Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Counting Teacher Licenses: An Exegesis on Bureaucracy

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

by John Butcher

An earlier post discussed the remarkably large number of unlicensed teachers in Richmond City public schools, as reported in the 2018 USDoE Civil Rights Data Collection.

An email from the Richmond public schools chief of staff responded that only four of about 2,100 Richmond teachers now are unlicensed, unless you also count 38 whose paperwork is hanging at VDOE because of COVID-related backups.

If true, that would show an astounding improvement in just three years. Unfortunately, it was not true, at least in the sense of the federal data.

The Feds count (pdf: “crdc-school-form”) as unlicensed all teachers

who did not meet all state licensing/ certification requirements). Teachers working toward certification by way of alternative routes, or teachers with an emergency, temporary, or provisional credential are not considered to have met state requirements.

The Virginia regulation provides:

The Provisional License is a nonrenewable license valid for a period not to exceed three years issued to an individual who has allowable deficiencies for full licensure as set forth in this chapter. The Provisional License will be issued for a three-year validity period, with the exceptions of the Provisional (Career Switcher) License that will initially be issued for a one-year validity period and the Provisional Teach For America License issued for a two year validity period. Individuals shall complete all requirements for licensure, including passing all licensure assessments, for a renewable license within the validity period of the Provisional License.

But the Chief of Staff said in an email,

Provisionally licensed teachers count as licensed teachers by the VDOE (that was part of the business rules I had initially inquired on).  So that is not the same as the 4 or the 38 I referenced.

So, of course, the RPS numbers can be vastly different from the CRDC data because of VDOE’s and Richmond’s view of what “licensed” means.

We can get some insight into the difference by looking at the 2020 “School Quality Profile” (the only year available) on the VDOE Web site. There we see numbers of provisionally licensed teachers in RPS and the state:

That 2020 state number is 1.9 times the 2018 federal number of unlicensed teachers, while the 2020 Richmond value is 0.68 as large as that 2018 federal number.

To try to make some sense of the two approaches, we might consider the bureaucratic imperatives:

  • Federal: Grow the budget by finding “problems” that can be palliated with federal money. Thus, count all teachers who are not fully and finally licensed.
  • State: Have it both ways – look good (everybody licensed!) but show the need for more money (lots of provisional licenses). Thus, encourage Richmond to count the provisional licenses (in a sense, the learners’ permits) as licenses but also provide provisional license data for the division to use when talking to legislators.

See also the 2020 Annual Report of the Board of Education at pp. 20-21:

Like much of the nation, Virginia continues to face a shortage of quality educators entering and remaining in Virginia’s public schools. This decline is correlated with low teacher salaries and lack of commitment to tap financial resources to correct this crucial situation. Teacher vacancies are found in every region of the Commonwealth, but are not distributed evenly. The number of unfilled positions increased from 440 during the 2010-2011 school year to a height of 1,081 in the 2016-2017 school year, then dropped slightly in the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school year. In the 2019-2020 school year, the number went up to 1,063 (Chart II). The percent of provisionally licensed and inexperienced teachers has similarly climbed. This shortage has reached emergency levels in many high poverty school divisions that do not have the resources to compete with other school divisions.

Make what you will of this. I think it speaks to the need to provide complete and detailed data to the taxpayers who are funding the education establishment. For a start, RPS might pony up the complete counts for all classifications of its teachers, licensed vel non, for 2018-2020, so we can see what their situation really is.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

18 responses to “Counting Teacher Licenses: An Exegesis on Bureaucracy”

  1. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    Good luck with that. Why should this be transparent when so much else is not?

  2. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    Good luck with that. Why should this be transparent when so much else is not?

