seorts to provide incentives or National Board Certicationteachers to work in high-need schools are also noteworthy.
NoRTh
DAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 122/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
120
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should support perormancepay eorts, rewarding teachers or theireectiveness in the classroom.
2. The state should allow districts fexibilityto dene the criteria or perormance pay
provided that such criteria connect toevidence o student achievement.
3. Any perormance pay plan should allow orthe participation o all teachers, not justthose in tested subjects and grades.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Area 4: Retaining Eective Teacers
G F – pfmnc pTe state suld supprt perrmance pay but in a manner tat recgnizes its
apprpriate uses and limitatins.
Fg 105
How States are Faring on Perormance Pay
2 bst pctc SttsFlorida⬆, Indiana⬆
14 Stts Mt G Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia⬆, Idaho⬆,
Massachusetts⬆, Michigan⬆, Minnesota,
Oklahoma⬆
, South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia⬆
1 Stt N Mts GCalifornia
6 Stts pt Mt GKentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nevada⬆, Oregon⬆
1 Stt Mts Sm pt f GNebraska⬆
27 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Alaska , Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Iowa , Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Montana,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, NoRTh DAkoTA,
Ohio , Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
Wyoming
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 11 : 37 ⬇ : 3
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 123/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 121
a 4: G F Nrt Data anss
Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009
analySiSNorth Dakota does not support perormance pay. The state does not have any policies in place that oer
teachers additional compensation based on evidence o eectiveness.
reCommendation
■ Supprt a perrmance pay plan tat recgnizes teacers r teir eectiveness.
Whether it implements the plan at the state or local level, North Dakota should ensure that peror-mance pay structures thoughtully measure classroom perormance and connect student achieve-ment to teacher eectiveness. The plan must be developed with careul consideration o availabledata and subsequent issues o airness.
■ Cnsider pilting perrmance pay in a select number scl districts.
This would provide an opportunity to discover and correct any limitations in available data or meth-
odology beore implementing the plan on a wider scale.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota recognized the actual accuracy o this analysis.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 124/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
122
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
An increasing number o states are sup-porting perormance pay initiatives. Flrida and Indiana are particularly noteworthyor their eorts to build perormance into
the salary schedule. Rather than awardbonuses, teachers’ salaries will be based inpart on their perormance in the classroom.
Do states support
performance pay?
P E R F O R M
A N
C E
F A C T O
R E D
I N T O
S A L A
R Y F O
R
A L L
T E A C H
E R S
P E R F O R M
A N C E
B O N
U S E S
A V
A I L A B L E T O
A L L T E A C H
E R S
P e r f o r m a n c e
p a y p e r m
i t t e d /
e n c o u r a g e d b y
t h e s t a t e
S t a t e - s p o n s o r e d
p e r f o r m a n c e
p a y i n i t i a t i v e s
o f f e r e d i n
s e l e c t
d i s t r i c t s
D o e s
n o t s u p p o r t
p e r f o r m a n c e
p a y
Figure 106
3 4 512 27
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska1
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NoRTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1. Nebraska’s initiative does not go into eect until 2016.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 125/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 123
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. Participants in the state’s pension systemshould have the option o a ully portablepension system as their primary pension planby means o a dened contribution plan or adened benet plan that is ormatted similarto a cash balance plan.
2. Participants in the state’s pension systemshould be vested no later than the third yearo employment.
3. Dened benet plans should oer teachersthe option o a lump-sum rollover toa personal retirement account upontermination o employment that includes,at minimum, the teacher’s contributionsand accrued interest at a air interest rate.In addition, withdrawal options rom eitherdened benet or dened contribution plans
should include unds contributed by theemployer.
4. Dened benet plans should allowteachers to purchase time or unlimitedprevious teaching experience at the time oemployment. Teachers should also be allowedto purchase time or all ocial leaves oabsence, such as maternity or paternity leave.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research or
this goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Area 4: Retaining Eective Teacers
G G – pnsn FtTe state suld ensure tat pensin systems are prtable, fexible and air t
all teacers.
Fg 107
How States are Faring on Pension Flexibility
2 bst pctc SttsAlaska, South Dakota
0 Stts Mt G
2 Stts N Mt G
Ohio, South Carolina
15 Stts pt Mt GCalifornia , Colorado, Florida , Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska,
NoRTh DAkoTA, Oregon, Utah⬆, Virginia,
Washington, Wyoming
31 Stts Mt Sm pt f GAlabama, Arizona , Arkansas, Connecticut,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia,
Hawaii , Idaho, Illinois , Indiana, Kentucky,
Maryland , Massachusetts, Michigan⬆,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
North Carolina , Oklahoma, Pennsylvania ,
Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,
West Virginia, Wisconsin
1 Stt Ds Nt Mt GNew York
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 2 : 39 ⬇ : 10
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 126/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
124
analySiSNorth Dakota only oers a dened benet pension plan to its teachers as their mandatory pension plan.
This plan is not ully portable, does not vest until year ve and does not provide any employer contribu-tion or teachers who choose to withdraw their account balances when leaving the system. However,the state is commended or oering fexibility to teachers by allowing them to purchase years o service.
Teachers in North Dakota also participate in Social Security, so they must contribute to the state’sdened benet plan in addition to Social Security. Although retirement savings in addition to SocialSecurity are good and necessary or most individuals, the state’s policy results in mandated contributionsto two infexible plans, rather than permitting teachers options or their state-provided savings plans.
Vesting in a dened benet plan guarantees a teacher’s eligibility to receive lietime monthly benetpayments at retirement age. Nonvested teachers do not have a right to later retirement benets; theymay only withdraw the portion o their unds allowed by the plan. North Dakota’s vesting at ve yearso service limits the options o teachers who leave the system prior to this point.
Teachers in North Dakota who choose to withdraw their contributions upon leaving only receive theirown contributions plus interest. This means that those who withdraw their unds accrue no benetsbeyond what they might have earned had they simply put their contributions in basic savings accounts.Further, teachers who remain in the eld o education but enter another pension plan (such as in anotherstate) will nd it dicult to purchase the time equivalent to their prior employment in the new systembecause they are not entitled to any employer contribution.
North Dakota provides teachers with the fexibility to purchase years o service. The ability to purchasetime is important because dened benet plans’ retirement eligibility and benet payments are otentied to the number o years a teacher has worked. North Dakota’s plan allows teachers to purchaseunlimited time or previous teaching experience and approved leaves o absence. This provision is rareand a great advantage to those who move to North Dakota with teaching experience and those whoneed to take a leave or paternity or maternity care, or or other personal reasons.
Suppg rscNorth Dakota Teachers’ Fund or Retirement Member Handbook, eective August 1, 2011
http://www.nd.gov/rio/TFFR/Publications/Handbook.pd
reCommendation
■ oer teacers a pensin plan tat is ully prtable, fexible and air.
North Dakota should oer teachers or their mandatory pension plan the option o either a denedcontribution plan or a ully portable dened benet plan, such as a cash balance plan. A well-structured dened benet plan could be a suitable option among multiple plans. However, as thesole option, dened benet plans severely disadvantage mobile teachers and those who enter theproession later in lie. Because teachers in North Dakota participate in Social Security, they arerequired to contribute to two dened benet-style plans.
■ Increase te prtability its dened benet plan.
I North Dakota maintains its dened benet plan, it should allow teachers that leave the system towithdraw employer contributions. The state should also decrease the vesting requirement to yearthree. A lack o portability is a disincentive to an increasingly mobile teaching orce.
Stt pt Mts G pgss Snc 2009
a 4: G G Nrt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 127/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 125
■ oer a ully prtable supplemental retirement savings plan.
I North Dakota maintains its dened benet plan, the state should at least oer teachers the
option o a ully portable supplemental dened contribution savings plan, with employers matchinga percentage o teachers’ contributions.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota stated that while the state sponsors a dened benet (DB) plan, North Dakota publicschool teachers also have access to a supplemental dened contribution (DC) plan, usually through a403(b) plan, sponsored by school districts rather than the state.
The state noted that many North Dakota Teachers’ Fund or Retirement (NDTFFR) members are vestedater three years (Tier 1 members employed prior to 7/1/08); however, some are vested ater ve years(Tier 2 members employed ater 7/1/08).
