Performance audit, Arizona Department of Education, teacher-related programs

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
TEACHER- RELATED PROGRAMS
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
June 1996
Report # 96- 7
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
aUDITOR GENECAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDlTOR GENERAL
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEPUT" A" 0, TOW GENEwaL
June 27,1996
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
The Honorable Lisa Graham Keegan
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Arizona
Department of Education's ( ADE) teacher- related programs. This report is in response to a
May 30,1995, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance audit was
conducted pursuant to the provisions of AR. S. 941- 2958. This is the second in a series of four
audit reports regarding public education.
Although teacher certification is one of the most important functions ADE performs,
certification decisions are based on a number of requirements, some of which are irrelevant,
outdated, or need to be strengthened. The current certification process focuses heavily on
college courses an applicant for certification has completed. However, completing these
courses does not ensure that an applicant can teach effectively. Nationally, at least 35 other
states have moved to performance- based teacher certification processes. Under these
performance- based systems, applicants are tested for basic skills, subject- matter knowledge,
and teaching skills. In addition, many of these states have adopted teaching standards
defining the knowledge and skills a teacher should have. We also found ADE and the
districts can take several actions to help address shortages of certified teachers in rural areas,
and shortages of teachers in specialty areas. Finally, we noted ADE has begun to address
delays in issuing some certificates and recommend ADE continue its efforts in this area.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clanfy items in the report
This report will be released to the public on June 28,1996.
Sincerely,
DO&& R. Norton
~ uditoGr eneral
Enclosure
2 9 1 0 NORTH 44TH STREET . SUITE 4 1 0 . PHOENIX, ARIZONA 8 5 0 1 8 m ( 602) 553- 0333 . FAX ( 6 0 2 ) 5 5 3 - 0 0 5 1
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Arizona
Department of Education's ( ADE) teacher- related programs. This audit was conducted
pursuant to the provisions of A. RS. 91- 2958 and in response to a May 30,1995, resolution
of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This is the second in a series of four audit
reports regarding public education.
The Department of Education, under the purview of the State Board of Education, is
responsible for certifying teachers, investigating complaints against teachers, and
imposing disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct Additionally, ADE assists school
districts with teachers' professional development activities, oversees teacher incentive
programs, and reviews Arizona's teacher preparation programs. Teacher certification is
one of ADE's most important responsibilities. The State requires that all teachers, with the
exception of those teaching in charter schools, obtain certification in order to teach in the
public education system. This requirement is intended to ensure that all teachers have a
minimum level of teaching competency and will not pose a risk to children. Currently,
there are approximately 74,500 certified teachers in Arizona, of whom about 38,000 FTEs
were employed as teachers in public school districts in 1994- 95.
State Needs to Reassess Teacher
Preparation and Certification Practices
( See pages 5 through 13)
Arizona's teacher preparation and certification requirements should be improved to better
ensure teacher quality and a high level of student achievement. Rather than focusing on
the courses a prospective teacher has completed to enter the teaching profession, Arizona
should adopt a performance- based teacher preparation and certification process that
focuses on assessing competency. When designing a performance- based certification
approach, the State should establish teaching standards, develop assessment tools to
measure teacher competency, and reform the teacher preparation process. Performance-based
teacher preparation and certification practices are being used or promoted by
national organizations, other states, and local groups.
Currently, certification decisions are based on a number of requirements, some of which
are irrelevant, outdated, or need to be strengthened. Educational stakeholders, including
the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, district personnel, and a state task force
studying professional development, agree that the State's current requirements need to be
reformed to better ensure teaching quality. Arizona should adopt training, certification,
and professional development practices that better prepare new teachers and allow
experienced teachers to continually refine their skills.
Arizona Could Do More to Address
Districts' Needs for Teachers
( See pages 15 through 21)
Although ADE statistics indicate Arizona has more certified teachers than the number
employed in public schools, rural districts encounter difficulties in recruiting qualified
teachers, and the State has a shortage of certain types of specialty teachers. As a result,
schools often employ teachers who have not met all certification requirements.
Other states, and some Arizona school districts, have implemented partial solutions to the
problem. ADE could provide information and assistance to adopt some of these solutions
statewide. For example, ADE could establish a personnel clearinghouse to publicize
information about job openings and available applicants. ADE could also help to expand
the alternative certification program, assist teachers in obtaining specialty certification,
and provide opportunities for other school workers to become teachers. In addition, the
Legislature could consider establishing financial incentives to encourage teachers to work
in underserved regions and specialties.