  3. CrazyJD Avatar
    CrazyJD

    Certification in what? Classroom Management? I think I’d rather have the uncertified teacher who actually knows his/her subject matter. Can you say Teach for America? Give me the really bright recent Harvard grad who knows something. Yeh, my snobbery is showing.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      In a public school? As a teacher? Even assuming the average Harvard grad is somehow that much better than a, uh… what’s a lowly public school?… ah, a UVa grad, then one would have to wonder why such a well-educated, and after four years at Harvard, well-connected person with a command of subject, such as you think they will have, would consider a career of derision and contempt such as appears in this blog with weekly frequency — not to mention at 1/4 the pay they could command. I’d be wondering, “What’s wrong with them?”

      Okay, maybe a UVa grad would be better.

  4. CrazyJD Avatar
    CrazyJD

    Certification in what? Classroom Management? I think I’d rather have the uncertified teacher who actually knows his/her subject matter. Can you say Teach for America? Give me the really bright recent Harvard grad who knows something. Yeh, my snobbery is showing.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      In a public school? As a teacher? Even assuming the average Harvard grad is somehow that much better than a, uh… what’s a lowly public school?… ah, a UVa grad, then one would have to wonder why such a well-educated, and after four years at Harvard, well-connected person with a command of subject, such as you think they will have, would consider a career of derision and contempt such as appears in this blog with weekly frequency — not to mention at 1/4 the pay they could command. I’d be wondering, “What’s wrong with them?”

      Okay, maybe a UVa grad would be better.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Ouch! Yes… apparently some thought that a well-educated person would be a good teacher! NOT!

        Teaching is a significant skill that requires BOTH knowledge of the content AND an ability to convey it to folks who are still in the process of trying to figure out how to “learn”.

        A “smart person” not educated in a particular discipline/field cannot be a lawyer or a doctor or a teacher or even a climate scientist!

        How many “smart people”, for instance, know the Concept of Word which is fundamental to education professionals?

        and really, classroom management? Talk to any teacher about what it means if you cannot manage the classroom. You can forget trying to teach. A failure to be able to manage the classroom means you can’t be a teacher.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Well, there are experts. Some here on this blog. Just ask them and they’ll tell you.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I would imagine that some school systems like Richmond are not the first choice of many qualified/good teachers unless the pay is substantially higher and even then teaching a classroom of kids of lower socio-economic demographics has got to be a tough gig.

    I think folks keep forgetting that teachers can choose where to work and if a school system or a school has issues, they’ll go elsewhere.

    I know teachers that will drive 50 miles one-way to get to the school they prefer to teach at.

    That leaves districts like Richmond hiring whoever they can and so no real surprise that some are not licensed/certified and what would they do if VDOE said they could not hire unless they were?

    If you are VDOE , how do you “fix” systems like Richmond?

    Or for that matter, how would VDOE “fix” some of the schools in Henrico that serve the same lower socio-economic demographic and also do poorly?

    Wanna put a Charter school there to teach all those lower socio-economic kids ? Would you have any better success at getting qualified teachers?

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Yes, offer $175,000 per year with a $1,000,000 paid-up life insurance policy with a drive-by triple indemnity rider.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I would imagine that some school systems like Richmond are not the first choice of many qualified/good teachers unless the pay is substantially higher and even then teaching a classroom of kids of lower socio-economic demographics has got to be a tough gig.

    I think folks keep forgetting that teachers can choose where to work and if a school system or a school has issues, they’ll go elsewhere.

    I know teachers that will drive 50 miles one-way to get to the school they prefer to teach at.

    That leaves districts like Richmond hiring whoever they can and so no real surprise that some are not licensed/certified and what would they do if VDOE said they could not hire unless they were?

    If you are VDOE , how do you “fix” systems like Richmond?

    Or for that matter, how would VDOE “fix” some of the schools in Henrico that serve the same lower socio-economic demographic and also do poorly?

    Wanna put a Charter school there to teach all those lower socio-economic kids ? Would you have any better success at getting qualified teachers?

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Yes, offer $175,000 per year with a $1,000,000 paid-up life insurance policy with a drive-by triple indemnity rider.

  7. Matt Hurt Avatar
    Matt Hurt

    There are a couple of things to keep in mind here.