North Dakota contended that NDTFFR members who withdraw their unds when they stop teachingreceive member contributions plus 6 percent interest which is well in excess o the interest they wouldearn in a basic savings account. Should the member terminate and select a reund, these member contri-butions plus interest would help und service purchases in another retirement system.
The state made the ollowing additional comment: “It should also be noted that in addition to salary,pensions are important tools in attracting and retaining qualied teachers. Traditional DB pensions havebeen shown to be overwhelmingly and consistently preerred by teachers, oer a proven track record inhelping in their recruitment and retention, and provide a good deal or taxpayers.
“DB plans help attract and retain teachers. Recent studies have shown that younger employees, whenexposed to the pros and cons o each type o pension plan, preer the traditional pension model. Further-more, economists have repeatedly ound that DB pension plans provide strong incentives or employeeretention. Employees with a DB plan tend to report higher levels o commitment than those with onlya DC plan. Public employers rely on their pension plan to help retain quality workers, particularly in aproession like teaching that relies on long-term or career-oriented proessionals.
“DB plans are a good deal or taxpayers. Because o their group nature, DB plans are much more ecientat delivering retirement benets than individual account-based DC plans. In act, a recent study by theNational Institute on Retirement Savings (NIRS) shows that a DB plan can provide a target level o retire-ment income at almost hal the cost o a DC plan. Proessionally managed, pooled assets oered by DBplans help assure greater returns and reduced investment risk, and have served to keep taxpayer costs toonly about one-ourth the total cost o existing teacher pensions.
“The unprecedented declines in the value o individual retirement savings plans in 2008-09 have borneout the long-held ears o many that such 401(k)-type plans alone cannot be depended on to provide oradequate, reliable lietime retirement security. Thereore, promoting DC plans as a replacement or the
existing DB model would not appear to improve teacher recruitment and retention.”
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 128/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
126 : NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
126
laSt word
NCTQ’s analysis is limited to members that entered the system in the 2010-2011 academic year, asincluding all tiers or all plans would be conusing and cumbersome within each analysis. Furthermore,the policies that apply to new teachers represent the state’s current approach moving orward.
While commendable that individual employers may provide supplemental savings plans, this option doesnot guarantee access to all teachers, as some employers may not participate.
The state does oer interest at a higher rate than current basic savings plans. This is a valuable aspect othe system or teachers who choose to withdraw their contributions. The ormer 8 percent rate is similarto oering an employer match. However, interest rates credited to accounts are easily altered, as shownwith its change that applies to all members, and returning to its previous policy o a guaranteed employermatch o contributions would oer more security or teachers who withdraw their unds.
Dened contribution plans can be structured to have many o the benets o dened benet plans butwith the added benets o portability and fexibility to attract new individuals to the proession andto treat all teachers airly or each year o service, not to mention less stress to states’ nancial health(see Goal 4-H). Plans can be structured as cash balance plans that allow the employer to maintain theinvestment risk and to include benets such as disability and survivor coverage. Increased participation indened contribution plans may also result in lower ees more commensurate with dened benet plans.Teachers’ individual accounts can be invested in statewide, proessionally managed unds to align theirearnings and losses with other statewide plans, such as a dened benet plan. Teachers must receiveproper education on topics such as longevity risk, tax implications and annuity options.
Dened benet plans do provide retirement security to long-time teachers but at a great cost both interms o actual dollars spent and the commitment o those dollars to the pension system rather thanother compensation strategies that may aid in recruitment and retention. The benets are so back loaded
and tied to longevity, that the dollars spent on retirement are oten not valued because they are not seenby potential employees. Many individuals may never enter the proession i they know they may not beable to dedicate 25 or more years within one system because they can receive more balanced compensa-tion in a dierent sector. Teachers who move between states, while still dedicating their lie to teaching,receive ar less in retirement benets even though they educated just as many students or just as long asteachers who spend their entire career in a single state. Further, our systems need to attract highly eec-tive teachers who can produce great results, especially in high-needs schools, whether or not they areprepared to make a career-long commitment or only teach or shorter periods o time. A dened benetpension system does not grant shorter-term teachers the same pension wealth per year o teaching as ateacher who was able to teach longer in a dierent assignment.
When oered the choice, more public employees are enrolled in a dened benet plan. However, thereality is that most members never actually “choose” a plan; the dened benet system is the deault
plan. For example, in 2010 in Ohio 79 percent o members deaulted into the dened benet plan, whilein Florida 53 percent entered by deault. Interestingly, in Florida, not including the “deaulted” employees,more new employees actually chose the dened contribution plan; 25 percent enrolled in the denedcontribution plan while 22 percent actively chose the dened benet plan. In South Carolina, 18 percentenrolled in the dened contribution plan, which is impressively high considering that new teachers onlyhave 30 days to make their choice. Despite the dened benet plan being the deault plan, at least acertain percentage o teachers actively choose a dened contribution plan. This shows that certain teach-ers preer a dened contribution plan, and that the option o a dened contribution plan is an attractiverecruitment tool or some proessionals.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 129/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 127
Fg 108
Pension Glossary
Accrued Liability: The value o a pension plan’s promised benets calculated by an actuary (actuarial valua-
tion), taking into account a set o investment and benet assumptions to a certain date.
Actuarial Valuatin: In a pension plan, this is the total amount needed to meet promised benets. A set o
mathematical procedures is used to calculate the value o benets to be paid, the unds available and the
annual contribution required.
Amrtizatin Perid: The gradual elimination o a liability, such as a mortgage, in regular payments over a
specied period o time.
Benet Frmula: Formula used to calculate the amount teachers will receive each month ater retirement.
The most common ormula used is (years o service x nal average salary x benet multiplier). This amount is
divided by 12 to calculate monthly benets.
Benet Multiplier: Multiplier used in the benet ormula. It, along with years o service, determines the total
percentage o nal average salary that a teacher will receive in retirement benets. In some plans, the multiplier
is not constant, but changes depending upon retirement age and/or years o service.
Dened Benet Plan: Pension plan that promises to pay a specied amount to each person who retires ater
a set number o years o service. Employees contribute to them in some cases; in others, all contributions aremade by the employer.
Dened Cntributin Plan: Pension plan in which the level o contributions is xed at a certain level,
while benets vary depending on the return rom investments. Employees make contributions into a tax-
deerred account, and employers may or may not make contributions. Dened contribution pension plans, unlike
dened benet pension plans, give the employee options o where to invest the account, usually among stock,
bond and money market accounts.
Lump-sum Witdrawal: Large payment o money received at one time instead o in periodic payments.
Teachers leaving a pension plan may receive a lump-sum distribution o the value o their pension.
Nrmal Cst: The amount necessary to und retirement benets or one plan year or an individual or a whole
pension plan.
Pensin Wealt: The net present value o a teacher’s expected lietime retirement benets.
Purcasing Time: A teacher may make additional contributions to a pension system to increase service credit.
Time may be purchased or a number o reasons, such as proessional development leave, previous out-o-state
teaching experience, medical leaves o absence or military service.
Service Credit/Years Service: Accumulated period o time in years or partial years or which a teacher
earned compensation subject to contributions.
Supplemental Retirement Plan: An optional plan to which teachers may voluntarily make tax-deerred con-
tributions in addition to their mandatory pension plans. Employees are usually able to choose their rate o
contribution up to a maximum set by the IRS; some employers also make contributions. These plans are gener-
ally in the orm o 457 or 403(b) programs.
Vesting: Right an employee gradually acquires by length o service to receive employer-contributed benets,
such as payments rom a pension und.
Sources: Barron’s Dictionary o Finance and Investment Terms, Seventh Edition; Caliornia State Teachers’
Retirement System http://www.calstrs.com/Members/Dened%20Benet%20Program/glossary.aspx;
Economic Research Institute, http://www.eridlc.com/resources/index.cm?useaction=resource.glossary
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 130/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
128
What type of pension
systems do states offer
teachers?
D e f i n e d
b e n e f i t p l a n
o n l y
D e f i n e d
b e n e f i t p l a n w i t h
d e f i n e d
c o n t r i b u t i o n s u p p l e m
e n t a l p l a n
H y b r i d
p l a n
1
C H
O I C E
O F D E F I N
E D B E N
E F I T O R
D E F I N
E D C O N T R I B U T I O
N P L A
N
D E F I N
E D C O N
T R I B U
T I O N
P L A N
O N
L Y
Figure 109
25 17 4 4 1
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California2
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana3
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NoRTh DAkoTA
Ohio4
Oklahoma
Oregon5
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina6
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah7
Vermont
Virginia
Washington8
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1. A hybrid plan has components o both a dened benet planand a dened contribution plan.