ADE Should Continue Efforts
to Shorten the Certification Process
( See pages 23 through 29)
While the Certification unit provides timely service to most applicants, ADE sometimes
takes too long to issue teaching certificates. In the sample we examined, ADE issued 68
percent of certificates in 2 weeks or less, depending on the type of certificate and
application. However, some certificates were delayed. In the sample, 7 percent took over
2 months to process, with the longest cases taking almost 5 months. Application delays
can prevent districts from filling teaching positions in a timely manner and hinder
teachers' ability to find employment.
ADE should continue its efforts to resolve certificate processing delays. Currently, ADE
has initiated a Business Process Improvement ( BPI) team, contracted for computer system
enhancements, and taken other actions to address problems with the inefficient
certification process. In addition to these steps, ADE could adopt practices used in other
states to further improve its certification process. Potential improvements range from
colorcoding application forms to implementing phone and computer systems that would
automatically answer queries about application status.
Table of Contents
Paae
Introduction and Background ......................... 1
Finding I: The State Needs to
Reassess Teacher Preparation
and Certification Practices ......................... 5
Teacher Preparation and
Certification Requirements
NeedtoBeImproved .........................................
State Should Strengthen Teacher
Professional Development. ..................................... 11
Recommendations ........................................ 13
Finding II: Arizona Could Do More
to Address Districts' Needs for Teachers ................................... 15
Background ................................................. 15
Rural School Districts Have
a Shortage of Certified Teachers ................................. 16
Shortages Are Not Limited
to Rural School Districts ....................................... 17
Districts and Other States Have Implemented Several Partial Solutions ............................ 18
Recommendations ............................................ 21
Table of Contents ( con't)
Finding Ill: ADE Should Continue
CEfefrotriftisc atoti oSnh Porrtoecne tshse ............................. 23
Background ........................................... e..... 23
While Many Applications Are
Handled Quickly, Delays Remain
a Problem for Some ........................................... 23
ADE should Continue Efforts
to Resolve Certification Delays .................................. 26
Recommendations .........................................*.. 29
Other Pertinent Information .......................... 34
Arizona's Career Ladder and
Performance Incentive Programs ................................ 31
Backgroundchecks ........................................... 34
Agency Response
Table
Table 1 Processing Time for a Sample of
Certification Actions
November 1,1994- October 31,1995 ................ 25
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Arizona
Department of Education's ( ADE) teacher- related programs. This audit was conducted
pursuant to the provisions of A. RS. 541- 2958 and in response to a May 30,1995, resolution
of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This is the second in a series of four audit
reports regarding public education.
Under authority delegated by the State Board of Education, the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, who administers ADE, has several responsibilities related to teaching. ADE
certifies teachers, imposes disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct, and investigates
complaints about teachers. In addition, the Department provides information and
assistance to school districts, and districts, in turn, submit information about their teacher
evaluation and professional development programs to ADE for approval. Further, ADE
reviews college and university teacher preparation programs in order to approve their
recommended graduates for automatic certification.
Teacher Certification
Teacher certification is one of the most important functions ADE performs. There are
approximately 74,500 certified teachers ( not including 12,600 substitute teachers) in the
State, of whom approximately 38,000 were employed as teachers in Arizona public schools
in 1994- 95. In Arizona, all public school teachers, with the exception of those in charter
schools, must be certified by ADE. In addition, in order to be accredited, schools must
employ teachers who meet state certification requirements.
Current statutes and regulations set minimum standards for certified teachers. In general,
applicants must:
a Earn a bachelor's degree
Complete a number of professional preparation classes
Have a major in the subject they intend to teach, if applying for certification to teach
at the secondary level
Either complete a student teaching requirement or have two years' teaching experience
in the appropriate grade- level group; i. e., kindergarten through eighth grade ( K- 8) or
seventh through twelfth grade ( 7- 12)
Undergo an FBI fingerprint check
Satisfy requirements pertaining to knowledge of the Arizona and United States
Constitutions
Pass a test of basic skills at the 8th- grade level, unless they graduated from an Arizona
Board of Regents- governed institution or passed a similar test in another state.
Recently, several changes impacted teacher certification in Arizona. For example,
legislation passed in the 1995- 96 session ( Laws 1996, Ch. 1, § 1) prohibits the Board from
requiring graduate- level college courses as a condition of certification. In addition, ADE
revised its policy regarding fingerprint clearance. Finally, an internal Business Process
Improvement team and a coalition between ADE and others called the Professional
Development Task Force prepared, recommended, and in some cases implemented
changes to the teacher certification requirements and the certification process? This report
provides additional information about each of these changes.