    First, it is not always beneficial for Virginia to follow the Fed’s lead on anything, especially education. For example, under NCLB, the feds launched the Race to the Top grant, which was their way to entice states to follow their educational lead since the Constitution does not enumerate federal powers in this field. The requirements for this grant caused many states to adopt the Common Core, God awful evaluation models, and etc. All of the literature I have read causes me to believe that if states had it to do over, they would have allowed that grant opportunity to pass them by. Virginia did not apply, and I think we’re all better off for because of that.

    Second (and this was mentioned above), just because the state anoints an individual with the status of certified teacher, that doesn’t mean a whole lot. One of the most successful math teachers of at-risk students I know struggled mightily to meet the licensure requirements after many years of struggle. Those requirements almost robbed at-risk students of her expertise. I have collaborated with a few teacher college leaders about how to produce more effective teachers based on the real world experience in our schools. Every suggestion we made was shot down because there weren’t enough credits in the program to offer anything else after all of the state and SACS mandates were addressed.

    There really should be some more local control with regards to issuing teacher licenses, or at least a local license that is only valid in that school division. In the case of Richmond (or any other division), that wouldn’t negatively impact student outcomes, and it would likely help.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      There’s good, bad and ugly from NCLB and the follow on law but without it, we’d likely not have as much uniform transparency of performance across schools, and districts. Virginia did start the SOLs before NCLB I believe.

      We’d not even know quite a bit about RPS without NCLB requirements.

      In terms of licensure – I’d be pretty leery of local standards to be honest. Many localities would not do Title 1 without Fed money and rules and they’d not even do SOQs if VDOE did not require it. And many would not do special ed at all which was the case for some localities prior to laws requiring it.

      What I would support is a state uniform law for minimum requirements and allow localities to add to them – like we see with a lot of other Virginia code that allows local flexibility but requires minimum rules.

      We need standards. I thought Common Core was an attempt to have SOL type standards nationwide – which is what most other developed countries do and kick our butts on acafemically.

      1. Matt Hurt Avatar
        Matt Hurt

        I agree that the transparency NCLB brought was much needed, but there was a lot of other stuff that went along with it that has caused more distraction from the main thing than promoted student success. I think we would be much better off if they just kept this law to transparency through data and accountability.

        Also, think about it like this. Congress approved the law, and the President signed off on it. How many of those individuals actually read it? They relied on aides to do the analysis, and some probably did a more thorough job than others when they made their recommendations to their boss. Then, it comes up for interpretation at USED, and the unelected bureaucrats there have a ton of latitude in their guidance and regulation. After that, it goes to the state to create their own guidance and regulations. How likely is the spirit of the law to trickle down to the classroom in the manner in which Congressmen and Senators had intended?

        Most divisions couldn’t do Title I without the money because they barely get enough from the state and locality to implement the SOQs, much less anything else.

        As far as the purpose of NCLB, it was partially to ensure that states had standards that those standards were assessed appropriately through their state assessments. For example, states were required to submit to USED comparability studies which demonstrated the alignment between their standards and their high stakes assessments. That part of it was good- we should make sure our assessments measure what we expect them to. However, well intentioned, unelected bureaucrats at USED thought it best to have national standards. So they leveraged the federal funds through Race to the Top (RTTT) grants to shape this process, as well as others. These good intentions have not worked out well in most places, as those states are in constant turmoil over Common Core and other aspects of this push. In Virginia, we were somewhat isolated from all of this, because folks in Richmond didn’t fall for the RTTT ruse. We already had a decent set of standards, and by and large, folks have and do find them generally acceptable.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          re:
          ” I agree that the transparency NCLB brought was much needed, but there was a lot of other stuff that went along with it that has caused more distraction from the main thing than promoted student success. I think we would be much better off if they just kept this law to transparency through data and accountability.”

          I agree.