2. Caliornia oers a small cash balance component but endedmost o the unding to this portion as o January 1, 2011.
3. Indiana also oers a supplemental dened contribution plan.
4. Ohio also oers the option o a hybrid plan and oers asupplemental dened contribution plan.
5. Oregon also oers a supplemental dened contribution plan.
6. South Carolina also oers a supplemental dened contribu-tion plan.
7. Utah oers a choice between a dened contribution or ahybrid plan.
8. Washington oers a choice between a dened benet or ahybrid plan.
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Alasa provides a air and fexible denedcontribution pension plan or all teachersThis plan is also highly portable, as teachersare entitled to 100 percent o employer con
tributions ater ve years o service. SutData’s dened benet plan has some creative provisions, which makes it more likea dened contribution plan. Most notablyteachers are able to withdraw 85 percent otheir employer contributions ater three yearso service. In addition, Flrida, oi, Sut
Carlina and Uta are noteworthy or oering teachers a choice between a dened beneor hybrid plan and a dened contribution plan
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 131/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 129
yeS1 N2
1. Strong Practice: Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon,South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington
2. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado3, Connecticut,Delaware, District o Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii3, Idaho, Illinois,Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
3. Although not ully portable, the state’s dened benet plan hassome notable portability provisions.
10
41
Fg 110
Do states oer teachers an option other than a nonportable defned beneft plan?
How many years before teachers vest?
Figure 111
3 YEARSOR LESS
4 to 5 years
6 to 9 years
10 years
3 29 3 16
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware1
District of Columbia
Florida2
Georgia
Hawaii3
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa3
KansasKentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NoRTh DAkoTA
Ohio4
Oklahoma
Oregon5
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina6
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington7
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Fg 111
1. For teachers who join the system on or ater January 1, 2012.
2. Florida’s dened benet plan does not vest until year eight;teachers vest in the state’s dened contribution plan ater one year.
3. For teachers who join the system on or ater July 1, 2012.
4. Ohio’s dened benet plan does not vest until year ve; teachersvest in the state’s dened contribution plan ater one year.
5. Oregon oers a hybrid plan in which teachers vest immediately inthe dened contribution component and vest in the dened benetcomponent ater ve years.
6. South Carolina’s dened benet plan does not vest until year ve;teachers vest immediately in the state’s dened contribution plan.
7. Based on Washington’s Plan 2. The state also oers a hybrid planin which teachers vest immediately in the dened contributioncomponent and vest in the dened benet component ater 10 years.
NoRThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 132/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
130
What funds do states permit
teachers to withdraw from
their defined benefit plans
if they leave after
five years?1 L e s s
t h a n t h e i r
o w n
c o n t r i b u t i o
n
O n l y
t h e i r o w n
c o n t r i b u t i o
n
T h e i r
o w n
c o n t r i b u t i o n
p l u s i n
t e r e s t
T h e i r o w n
c o n t r i b u
t i o n a n d
p a r t o f t h e
e m p l o
y e r
c o n t r i b u t i o
n p l u s
i n t e r e s t
T H E I R
O W
N C O N T R I B U
T I O N
A N D F U L L E M
P L O Y E R
C O N T R I B U
T I O N
P L U S I N T E R E S T
Figure 112
4 5 34 6 1
Alabama
Alaska2
Arizona
Arkansas
California3
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa4
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan5
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada6
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NoRTh DAkoTA
Ohio7
Oklahoma
Oregon8
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina9
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah10
Vermont
Virginia
Washington11
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1. States’ withdrawal policies may vary depending on a teacher’s years o service. Year ve is used as a common point ocomparision.
2. As o July 1, 2006, Alaska only oers a dened contributionplan to new members, which allows teachers leaving thesystem ater ve years to withdraw 100 percent o the
employer contribution.3. Caliornia has a dened benet plan with a small cash balance
component, which allows exiting teachers to withdraw theircontributions and any employer contributions plus earningsrom their cash balance component, regardless o their actionregarding their dened benet account.
4. Once vested, Iowa teachers may withdraw an employer matcequal to one-thirtieth o their years o service. Eective July1, 2012 teachers vest at seven years o service, so a teacherleaving at year ve would not be entitled to any employercontribution.
5. Michigan only oers a hybrid plan. Exiting teachers maywithdraw their own contributions and accrued earningsimmediately and the employer contributions to the denedcontribution component once vested at year our. Michiganteachers may withdraw their own contributions and accruedinterest rom the dened benet component but may not
withdraw the employer contribution.
6. Most teachers in Nevada und the system by salary reductionor orgoing pay raises and thus do not have direct contributioto withdraw. The small mintority that are in a contributorysystem may withdraw their contributions plus interest.
7. Ohio has two other pension plans. Ohio’s denedcontribution plan allows teachers with at least one year oservice who are leaving the system to withdraw 100 percento the employer contribution. Exiting teachers with at leastve years o experience in Ohio’s combination plan maywithdraw their employee-unded dened contributioncomponent and the present value o the benets oered inthe dened benet component.
8. Oregon only has a hybrid retirement plan, which allows exitinteachers to withdraw their contributions plus earnings romtheir dened contribution component; they still receive theemployer-unded dened benet payments at retirement age
9. South Carolina also has a dened contribution plan, whichallows exiting teachers to withdraw 100 percent o theircontributions and employer contributions, plus earnings.
10. Utah oers a hybrid pension plan, which only has employeecontributions when the costs exceed the guaranteedemployer contribution. When costs are less than the employecontribution, the excess is contributed to the employee accouand reundable ater vesting.
11. Washington also has a hybrid plan, which allows exitingteachers to withdraw their contributions plus earnings romtheir dened contribution component; they still receive theemployer-unded dened benet payments at retirement age
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 133/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 131
lmtd cs
mttd3
1. Purchasing time does not apply to dened contribution plans. Instates that oer multiple plans or a hybrid plan, the graph reersto the state’s dened benet plan or the dened benet componento its hybrid plan. Alaska only oers a dened contribution plan andis not included.
2. Strong Practice: Caliornia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire,North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah
3. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri,Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,Wisconsin, Wyoming
4. Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon
N cs
mttd4
5
36
uNliMiTeD
purChaSe
perMiTTeD2
9
Fg 113
Do states permit teachers to purchase time or previous teaching experience? 1
1. Purchasing time does not apply to dened contribution plans.In states that oer multiple plans or a hybrid plan, the graphreers to the state’s dened benet plan or the dened benetcomponent o its hybrid plan. Alaska only oers a denedcontribution plan and is not included.
2. Strong Practice: Alabama, Caliornia, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa,Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,South Carolina, South Dakota
3. Arizona, Connecticut, District o Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana,Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey,North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia,Washington, Wyoming
4. Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan,Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York,Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia,Wisconsin
N cs
mttd4
19
lmtd
cs
mttd3
18
uNliMiTeD
purChaSe
perMiTTeD2
13
Fg 114
Do states permit teachers to purchase time or leaves o absence?1
NoRThDAkoTA
NoRThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 134/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
132
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should ensure that its pensionsystem is nancially sustainable, withoutexcessive ununded liabilities or aninappropriately long amortization period.
2. Mandatory employer and employee
contribution rates should not beunreasonably high, as they reduce teachers’paychecks and commit district resourcesthat could otherwise be spent on salaries orincentives.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Area 4: Retaining Eective Teacers
G h – pnsn SstntTe state suld ensure tat excessive resurces are nt cmmitted t unding
teacers’ pensin systems.