Organization and Staffing
ADE's Professional Development unit, which is part of the Department's Programs
Management area, oversees a number of functions related to teachers and instruction. The
majority of the unit's 30 FTEs work in the Teacher Certification unit ( 23 FTE); which
evaluates certification applications, issues certificates and endorsements, investigates
coxnplaints of immoral and unprofessional behavior, follows up on results of FBI
fingerprint checks, and maintains data regarding certificates issued to teachers and other
public school personnel. In addition, the Professional Development unit oversees other
programs including career ladders ( a pay- for- performance incentive program for
teachers), alternative certification, teacher testing, and recognition programs. The unit also
sponsors and coordinates a leadership academy for school administrators, and has
statewide responsibility for the federal Troops to Teachers Program ( designed to help
people leaving military service to become teachers).
Scope and Methodology
Our audit focused on ADE's responsibilities regarding teachers, and on the policies that
affect the quality and availability of teachers in Arizona. A combination of several
methods was used to study the issues addressed in this audit, For example, we:
The 40- member Task Force, sponsored by ADE, had a diverse membership including representatives from
university teacher preparation programs, educational associations, the business community, and the general
public, as well as teachers, district and school administrators, and ADE staff. It produced 25 recommendations
for the State Board of Education.
m Reviewed current literature, studies, and reports,
Met with teachers and parents regarding their concerns,
m Interviewed nationally recognized experts and federal officials,
Conducted six focus groups with school district administrators from urban and rural
districts in Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff,
m Reviewed a random sample of teacher certification records at ADE,
Interviewed 12 school district superintendents representing districts on reservations,
along the Mexican border, in small towns, and in poor urban areas regarding teacher
shortages,
r Contacted education officials in other states and reviewed pertinent documentation
regarding certification requirements, procedures, and teacher shortages, and
m Surveyed 21 school district administrators regarding specific proposed certification
requirement changes.
This report presents findings and recommendations in three areas:
The need for Arizona to reassess teacher preparation and certification practices,
Actions that could be taken to address Arizona's teacher shortages, and
The delays in the teacher certification process.
The report also contains an other pertinent information section concerning pay- for-performance
teacher incentive programs and school districts' use of private investigation
firms to conduct background checks.
Our audit was conducted during the period July 1995 through March 1996. This audit was
conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Superintendent of Public
Instruction and staff of the Arizona Department of Education for their cooperation and
assistance throughout the audit.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
FINDING I
THESTATENEEDSTOREASSESSTEACHER
PREPARATION AND CERTIFICATION PRACTICES
" The nation has reached a consensus that American education must be refmmed. Political
leaders and the public are calling fm national standards fbr schoolchildren. Attaining this
goal will require competent teachers who have graduated ffom programs which meet
national standavds. America must do a better job of protecting its children, especially at- risk
children, ffom incompetent teaching." '
The State should reexamine teacher preparation and certification practices because they
are outdated, lack accountability, and fail to ensure teacher quality. As a result, current
certification requirements do not promote effective teaching in the State's public
education system. Arizona should implement a performance- based approach to teacher
preparation and certification to better ensure that the State has high teaching and learning
standards. Furthermore, the State should develop an aggressive and flexible professional
development program that helps teachers continually refine their teaching skills.
Teacher Preparation and
Certification Requirements
Need to Be Improved
Arizona's teacher preparation and certification practices should be improved to better
ensure teacher quality and a high level of student achievement. Many of the current
certification practices are irrelevant, outdated, or need to be strengthened. Arizona
should improve current requirements by implementing comprehensive performance-based
teacher training and certification practices. Other states are already using
performance- based certification practices to produce higher levels of teaching quality and
student achievement.
Cz~ werztt eachp reyaration and certification requirements are not adequute - Recently,
the State Superintendent of Public Instruction stated that " the current process by which
we certify teachers would be scoffed at by most other professions, and dishonors the
Arthur E. Wise, NCATE and the Refirn ofEducatim. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
( NCATE), The New Professional Teacher Project, 1994.
talents of teachers themselves,"' Some current requirements are weak, while others
appear unnecessary:
Teacher Preparation- Current certification requirements related to teacher
preparation programs do not ensure teaching quality. The State requires that all
teachers obtain a bachelor's degree, including completion of professional preparation
courses ( 30 semester hours for secondary certification or 45 hours for elementary
certification), and at least 8 semester hours of student teaching. ADE has not been
given responsibility to provide state oversight of teacher preparation programs.
