REPORT GIVES MINNESOTA A GRADE OF 'D-' FOR POLICIES THAT IMPACT QUALITY OF TEACHERS

A new report by the not-for-profit, non-partisan National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) finds that Minnesota's teacher policies largely work against the nation's goal of improving teacher quality. While the national focus on teacher quality has never been greater, the broad range of state laws, rules and regulations that govern the teaching profession too often impede rather than promote serious reform.

NCTQ's 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook examined state policy across five areas that include teacher preparation, evaluation, tenure and dismissal, alternative certification and compensation. Minnesota earned the following grades, resulting in an overall grade of D-:

• Delivering Well Prepared Teachers: D
• Expanding the Teaching Pool: D-
• Identifying Effective New Teachers: D
• Retaining Effective New Teachers: C-
• Exiting Ineffective New Teachers: F

NCTQ President Kate Walsh said, "The release of the 2009 Yearbook comes at a particularly opportune time. Race to the Top, the $4.5 billion federal discretionary grant competition, has put unprecedented focus on education reform in general, and teacher quality in particular. We believe that the Yearbook provides a road map for achieving a Race to the Top grant, identifying where states are on the right track and where they have considerable work to do.

Walsh continued: “Unfortunately, states have tremendous ground to make up after years of policy neglect. There is much more Minnesota can do to ensure that all children have the effective teachers they deserve."

Among the findings about Minnesota:

• Minnesota's evaluation and tenure policies do not consider what should count the most about teacher performance: classroom effectiveness. Minnesota does not require any objective measures of student learning in teacher evaluations and does not require annual evaluations for all teachers. Unlike most states, Minnesota does specify a process for how districts should make tenure decisions, but there is no requirement that teacher effectiveness must be considered.

• Minnesota makes it too difficult for districts to attempt to dismiss poor performers by failing to articulate a policy for dismissing teachers for poor performance separate from dismissal policies for criminal and morality violations. Minnesota also allows multiple appeals of dismissals.

• Although Minnesota claims to offer an alternative route to certification, its burdensome requirements block talented individuals from entering the profession.

• Minnesota's requirements for the preparation of elementary teachers do not ensure these teachers are well prepared to teach mathematics. While the state's policies do address the science of reading instruction, Minnesota fails to ensure that its elementary teachers are well prepared to teach reading through an appropriate test.

• Some teachers in Minnesota can teach grades seven and eight on a K-8 generalist license, although their preparation is the same as teachers of early elementary grades.

• Minnesota sets low expectations for what special education teachers should know, despite state and federal expectations that special education students should meet the same high standards as other students.

• Minnesota fails to exercise appropriate oversight of its teacher preparation programs. The state allows programs to admit candidates without passing a basic skills test. It also fails to hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.

• Minnesota's pay and benefit policies for teachers—including the state-run retirement system—offer inadequate incentives to stay in teaching. The financial sustainability of the retirement system is also uncertain, based on the state's own report.

Despite these findings, Minnesota has some bright spots, including its performance pay initiative, which discourages participating districts from connecting teacher pay to advanced degrees, as research has shown such degrees are not connected to teacher effectiveness.