Fg 115
How States are Faring on Pension Sustainability
3 bst pctc SttsSouth Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin
3 Stts Mt G Alaska, District of Columbia⬆, Florida
6Stts N Mt GDelaware , Georgia, New York, North
Carolina, Washington, Wyoming⬆
9 Stts pt Mt GCalifornia , Idaho , Indiana, Iowa ,
Nebraska , Nevada , Oregon , Texas ,
Utah
20 Stts Mt Sm pt f GAlabama, Arizona, Colorado , Connecticut,
Illinois , Kansas, Kentucky , Louisiana ,
Maine , Massachusetts , Michigan ,
Minnesota, Mississippi , New Hampshire ,
New Jersey , Rhode Island , South Carolina,
Vermont , Virginia, West Virginia
10 Stts D Nt Mt GArkansas , Hawaii , Maryland , Missouri ,
Montana , New Mexico, NoRTh DAkoTA ,
Ohio , Oklahoma, Pennsylvania
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 2 : 20 ⬇ : 29
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 135/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 133
analySiSAs o June 30, 2010, the most recent date or which an actuarial valuation is available, North Dakota’s
pension system or teachers is 69.8 percent unded and has an amortization period o over 30 years. Thismeans that i the plan earns its assumed rate o return and maintains current contribution rates, it wouldtake the state over 30 years to pay o its ununded liabilities. Neither the state’s unding ratio nor itsamortization period meets conventional standards, and the state’s system is not nancially sustainableaccording to actuarial benchmarks.
In addition, North Dakota commits excessive resources toward its teachers’ retirement system. The cur-rent employer contribution rate o 8.75 percent is too high, in light o the act that local districts andteachers must also contribute 6.2 percent to Social Security. While this rate allows the state to pay oliabilities, it does so at great cost, precluding North Dakota rom spending those unds on other, moreimmediate means to retain talented teachers. The mandatory employee contribution rate o 7.75 per-cent is not unreasonable, although very close to what is considered excessive.
Suppg rsc2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, North Dakota Retirement and Investment Oce, or the year ended June30, 2010
http://www.nd.gov/rio/SIB/Publications/CAFR/2010AnnualReport.pd
reCommendation
■ Ensure tat te pensin system is nancially sustainable.
The state would be better o i its system was over 95 percent unded and had an amortizationperiod o 30 years or less to allow more protection during nancial downturns. However, NorthDakota should consider ways to improve its unding level without raising the contributions oschool districts and teachers. In act, the state should work to decrease employer contributions.Committing excessive resources to pension benets can negatively aect teacher recruitment and
retention. Improving unding levels necessitates, in part, systemic changes in the state’s pensionsystem. Goals 4-G and 4-I provide suggestions or pension system structures that are both sustain-able and air
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota asserted that to improve unding levels, which declined primarily because o the marketdownturn in 2008-2009, the 2011 state legislature approved North Dakota Teachers’ Fund or Retire-ment contribution rate increases. Employee and employer contribution rates will both increase by 2percent on July 1, 2012, and by another 2 percent on July 1, 2014, reaching 11.75 percent or employeesand 12.75 percent or employers. Rates will return to 7.75 percent or employee and employer whenNDTFFR reaches the 90 percent-unded level.
The state also noted that in addition to the contribution increases, the 2011 state legislature alsoapproved benet modications to improve TFFR unding levels. School districts, teachers, and admin-istrators supported the contribution and benet changes recognizing the importance o a well-undeddened benet plan.
Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009
a 4: G h Nrt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 136/162
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 137/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 135
Figure 116
A T L E A
S T 8 0 P E R
C E N
T
F U N D E D
M A X I U M U M
3 0
Y E A R
A M
O R T I Z
A T I O N
P E R I O D
Do state pension
systems meet standard
benchmarks for
financial health?
16 26
1
1
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan2
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NoRTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah3
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Fg 116
1. The amortization period is set to be under 30 years; however, theamortization period is not determined because the state is notmeeting its annual required contribution.
2. Michigan opened a new system in July 2010.
3. Utah opened a new system in July 2011.
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Sut Data, Tennessee and Wiscnsin provide nan-cially sustainable pension systems without committingexcessive resources. The systems in these states are ullyunded without requiring excessive contributions rom
teachers or school districts.
yeS2 N3
1. Cannot be determined or Michigan or Utah, which recentlyopened new systems.
2. Strong Practice: Alaska, Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida,Georgia, Indiana4, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Oregon,South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin
3. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado, Connecticut,Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming
4. Based on Indiana’s current plan only.
14
35
Fg 117
Are state pension systems fnancially sustainable?1
NoRTh
DAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 138/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
136
Fg 118
Real Rate o Return
The pension system unding levels report-
ed here are based on each state’s individual
actuarial valuation, which use a series o varyingassumptions. One o these assumptions con-
cerns rate o return, which greatly aects a sys-
tem’s unding level. I investment returns all
short o assumptions, the und will have a de-
cit; i returns are greater than expected, the und
will have a surplus. Higher assumed rates involve
more risk, while rates closer to infation (typically
in the 3-5 percent range) are saer.
Most state pension unds assume a rate between
7.5 percent and 8.25 percent. A state using a 7.5
percent rate will report a lower unding level than
i it had used 8.25 percent, even though its lia-
bilities remain the same. Many states report that
they do meet or exceed an eight percent rate o
return over the lie o the plan.
However, some economists argue that states’
assumed rates o return are too high, and should
instead be closer to our percent. They cau-
tion that the risk associated with states’ higher
rates is borne by taxpayers, with the result that
tax rates rise to und pension decits. A rate
closer to our percent would make the vast
majority o the nation’s pension systems lessthan 50 percent unded. In light o the current
market situation, the debate over the rate o
return is particularly timely. With no current con-
sensus by experts or policymakers, NCTQ used
states’ sel-reported numbers rather than recal-
culate all unding levels based on a standard rate
o return. Considering how many states’ systems
NCTQ ound in questionable nancial health
without using the lower rates some economists
preer, it is clear this is an issue that demands
policymakers’ attention.
Figure 119
How well funded are state pension systems?
Funding Level
N/A
118.3%
116%
103.2%99.8%
96.3%
96%
95.9%
94.7%
90.6%
87.5%
87.2%
86.6%
85.7%
83.2%
82.9%
82.4%
80.8%
80.2%
79%
78.9%
78.9%
78.5%
78%
77.7%
75.1%
74.7%
73.8%
71.2%
69.8%
67.8%
66.5%
65.9%
65.7%
65.4%
65.4%
64.8%
64.2%
63%
61.4%
61.4%
61%59.1%
58.5%
57.6%
56.7%
56%
54.4%
48.4%
48.4%
46.5%
Alaska1
District of Columbia
Washington
New YorkWisconsin
South Dakota
Delaware
North Carolina
Indiana2
Tennessee
Wyoming
Georgia
Florida
Utah
Oregon
Texas
Nebraska
Iowa
Virginia
Arizona
Idaho
Michigan
Minnesota
California
Missouri
Pennsylvania
Alabama
Arkansas
Nevada
NoRTh DAkoTA
South Carolina
Vermont
Maine
New Mexico
Maryland
Montana
Colorado
Mississippi
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Hawaii
KentuckyOhio
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Oklahoma
Kansas
Louisiana
Illinois
Rhode Island
West Virginia
Fg 119
1. Alaska has only a dened contribution pension system.
2. Indiana’s current plan is 94.7 percent unded. However, when thecurrent plan is combined with its closed plan, the unding leveldrops to 44.3 percent.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 139/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 137
Fg 120
What is a reasonable rate or pensioncontributions?
n 4-7 percent each or teachers and districts in
states participating in Social Security
n 10-13 percent each or teachers and districts
in states not participating in Social Security
Analysts generally agree that workers in their
20’s with no previous retirement savings should
save, in addition to Social Security contributions,
about 10-15 percent o their gross income in
order to be able to live during retirement on 80
percent o the salary they were earning when
they retired. While the recommended savings
rate varies with age and existing retirement sav-
ings, NCTQ has used this 10-15 percent bench-mark as a reasonable rate or its analyses. To
achieve a total savings o 10-15 percent, teacher
and employer contributions should each be in
the range o 4-7 percent. In states where teach-
ers do not participate in Social Security, the total
recommended retirement savings (teacher plus
employer contributions) is about 12 percent high-
er to compensate or the act that these teachers
will not have Social Security income when they
retire. In order to achieve the appropriate level o
total savings, teacher and employer contributions
in these states should each be in the range o 10-13 percent.
Sources:
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/resource_cen-
ter/expert_insight/retirement_strategies/planning/
how_much_should_you_save_for_retirement_play_
the_percentages.html
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/retirement/
saving/set-retirement-goals
Figure 121
What are the current employer 1 contribution rates to state
pension systems?