Consequently, ADE does little more than ensure that certification applicants have
completed a list of required courses. There is no assessment of these courses'
relevance to actual classroom teaching. As a result, state teacher preparation programs
are not held accountable for the quality of their graduates.
In fact, numerous school districts indicated that many education graduates are not
prepared to teach effectively after they graduate. Many suggested that beginning
teachers cannot teach effectively because the State requires an insufficient amount of
classroom exposure for ~ ertificationA.~ s a result, beginning teachers frequently lack
classroom management, discipline, and lesson- planning skills. A superintendent
stated that teachers need more classroom exposure and fewer lectures during their
training experience. A school principal indicated that many new teachers do not
know how to teach because they lack adequate classroom exposure during the
preparation process.
Furthermore, there needs to be more collaboration between the Department of
Education, state preparation programs, and school districts regarding the teacher
preparation process. District personnel consistently indicated that, aside from
Northern Arizona University and Grand Canyon University, preparation programs
often use outdated, traditional techniques to train teachers. There is little outreach on
the part of most preparation programs to determine school districts' needs.
Additionally, there is no formal mechanism that allows districts to provide feedback
to preparation programs about the quality of their graduates.
5 Teacher Testing- Arizona's teacher testing requirements are not appropriate.
Currently, A. R. S. S15- 533 requires that out- of state applicants who have not passed
an equivalent test in another state, and in- state applicants who did not graduate from
an Arizona Board of Regents- governed institution, pass the Arizona Teacher
Proficiency Examination ( ATPE) to obtain certification. This is a basic skills
examination that tests only a candidate's ability to read, write, and compute at an 8th-
I Lisa Graham Keegan. Planfor Eduarhbn in Arizona Arizona Department of Education ( 19%).
I * Many educators identified Northern Arizona University and Grand Canyon University as among the State's
best teacher preparation pmgramsl partly because they provide their students with ample classroom exposure.
grade level. The State does not require a professional skills or subject matter test for
certification. As a result, teachers can obtain certification without demonstrating
competency in teaching skills and subject matter areas.
The examination is a requirement that increases certificate processing time without
enhancing teaching quality. Educational stakeholders around the State almost
unanimously agreed that the examination should be eliminated? They believe that the
test is poorly designed and is not relevant to effective teaching.
Constitution Requirements- The constitution requirements are not relevant to
effective teaching. Currently, A. R. S. 515- 532 requires applicants to either pass a test
or complete a college course on the U. S. and Arizona Constitutions to receive a
certificate. Though not universal, there is strong support among educators for
eliminating these requirements because they do not contribute to effective teaching2
Additionally, the requirements are time- consuming. For example, one superintendent
noted that teachers applying for their elementary education certificates spend as much
time in constitution courses as they do in mathematics and science courses combined
( six semester hours).
Arizona slzould adopt pe# mlzce- based certification practices - The State should adopt
a comprehensive performance- based teacher preparation and certification process to
better ensure teaching quality in the State's public education system. The State should
consider establishing teaching standards, developing or adopting assessment tools to
measure teacher competency, and reforming the teacher preparation process3 When
designing such a system, Arizona should examine various performance- based
certification approaches being used or promoted by other states, national organizations,
and the Task Force.
The State could adopt or modify teaching standards
State should develop developed by national groups and other states to better
teaching standards- ensure teaching quality in Arizona's public education system.
Performance- based teacher certification approaches establish
standards, based on a common core of knowledge and skills,
that describe what teachers should know and be able to do. These standards cover a wide
ARS. 815533 would need to be repealed and W- 2404 would need to be amended to eliminate the requirement
for the Arizona Teacher Proficiency Examination.
Most of the educational stakeholders who supported the constitution requirements did so because they received
personal satisfaction from learning about the US. and Arizona Constitutions. They did not support the
requirements because they produce more effective teachers.
The Mmember Skills Review Committee, the successor to the Task Force, has recently drafted new teaching
standards. These standards have not yet been approved by the Board.
range of teaching competencies, including subject knowledge, teaching skills, and
classroom management techniques.
Such standards are widely recommended by experts. Some in- state groups, such as the
Task Force, have recommended that Arizona educators design statewide teaching
standards. Additionally, national organizations, such as the U. S. Department of
Education, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, the Holmes
Group, and the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future have all
recommended that states develop and implement teaching standards.'"