          “Also, think about it like this. Congress approved the law, and the President signed off on it. How many of those individuals actually read it? They relied on aides to do the analysis, and some probably did a more thorough job than others when they made their recommendations to their boss. Then, it comes up for interpretation at USED, and the unelected bureaucrats there have a ton of latitude in their guidance and regulation. After that, it goes to the state to create their own guidance and regulations. How likely is the spirit of the law to trickle down to the classroom in the manner in which Congressmen and Senators had intended?”

          I dunno but most laws go to the agencies to implement into regulations. They typically DO put out their proposed regulations for comment but still make the final call.

          “Most divisions couldn’t do Title I without the money because they barely get enough from the state and locality to implement the SOQs, much less anything else.”

          See, I see this as the locality unwilling to fund needed education services unless forced to do so by the State/Feds.

          “As far as the purpose of NCLB, it was partially to ensure that states had standards that those standards were assessed appropriately through their state assessments. For example, states were required to submit to USED comparability studies which demonstrated the alignment between their standards and their high stakes assessments. That part of it was good- we should make sure our assessments measure what we expect them to.”

          I just think the high stakes part of it is not good especially for some kids and some teachers. I favor more periodic assessments that DO count towards score.

          And we’d simply not know just how bad Richmond and Petersburg are (and others) without NCLB standards for transparency. Accountability seems less easy if the entire school has issues with a lot of lower socio-economic kids.

          ” However, well intentioned, unelected bureaucrats at USED thought it best to have national standards. So they leveraged the federal funds through Race to the Top (RTTT) grants to shape this process, as well as others. These good intentions have not worked out well in most places, as those states are in constant turmoil over Common Core and other aspects of this push. In Virginia, we were somewhat isolated from all of this, because folks in Richmond didn’t fall for the RTTT ruse. We already had a decent set of standards, and by and large, folks have and do find them generally acceptable.”

          I guess I don’t know enough about RITT to see it as a bad thing necessarily.

          But I thought Common Core reflected NAEP proficiency measures and thus a good thing that got whacked politically.

  8. Matt Hurt Avatar
    Matt Hurt

    There are a couple of things to keep in mind here.

    First, it is not always beneficial for Virginia to follow the Fed’s lead on anything, especially education. For example, under NCLB, the feds launched the Race to the Top grant, which was their way to entice states to follow their educational lead since the Constitution does not enumerate federal powers in this field. The requirements for this grant caused many states to adopt the Common Core, God awful evaluation models, and etc. All of the literature I have read causes me to believe that if states had it to do over, they would have allowed that grant opportunity to pass them by. Virginia did not apply, and I think we’re all better off for because of that.

    Second (and this was mentioned above), just because the state anoints an individual with the status of certified teacher, that doesn’t mean a whole lot. One of the most successful math teachers of at-risk students I know struggled mightily to meet the licensure requirements after many years of struggle. Those requirements almost robbed at-risk students of her expertise. I have collaborated with a few teacher college leaders about how to produce more effective teachers based on the real world experience in our schools. Every suggestion we made was shot down because there weren’t enough credits in the program to offer anything else after all of the state and SACS mandates were addressed.

    There really should be some more local control with regards to issuing teacher licenses, or at least a local license that is only valid in that school division. In the case of Richmond (or any other division), that wouldn’t negatively impact student outcomes, and it would likely help.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      There’s good, bad and ugly from NCLB and the follow on law but without it, we’d likely not have as much uniform transparency of performance across schools, and districts. Virginia did start the SOLs before NCLB I believe.

      We’d not even know quite a bit about RPS without NCLB requirements.

      In terms of licensure – I’d be pretty leery of local standards to be honest. Many localities would not do Title 1 without Fed money and rules and they’d not even do SOQs if VDOE did not require it. And many would not do special ed at all which was the case for some localities prior to laws requiring it.

      What I would support is a state uniform law for minimum requirements and allow localities to add to them – like we see with a lot of other Virginia code that allows local flexibility but requires minimum rules.

      We need standards. I thought Common Core was an attempt to have SOL type standards nationwide – which is what most other developed countries do and kick our butts on acafemically.

Leave a Reply

Read More