Employer contribution rate
Social Security (+6.2%) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia2
Hawaii3
Idaho
Illinois3
Indiana
Iowa
KansasKentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts3
Michigan4
Minnesota3
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey5
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NoRTh DAkoTA
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania3
Rhode Island6
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas7
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Fg 1211. The employer contribution rate includes the contributions o both school
districts and state governments, where appropriate.
2. The contribution rate is set to increase in uture years. Some schooldistricts in Georgia do not contribute to Social Security.
3. The contribution rate is set to increase in uture years.
4. Michigan opened a new system in July 2010 and employer contributionsare not yet reported.
5. New Jersey reports its contributions as a fat dollar amount, and apercentage could not be calculated.
6. The contribution rate is set to increase in uture years. Most, but not all,school districts in Rhode Island contribute to Social Security.
7. The contribution rate is set to decrease in 2012.
10
12.6
10.1
14
10.3
14.8
19.2
9.3
0
3.8
10.3
15
10.4
12.7
7.5
8.1
9.4
17.8
23.7
17.3
15.5
22.6
N/a
6.2
12
14.5
10
8.9
11.9
10.7
N/a
9.9
11.1
13.1
8.8
14
14.5
13.9
5.6
22.3
9.2
6
6.4
6.6
10
7.4
8.8
9.2
29.2
4.8
7.1
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 140/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
138
Figure 123
How much do state pension systems
require teachers to contribute?
Teacher contribution rate
Social Security (+6.2%) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Alabama1
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware1
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia1
Hawaii1
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
KansasKentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan2
Minnesota1
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska3
Nevada4
New Hampshire
New Jersey1
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
NoRTh DAkoTA1
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania5
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah6
Vermont
Virginia
Washington7
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1. Strong Practice: Alaska, Caliornia, Colorado, District o Columbia, Florida,Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey5, South Dakota, Tennessee,Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming
2. Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana,New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,Oregon, South Ca rolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia
3. Michigan6
4. Arizona, Hawaii, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island
5. While not excessive, the employer and state contribution are quite low.The most recent total employer contribution was only 5.4 percent o the
actuarially-determined annual required contribution.6. Employer contribution rates to Michigan’s new system have not
yet been reported.
Fg 123
1. The contribution rate is set to increase in uture years.
2. Teachers contribute 9.4 percent to the dened benet component and areautomatically enrolled to contribute 2 percent to the dened contributioncomponent; teachers may change the latter rate.
3. The contribution rate is set to increase in 2012 and decrease in 2014.
4. Teachers share in the employer contribution through salary reductions ororegoing equivalent pay raises.
5. For teachers hired ater July 1, 2011, the contribution ranges rom7.5-12.3 based on a variety o actors.
6. Teachers in the hybrid plan must make a mandatory contribution i theemployer contribution does not cover system costs.
7. For the dened benet plan; the rate varies or the dened contributionplan rom a minimum o 5 percent.
ecss
m
cnttn
n2
ecss
tc
cnttn
n3
ecss
m
nd tc
cnttns4
26
1
8
No exCeSSive
CoNTribuTioNS1
16
Fg 122
Do states require excessive contributions to their pension systems?
7.3
8
11.4
6
8
8
7.3
3
8
3
5.5
6
6.2
9.4
3
5.4
6
10.9
8
7.7
7
11
11.4
6
9
14.5
7.2
8.8
11.9
7
6.5
11.2
3.5
6
7.8
10
7
6
7.5
9.5
6.5
6
5
6.4
0
5
5
4.8
6
6.2
7
NoRThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 141/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 139
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The ormula that determines pensionbenets should be neutral to the number o years worked. It should not have a multiplierthat increases with years o service orlongevity bonuses.
2. The ormula or determining benets shouldpreserve incentives or teachers to continueworking until conventional retirement ages.Eligibility or retirement benets should bebased on age and not years o service.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
Area 4: Delivering Well-Prepared Teacers
G i – pnsn NttTe state suld ensure tat pensin systems are neutral, unirmly increasing
pensin wealt wit eac additinal year wr.
Fg 124
How States are Faring on Pension Neutrality
1 bst pctc SttAlaska
3 Stts Mt G Illinois⬆, Minnesota, New Jersey⬆
8 Stts N Mt GLouisiana⬆, Maine⬆, Michigan⬆, Ohio,
Oregon, South Carolina, Utah⬆, Washington
26 Stts pt Mt GAlabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii⬆, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,
North Carolina, NoRTh DAkoTA⬆,
Oklahoma⬆, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia,
Wisconsin
1 Stt Mts Sm pt f GNew Hampshire⬆
12 Stts D Nt Mt GArizona, California, Connecticut, Iowa,
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri,
New York, Rhode Island, Vermont , Wyoming
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 10 : 40 ⬇ : 1
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 142/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
140
analySiSNorth Dakota’s pension system is based on a benet ormula that is not neutral, meaning that each year
o work does not accrue pension wealth in a uniorm way until teachers reach conventional retirementage, such as that associated with Social Security.
Teachers’ retirement wealth is determined by their monthly payments and the length o time theyexpect to receive those payments. Monthly payments are usually calculated as nal average salary mul-tiplied by years o service multiplied by a set multiplier (such as 1.5). Higher salary, more years o serviceor a greater multiplier increases monthly payments and results in greater pension wealth. Earlier retire-ment eligibility with unreduced benets also increases pension wealth, because more payments will bereceived.
To qualiy as neutral, a pension ormula must utilize a constant benet multiplier and an eligibility time-table based solely on age, rather than years o service. Basing eligibility or retirement on years o servicecreates unnecessary and oten unair peaks in pension wealth, while allowing unreduced retirement at a
young age creates incentives to retire early. Plans that change their multipliers or various years o ser-vice do not value each year o teaching equally. Thereore, plans with a constant multiplier and that baseretirement on an age in line with Social Security are likely to create the most uniorm accrual o wealth.
North Dakota’s pension plan is commended or utilizing a constant benet multiplier o 2 percent; how-ever, teachers may retire beore standard retirement age based on years o service without a reductionin benets. Teachers may retire when they are at least 60 years o age and qualiy or the “Rule o 90,”meaning age plus years o service equal 90, while other vested teachers may not retire until age 65.Thereore, teachers who begin their careers by age 30 can reach the “Rule o 90” with 30 years o serviceby age 60, entitling them to ve additional years o unreduced retirement benets beyond what otherteachers would receive who may not retire until age 65. These provisions may encourage eective teach-ers to retire earlier than they might otherwise, and they ail to treat equally those teachers who enterthe system at a later age and give the same amount o service.
Suppg rscNorth Dakota Teachers’ Fund or Retirement Member Handbook, eective August 1, 2011
http://www.nd.gov/rio/TFFR/Publications/Handbook.pd
reCommendation
■ End retirement eligibility based n years service.
North Dakota should change its practice o allowing teachers whose age and years o service equal90 to retire at any age with ull benets. I retirement at an earlier age is oered to some teachers,benets should be reduced accordingly to compensate or the longer duration they will be awarded.
■ Align eligibility r retirement wit unreduced benets wit Scial Security retirement age.
North Dakota allows all teachers to retire beore conventional retirement age, some as young as 56.As lie expectancies continue to increase, teachers may draw out o the system or many more yearsthan they contributed. This is not compatible with a nancially sustainable system (see Goal 4-H).
Stt pt Mts G pgss Snc 2009
a 4: G i Nrt Data anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 143/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 141
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiS
North Dakota restated that to improve unding levels, the 2011 state legislature approved benet modi-cations in addition to contribution rate increases as described in Goal 4-H. For non-grandathered Tier 1employees, and all Tier 2 employees, the eligibility age or unreduced retirement benets will increase tominimum age 60 or members with the Rule o 90, or minimum age 65 or those members without theRule o 90. Also, the reduction actor will increase rom 6 percent to 8 percent per year or those mem-bers who retire beore normal retirement age. School districts, teachers and administrators supportedthe contribution and benet changes recognizing the importance o a well-unded dened benet plan.