Nationally, professional standards for teachers have already been developed by various
groups, including the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards and the Interstate
New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium 0Th. ese groups ha ve designed
both general teaching standards and subject- matter standards. For example, one INTASC
general standard requires that " the teacher effectively uses multiple representations and
explanations ... that capture key ideas and link them to students' prior understandings."
INTASC subject- matter standards require, for example, that mathematics teachers can
identify real world applications, formulate problems and solve them using different
strategies, verify and interpret results, and generalize solutions.
Other states have also adopted or developed such standards. In some states, agencies like
ADE have coordinated the development:
E New Mexico established nine essential teaching competencies and indicators for teacher
certification. These standards were developed by a number of task force groups
consisting of representatives from all areas of the educational spectrum. Colorado and
New York contracted with National Evaluation Systems ( NES) to develop and
administer performance standards and assessments for beginning teachers. State
educators validated the assessment questions and exercises NES developed.
In other states, an independent professional standards board developed the standards:
Oregon's Teacher Standards and Practices Commission designed the State's professional
teaching standards. The Commission is an autonomous board, with broad
representation, responsible for all facets of the teacher certification process. California's
1 The Wolmes Group, a consortium of College of Education dem faom universities across the country, is
studying ways to enhance the quality of teacher education.
2 ' Ihe National Commission on Teaching and America's Future is a " blue- chip" group of public officials, business
and commdty leaders, and educators examining how to better prepare teachers for the next century.
Commission on Teacher Credentialing developed teaching standards in 1974, and
completely revised them in 1988 to better measure teaching quality. 1
Once standards have been developed, the State
strengthen teacher should consider adopting a stringent teacher
testing requirements - testing process to ensure that teachers possess
teaching competency prior to certification. Teacher
testing is a common method of assessing tKe pr6fessiokl skills and subject- matter
knowledge of teachers. Currently, 35 states require subject- matter examinations, 28 states
require teaching skills examinations, and 7 states require performance assessment
examinations for certification. Arizona does not require any of these types of tests for
certification, but should consider adopting one of the teacher testing systems available
nationally to better ensure teaching quality. For example:
At least 35 states use exams developed by either NES or ETS. These organizations have
designed teacher tests for basic skills, subject- matter knowledge, and teaching skills.
NES assists states with implementing and administering tests, and implementation
costs to the state are minimal. For example, NES provides the money to develop,
implement, and administer teacher tests. NES then collects fees from applicants to
recover initial expenses. These fees generally range from $ 40 to $ 150 per applicant,
depending on the extent of the testing.
New Mexico has a three- tiered testing process. Applicants must pass a basic skills tests
to enter a teacher preparation program. Teaching candidates must pass a subject- matter
and teaching skills examination for initial certification. Teachers are tested a third time
at the district level as soon as they are ready, anytime within the first three years of
teaching experience. At that time, teachers must demonstrate competency in the State's
teaching standards to receive standard certification; for example, they must use a
variety of teaching and student evaluation techniques.
Oregon requires applicants to pass a basic skills test to enter a teacher preparation
program. The State also requires teaching applicants to pass a professional knowledge
test and a subject- matter test as a condition for certification.
New York's teacher certification examinations'test applicants' subject knowledge,
teaching skills, and actual classroom performance.
1 Currently, 13 states ( ~ o r n i aG, e orgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota,
Oregon, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming) have independent professional standards boards.
Finally, Arizona's teacher preparation process
State should reform the teacher should focus more on outcomes ( teacher
preparation process - competency) and less on inputs ( specific course
work requirements). Currently, ADE simply checks
that programs require graduates to complete
specific courses so that they may be authorized to recommend their graduates for
automatic certification. Instead, the State should encourage preparation programs to use
advanced techniques to train teachers in accordance with state teaching standards. ADE
should dissemiriate information and generate discussion between districts and preparation
programs regarding training techniques and the needs of beginning teachers. In addition,
the State should periodically audit programs to ensure that they are teaching in accordance
with state standards. Various Arizona educational stakeholders, including the Department
of Education, district personnel, and the Task Force, support these concepts.
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction recently urged state preparation
programs to reform the way they prepare teachers. She stated that " teacher colleges
can no longer remain faithful to once- effective instructional methods and curriculum
in light of the changes taking place." 1 Additionally, various district personnel indicated
that preparation programs should be encouraged to provide their students with more
student teaching experience, and to start it earlier in the program, using the most
advanced teaching techniques available.
The Task Force recommended that ADE approve education programs on the basis of
their graduates' proficiency in the new standards and their classroom performance.