Suppg rscND Teachers’ Fund or Retirement, Summary o HB 1134 Provisions
http://www.nd.gov/rio/TFFR/Legislation/HB1134%20summary%20o%20provisions.web.pd
laSt wordThe state is commended or moving retirement eligibility more in line with Social Security retirementage; however, eligibility based on years o service still remains, which creates uneven accrual o pensionwealth.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 144/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
142
yeS2 N3
1. This only reers to determining retirementeligibility, not retirement benets.
2. Strong Practice: Alaska, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan,Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey
3. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Colorado, Connecticut,Delaware, District o Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,West Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming
8
43
Fg 125
Do states base retirement eligibility on age,which is air to all teachers?1
Figure 126
T o t a l a m o u n t
i n b e n e f i t s
p a i d
p e r t e a c h e r
f r o m t h e
t i m e o f
r e t i r e m e n t
u n t i l a g e 6 5
E a r l i e s t r e t i r e m
e n t a g e
t h a t
a t e a c h e r
w h o
s t a r t e d
t e a c h i n g a t
a g e 2 2
m a y
r e c e i v e u n r e d u c e d
b e n e f i t s
How much do states
pay for each teacher that retires withunreduced benefits atan early age?1
$0
$0$0
$0
$0
$238,654
$289,187
$310,028
$317,728
$337,385
$337,385
$361,536
$385,583
$385,583
$413,808
$416,007
$430,013
$440,819
$443,421
$447,707
$468,982
$481,979
$485,257
$486,832
$518,228
$520,009
$520,009
$551,428
$551,743
$568,555
$577,142
$577,687
$577,687
$577,927
$585,737
$594,296
$624,786
$624,786
$625,747
$650,011$650,011
$655,506
$664,340
$681,789
$687,265
$734,124
$780,983
$789,343
$791,679
65
$0 67
6665
65
65
52
60
62
55
60
60
58
60
60
56
57
59
57
60
55
56
60
55
56
47
57
57
55
56
52
50
55
55
52
52
57
52
52
47
5757
54
55
50
52
52
52
51
49
Alaska2
Illinois
Maine
Minnesota3
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Washington
Tennessee
Michigan
California4
Indiana
Hawaii5
Kansas
Oregon
NoRTh DAkoTA
Oklahoma
Maryland
Wisconsin
Rhode Island
New York
Texas
South Dakota
Virginia
Louisiana
Florida
Vermont
Montana
Connecticut
Utah
Iowa
Idaho
North Carolina
South Carolina
Nebraska
West Virginia
Delaware
District of Columbia
Massachusetts6
Georgia
Mississippi
Alabama
ColoradoPennsylvania
Wyoming
Arizona
Arkansas
Ohio
New Mexico
Nevada
Missouri
Kentucky
Fg 126
1. All calculations are based on a teacher who starts teaching at age 22, earns astarting salary o $35,000 that increases 3 percent per year, and retires at the ages/he is rst eligible or unreduced benets. The calculations use states’ currentbenet ormulas and do not include cost o living increases. The nal average salary
was calculated as the average o the highest three years o salary, even though aew states may vary rom that standard. Age 65 was used as a point o comparisionbecause it is the miminum eligibility or unreduced Social Security benets.
2. Does not apply to Alaska’s dened contribution plan.
3. Minnesota provides unreduced retirement benets at the age o ull Social Securitybenets or age 66, whichever comes rst.
4. Caliornia’s ormula has many options or retirement. A teacher with 40 years oexperience at age 62 would reach Caliorina’s maximum allowable multiplier o 2.4percent.
5. Age 60 is the earlier teachers hired on or ater July 1, 2012 may retire. Teachershired prior to this point may retire at age 55.
6. Massachusetts’s ormula has many options or retirement. A teacher with 35 yearso experience at age 57 would reach Massachusetts’s maximum allowable beneto 80 percent.
NoRThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 145/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 143
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Alasa oers a dened contribution pension plan that isneutral, with pension wealth accumulating in an equal wayor all teachers or each year o work. In addition, Illinis,Minnesta and New Jersey oer a dened benet plan
with a ormula multiplier that does not change relative to years o service and does not allow unreduced benets orretirees below age 65. Illinois and New Jersey are urthercommended or ending their previous practices o allowingteachers to retire well beore Social Security age without areduction in benets.
1. Alaska has a dened contribution plan, which does not have abenet multiplier.
2. Strong Practice: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware,District o Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina,North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin3. Arizona, Caliornia, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York,Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming
Mt
cngs sd
n s f
sc3
15
CoNSTaNT2
35
Fg 127
What kind o multiplier do states use tocalculate retirement benefts?1
NoRThDAkoTA
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 146/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
144
Fg 128
Double-Dipping: Cure the Disease, Not the Symptom
Benet recipients in teacher pension plans have recently been under scrutiny or “double-dipping,” when individuals
receive a pension and salary at the same time. This can occur when teachers reach retirement eligibility, yet wish to
keep working without losing pension wealth. Teachers can retire, start receiving their monthly benets and then re-turn to teaching. The restrictions on a teacher’s ability to return to work vary rom state to state. Policies can include
waiting periods, limitations on earnings or restrictions to working in dicult-to-ll positions.
Some descriptions portray teachers working while collecting their pensions as greedy or somehow taking advantage,
when in act they are just ollowing the system that is in place. When a teacher reaches retirement eligibility in a
dened benet system, her pension wealth peaks and, ater that, wealth accrual slows or even decreases because
every year a teacher delays retirement, she loses a year o pension benets. For example, i a teacher could retire
with 60 percent o her salary at age 56, then every year she teaches past that point she is, in eect, working or only
40 percent o her pay because she is not receiving her pension. This puts relatively young teachers and the districts
who wish to retain them in a dicult position. Districts want to keep eective teachers in schools, but the nancial
reality or teachers is hard to pass up.
Retirees returning to work are also an issue or dened benet pension system unding because contributions are
not being made to the system that would be made i those positions were held by non-retirees. This adds to the
unding imbalances that many states’ dened benet systems ace.
Some states have created Deerred Retirement Option Plans (DROP) in which retirees can have their benets placed
in a savings account while they return to work and, once they retire again, they can receive the lump sum in their
DROP accounts and resume their monthly benets.
Returning to work would not be a large policy issue i systems did not allow teachers to retire with unreduced
benets at such relatively young ages and i pension wealth accrual were more neutral. An eective teacher
should be able to keep teaching and at the same time know that her pension wealth will not erode. More systemic
xes—like the ones outlined in the Yearbook—are needed. Calls to prohibit double-dipping are not addressing the
real problem.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 147/162
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 148/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
146
analySiSNorth Dakota allows new teachers who have not met licensure requirements to teach under the alterna-
tive access license, which is issued in areas where there is a documented shortage o regularly licensedteachers. The applicant must have a bachelor’s degree in the content area to be assigned, and renewaldepends on supply and demand o certicated teachers available or these positions. The alternate accesscan be renewed annually, but the “license will be issued only once to complete all testing requirementsor regular licensure.”
Suppg rscNorth Dakota Century Code 67.1-02-04-01
reCommendation
■ Ensue ll eces pss equied subjec-me licensing ess befe ey ene eclssm.
While North Dakota’s policy minimizes the risks brought about by having teachers in classroomswho lack sucient or appropriate subject-matter knowledge by oering its alternative license orone year only beore teachers are required to take the required subject-matter tests, the state couldtake its policy a step urther and require all teachers to meet subject-matter license requirementsprior to entering the classroom.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota had no comment on this goal.
Stt N Mts G pgss Snc 2009
a 5: G a N D anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 149/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 147
Fgu 130
Do states still award emergency licenses?1
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Cld, Illinis, Mississippi, and New Jesey requireall new teachers to pass all required subject-mattertests as a condition o initial licensure.
13
27
9
Nonrenewable emergencyor provisional licenses2
Renewableemergency or
provisional licenses3
NO EMERGENCY ORPROVISIONAL LICENSES4
How long can new teachers
practice without passing
licensing tests?
N O D E F E R R A L
U p t o 1 y e a r
U p t o 2 y e a r s
3 y e a r s o r m o r e
( o r u n s p e c i f i e d )
Figure 131
9 814 18
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa1
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana2
Nebraska3
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah4
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming5
Fgu 131
1. Iowa only requires subject-matter testing or elementary teachers.
2. Montana does not require subject-matter testing.
3. Nebraska does not require subject-matter testing.
4. There is a potential loophole in Utah, as alternate route teachers appearable to delay passage o subject-matter tests.
5. Wyoming only requires subject-matter testing or elementary andsocial studies teachers.
1. Not applicable to Montana and Nebraska, which do not require subjectmatter testing.
2. Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Caliornia, Connecticut, Delaware, Districto Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina,North Dakota5, Ohio5, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming
3. Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin
4. Strong Practice: Colorado, Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey,New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia
5. License is renewable, but only i licensure tests are passed.
NorthDakota
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 150/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
148
Fgu 132
How States are Faring on Consequences for Unsatisfactory Evaluations
2 bst pctc SttsIllinois⬆, Oklahoma
11 Stts Mt G Alaska, Arkansas⬆, Colorado⬆, Delaware⬆,
Florida, Indiana⬆, Louisiana, New Mexico,
New York⬆, Rhode Island⬆, Washington
6 Stts N Mt GGeorgia, Hawaii, Michigan⬆, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Texas
13 Stts pt Mt GCalifornia, Connecticut, Iowa,
Massachusetts⬆, Minnesota⬆, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nevada⬆, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee⬆, Utah, West Virginia
5 Stts Mt Sm pt f G
Arizona, Idaho⬆, Ohio⬆, Virginia, Wyoming⬆
14 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama , District of Columbia, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont,
Wisconsin
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 15 : 35 ⬇ : 1
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should require that all teacherswho receive a single unsatisactoryevaluation be placed on an improvementplan, whether or not they have tenure.
2. The state should require that all teachers
who receive two consecutive unsatisactoryevaluations or two unsatisactory evaluationswithin ve years be ormally eligible ordismissal, whether or not they have tenure.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
ae 5: Exiing Ineffecive teces
G b – Unstsfct evutnste se suld icule cnsequences f eces wi unsisfcy evluins,
including specifying eces wi muliple unsisfcy evluins suld beeligible f dismissl.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 151/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 149
analySiSNorth Dakota does not have a policy regarding teachers who receive unsatisactory evaluations.
reCommendation
■ requie ll eces w eceive unsisfcy evluins be plced n impvemenplns.
North Dakota should adopt a policy requiring that teachers who receive even one unsatisactoryevaluation be placed on structured improvement plans. These plans should ocus on perormanceareas that directly connect to student learning and should list noted deciencies, dene specicaction steps necessary to address these deciencies and describe how and when progress will bemeasured.
■ Me eligibiliy f dismissl cnsequence f unsisfcy evluins.
Teachers who receive two consecutive unsatisactory evaluations or have two unsatisactory evalu-ations within ve years should be ormally eligible or dismissal, regardless o whether they havetenure. North Dakota should adopt a policy to ensure that teachers who receive such unsatisactoryevaluations are eligible or dismissal.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota had no comment on this goal.
Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009
a 5: G b N D anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 152/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
150
Figure 133
What are the
consequences for
teachers who receive
unsatisfactory
evaluations? O t h
e r c o n s e q
u e n c e s
E L I G I B L E
F O R D I S M
I S S A L
A F T
E R
M U L T I P L E
U N
S A T I S F A
C T O
R Y
R A T I N
G S
I M P R
O V E M
E N T P L A
N A F T E R
A S I N
G L E
U N
S A T I S F A
C T O R Y
R A T I N
G
N o a r t i c u
l a t e d c o n s e q
u e n
c e s
27 17 8 17
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho 1
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
KansasKentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts 2
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi 3
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada 4
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina 5
North Dakota
Ohio 6
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1. Teachers could ace nonrenewal based onevaluation results, but it is not clear that ateacher is eligible or dismissal ater multipleunsatisactory evaluations.
2. While results o evaluations may be used indismissal decisions, there are no specic criteria ora teacher’s eligibility or dismissal.
3. Improvement plans are only used or teachersin identied “Schools At Risk.” Those sameteachers are also eligible or dismissal or multipleunsatisactory evaluations.
4. A teacher reverts to probationary status ater twoconsecutive years o unsatisactory evaluations, butit is not clear that a teacher is eligible or dismissal.
5. Teachers in low perorming schools can bedismissed ater one negative rating.
6. Local school boards must include procedures orusing evaluation results or the removal o poorlyperorming teachers.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 153/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 151
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Illinis and olm both require that teachers who receive unsatisac-tory evaluations be placed on improvement plans. Teachers in Illinois arethen evaluated three times during a 90-day remediation period and areeligible or dismissal i perormance remains unsatisactory. In addition,
new legislation in Illinois allows districts to dismiss a teacher without goingthrough the remediation process i that teacher has already completed aremediation plan but then receives an unsatisactory rating within the nextthree years. Oklahoma’s improvement plan may not exceed two months,and i perormance does not improve during that time, teachers are eligibleor dismissal.
yeS1 N2
1. Strong Practice: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana,Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington
2. Alabama, Arizona, Caliornia, Connecticut, District o Columbia, Georgia, Idaho 3, Iowa, Kansas,Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,Nevada4, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon,South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
3. Teachers could ace nonrenewal based on evaluation results, but it is not clear that a teacher iseligible or dismissal ater multiple unsatisactory evaluations.
4. A teacher reverts to probationary status ater two consecutive years o unsatisactory evaluations,but it is not clear that a teacher is eligible or dismissal.
17
34
Fgu 134
Do states specify that all teachers with multiple unsatisfactory evaluations are eligible for dismissal?
NorthDakota
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 154/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
152
Fgu 135
How States are Faring in Dismissal for Poor Performance
1 bst pctc SttOklahoma⬆
2 Stts Mt G Florida⬆, Indiana⬆
6 Stts N Mt GColorado⬆, Illinois⬆, Michigan⬆, New York⬆,
Rhode Island⬆, Tennessee⬆
8 Stts pt Mt GArizona⬆, Delaware⬆, Hawaii⬆,
Massachusetts⬆, Nevada⬆, Ohio⬆,
Wisconsin, Wyoming⬆
4 Stts Mt Sm pt f GLouisiana, New Hampshire, Virginia,
West Virginia
30 Stts D Nt Mt GAlabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California,
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia,
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington
Pgss s G Sc 2009:
⬆ : 16 : 35 ⬇ : 0
G Cps
(The actors considered in determining the states’rating or the goal.)
1. The state should articulate that teachersmay be dismissed or ineective classroomperormance.
2. A teacher who is terminated or poorperormance should have an opportunity to
appeal. In the interest o both the teacherand the school district, the state shouldensure that this appeal occurs within areasonable time rame.
3. There should be a clear distinction betweenthe process and accompanying due processrights or teachers dismissed or classroomineectiveness and the process andaccompanying due process rights or teachersdismissed or acing license revocation or elonyor morality violations or dereliction o duties.
Bcgu
A detailed rationale and supporting research orthis goal can be ound at www.nctq.org/stpy.
ae 5: Exiing Ineffecive teces
G C – Dsmss f p pfmncte se suld icule ineffecive clssm pefmnce is gunds f
dismissl nd ensue e pcess f emining ineffecive eces is expediennd fi ll pies.
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 155/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 153
analySiSIn North Dakota, tenured teachers who are terminated have multiple opportunities to appeal. When a
school district wishes to dismiss a teacher or cause, a hearing is held by an administrative law judge.Once the hearing has concluded, the judge has 30 days to issue ndings o act and conclusions to theschool board, ater which the teacher may le an additional appeal with the district court. The state doesnot speciy the time rame or the hearing or the appeal.
North Dakota does not explicitly make teacher ineectiveness grounds or dismissal, nor does the statedistinguish the due process rights o teachers dismissed or ineective perormance rom those acingother charges commonly associated with license revocation, such as a elony and/or morality violations.The process is the same regardless o the grounds or cancellation, which include immoral conduct,insubordination, conviction o a elony, unbecoming conduct, ailure to perorm duties, gross ineciencyand continuing physical or mental disability.
Suppg rscNorth Dakota Statute 15.1-15-07; 15.1-15-08; 28.32-39
reCommendation
■ Specify clssm ineffeciveness is gunds f dismissl.
“Failure to perorm duties” is ambiguous at best and may be interpreted as concerning derelictiono duty rather than ineectiveness. North Dakota should explicitly make teacher ineectivenessgrounds or dismissal so that districts do not eel they lack the legal basis or terminating consis-tently poor perormers.
■ Ensue eces emined f p pefmnce ve e ppuniy ppel
wiin esnble ime fme.
Nonprobationary teachers who are dismissed or any grounds, including ineectiveness, are entitled
to due process. North Dakota should articulate policy that provides nonprobationary teachers anopportunity to appeal district decisions to terminate their contracts. However, cases that drag onor years drain resources rom school districts and create a disincentive or districts to attempt toterminate poor perormers. Thereore, the state must ensure that the opportunity to appeal occursonly once and only at the district level. It is in the best interest o both the teacher and the districtthat a conclusion is reached within a reasonable time rame.
■ Disinguis e pcess nd ccmpnying due pcess igs beween dismissl fclssm ineffeciveness nd dismissl f mliy vilins, felnies deelicin fduy.
While nonprobationary teachers should have due process or any termination, it is important todierentiate between loss o employment and issues with ar-reaching consequences that couldpermanently impact a teacher’s right to practice. North Dakota should ensure that appeals relatedto classroom eectiveness are only decided by those with educational expertise.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota had no comment on this goal.
a 5: G C N D anss
Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 156/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
154
Do states articulatethat ineffectiveness is
grounds for dismissal?
Figure 136
13 389
N o Y
E S , T H
R O U G H
E V A L U
A T I O
N P O
L I C Y
Y E S ,
T H R O U G H
D I S M
I S S A L P O
L I C Y
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona 1
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
IowaKansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada2
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia 3
Washington
West Virginia 3
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Fgu 136
1. It is let to districts to dene “inadequacy o classroom perormance.”
2. A teacher reverts to probationary status ater two consecutive years o unsatisactoryevaluations, but it is not articulated that ineectiveness is grounds or dismissal.
3. Dismissal policy includes dismissal or unsatisactory evaluations, but the state’sevaluation system does not measure teacher eectiveness (see Goal 3-B).
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
olm clearly articulates that teacher ineectiveness in theclassroom is grounds or dismissal and has taken steps to ensurethat the dismissal process or teachers deemed to be ineectiveis expedited. Teachers acing dismissal have only one opportunityto appeal.
1. Strong Practice: Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Wisconsin
2. Teachers in these states revert to probationary status ollowing ineective evaluationratings, meaning that they no longer have the due process right to multiple appeals:Colorado, I ndiana, Tennessee
3. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia,Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois5, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New MexicoNew York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,South Ca rolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming
4. District o Columbia, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada6, Utah, Vermont
5. The teacher is responsible or the cost o the second appeal.
6. Though a teacher returns to probationary status ater two consecutive unsatisactoryratings, the state does not articulate clear policy about its appeals process.
on f tcs
dsmssd f
sns t tn
nffctvnss2
N c
c s
unc4
ys3
38
3
No1
4 6
Fgu 137
Do states allow multiple appeals of teacher dismissals?
NorthDakota
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 157/162
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 158/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
156
Stt Ds Nt Mt G pgss Snc 2009
analySiSNorth Dakota does not have policy that addresses the actors used by districts to determine which
teachers are laid o during a reduction in orce.
reCommendation
■ requie disics cnside clssm pefmnce s fc in deemining wiceces e lid ff duing educins in fce.
North Dakota can still leave districts fexibility in determining layo policies, but it should do sowithin a ramework that ensures that classroom perormance is considered.
■ Ensue seniiy is n e nly fc used deemine wic eces e lid ff.
Unlike some states, North Dakota does not require that districts consider seniority; however, thestate should do more to prevent districts rom making decisions solely on this basis.
north dakota reSPonSe to analySiSNorth Dakota had no comment on this goal.
a 5: G D N D anss
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 159/162
NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011 north dakota
: 157
Figure 139
Do states preventdistricts from basing
layoffs solely on “lastin, first out”?
P E R F O
R M A N
C E M U S T
B E
C O N S I D E R E D
17
S E N I O R I T Y
C A N N
O T B E
T H E D E C I D I N
G F A
C T O
R
11
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
ArkansasCalifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South DakotaTennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
examPleS of BeSt PraCtiCe
Cld, Flid and Indin all speciy that in determining whichteachers to lay o during a reduction in orce, classroom perormance isthe top criterion. These states also articulate that seniority can only beconsidered ater a teacher’s perormance is taken into account.
yeS1 N2
1. Strong Practice: Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,Missouri, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah
2. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Caliornia, Connecticut,Delaware, District o Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa,Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio3, Oregon, Pennsylvania,South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia,Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
3. Tenure is considered rst.
11
40
Fgu 140
Do districts have to consider performance indetermining which teachers are laid off?
NorthDakota
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 160/162
: NCTQ STaTe TeaCher poliCy yearbook 2011north dakota
158
1. Strong Practice: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri6, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio6, Oklahoma,Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas
2. Strong Practice: Idaho, Utah
3. Hawaii, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin7
4. Caliornia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon
5. Alabama, Alaska6, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District o Columbia, Georgia6, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts6,Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska6, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia,Washington, Wyoming
6. Nontenured teachers are laid o rst.
7. Only or counties with populations o 500,000 or more and or teachers hired beore 1995.
SeNioriTy
CaN be
CoNSiDereD
aMoNG oTher
FaCTorS1
15
SeNioriTy
CaNNoT be
CoNSiDereD2
2
lff ct
ft t dstct
dsctn5
23
Snt
must
cnsdd4
6
Snt
s t s
fct3
5
Fgu 141
Do states prevent districts from overemphasizing seniority in layoff decisions?
NorthDakota
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 161/162
Board of Directors
Barbara O’Brien, Chair
Senior Fellow, The Piton Foundation
Stacey BoydChie Executive Ofcer, The Savvy Source or Parents
Chester E. Finn, Jr.
President, The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Ira FishmanManaging Director, NFL Players Association
Marti Watson GarlettFounding Dean o the Teachers College,
Western Governors University
Former Vice President, Academic Programs and
Proessional Licensure, Laureate Education, Inc.
Henry L. Johnson
Former U.S. Assistant Secretary or Elementary
and Secondary Education
Consultant, Center or Results, Learning Forward
Advisory Board
• Steven J. Adamowski, Connecticut State Board o Education • Sir Michael Barber, Pearson • Roy E. Barnes, ormer
Governor, State o Georgia • McKinley A. Broome,Woodholme Elementary School • Cynthia G. Brown,Center or American
Progress • David Chard, Southern Methodist University • Andrew Chen, EduTron • Jean Clements, Hillsborough Classroom
Teachers Association • Celine Coggins, Teach Plus • Pattie Davis, Fairview Middle School • Jo Lynne DeMary, Virginia
Commonwealth University • Michael Feinberg,The KIPP Foundation • Michael Goldstein,The Match School, Massachusetts • Eric A. Hanushek, The Hoover Institution • Joseph Hawkins, Westat • Frederick M. Hess, American Enterprise Institute
• Paul T. Hill, Center on Reinventing Public Education • E.D. Hirsch, Core Knowledge Foundation • Michael Johnston,
Colorado State Senate • Barry Kauman, BK Education Consulting Services • Frank Keating, ormer Governor, State o
Oklahoma • Joel I. Klein, News Corporation • Martin J. Koldyke, Academy or Urban School Leadership • Wendy Kopp,
Teach For America • James Larson, Charles A. Tindley Accelerated School • Tom Lasley, Edvention • Amy Jo Leonard,
Turtle Mountain Elementary School • Deborah M. McGri, NewSchools Venture Fund • Ellen Moir, New Teacher
Center • Robert N. Pasternack, Voyager Expanded Learning • Michael Podgursky, University o Missouri-Columbia
• Michelle Rhee, StudentsFirst • Steanie Sanord, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation • Audrey Soglin, Illinois Education
Association • Daniel Willingham, University o Virginia • Suzanne Wilson, Michigan State University
Donald N. LangenbergChancellor Emeritus, University System o Maryland
Clara M. LovettPresident Emerita, Northern Arizona University
Carol G. Peck
Former President and Chie Executive Ofcer,
Rodel Charitable Foundation o Arizona
Former National Superintendent o the Year
John L. WinnFlorida Education Commissioner, Retired
Kate WalshPresident, National Council on Teacher Quality
8/2/2019 Stpy11 Northdakota Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stpy11-northdakota-report 162/162