They added that ADE should establish systematic communication between schools
and education programs regarding the programs' relevance to job performance. They
also recommended that programs be reviewed on a regular basis.
Other states with performance- based certifications systems could serve as models for
improving Arizona's teacher preparation processes:
New York approves all teacher preparation programs. There is a five- year approval
process, which includes paper audits and on- site visits by Department of Education
personnel and outside consultants. New York expects preparation programs to teach
to state- designed performance standards. Similarly, California's Commission on
Teacher Credentialing approves all teacher preparation programs. All schools must
demonstrate that they are teaching in accordance with state teaching standards. The
Commission audits each program every six years. In addition, the Commission's
evaluation team conducts extensive reviews of the success of each program's graduates.
1 Lisa Graham Keegan. Planfi Education in Arizona. Arizona Department of Education, 19%.
10
Colorado allows universities to design their own preparation programs and does not
mandate specific courses. Graduating students compile personal portfolios that
demonstrate their teaching competency. These portfolios contain information about
the student's training experience, including examples of their lesson plans, videotapes
of their classroom performance, and their individual student development plans. The
State provides the basic structure for the portfolios including standards for what
teachers should be able to accomplish, but it is the teachefs responsibility to work with
the preparation program to use the portfolios to assess progress toward individual
goals. Colorado also provides feedback to the universities regarding the quality of their
graduates.
State Should Strengthen
Teacher Professional Development
In addition to strengthening entry- level certification requirements, Arizona should
consider implementing an aggressive and flexible professional development program to
help maintain teaching quality. Currently, the State does not have any professional
development requirements. However, research suggests that continuing professional
development is critical for effective teaching. Therefore, the State should, at a minimum,
provide assistance to districts with their specific professional development needs.
Recent legislation eliminated a requirement that all teachers obtain either a master's degree
or 40 semester hours of graduate credit by the end of their first 8 years of teaching. Laws
1996, Ch. 1, 51 ( A. R. S. 515- 203) prohibits the State from requiring any graduate- level
courses as a condition for certification. As a result, Arizona now has an opportunity to
design a more meaningful state- level professional development program.
Professional developnseist iiispottant- Researchers and members of the education
community generally agree that professional development is essential for effective
teaching. For example, a recent U. S. Department of Education report linked higher student
achievement to higher teaching quality that had been attained through professional
development and practice. Additionally, a 1986 report by the Carnegie Task Force on
Teaching called for the creation of a National Board of Professional Teaching Standards
to " improve student learning" through professional practice and development1 Other
research groups, including the National Staff Development Council, also link professional
development to increased student learning.
Many options exist- There are many ways to accomplish effective professional
development However, before designing a professional development program, the State
Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. A Nation Prepared: Teachers@ the 21st Century. ( New York,
1986).
should examine professional development programs being used or promoted by other
states, the Task Force, and local districts.
E Iowa and New York do not have any specific requirements for professional
development. Iowa allows districts complete freedom to design professional
development plans for their teachers, and certificate renewal is based upon district
recommendations. Iowa has designed a variety of professional development models,
and establiihed regional service agencies to assist districts with professional
development Similarly, New York makes professional development the responsibility
of districts. However, 25 Teacher Centers, linked together by computer and
administered by teachers, conduct needs assessments to determine the areas where
teachers need professional development, and provide professional development
activities. The State partially funds these centers ($ 8 million in fiscal year 1995- 96).
California requires 150 clock hours of professional development for certificate renewal
every 5 years. Teachers work with local advisors ( generally fellow teachers or school
principals) to design individualized professional development plans. Teachers must
submit their completed professional development portfolios, signed by their advisors,
to indicate all plan steps were accomplished, to the State for certificate renewal. The
State also conducts occasional studies on teachers' success in the area of professional
development
In Arizona, many educators recommend a flexible, decentralized approach:
The Professional Development Task Force recommended that districts develop a
professional development plan for each teacher. The Task Force also recommended
that the Department of Education " provide networking and promotion of best
practices'' for professional development and that the Legislature provide funding for
professional development1
Most district superintendents and personnel directors supported a decentralized
approach to professional development Under such a system, the State might establish
minimum requirements, such as total combined in- service and continuing education
hours. Districts would have flexibility in designing individualized professional
development plans for their teachers. The State could provide assistance to districts
with their specific professional development needs.
1 The Task Force rearmmended that the Legislature fund professional development at a rate of 3 percent of salary.
Although statewide figures on total teacher salaries are not readily available, one estimate shows the cost of
funding at this level would be over $ 38 million.
Some districts already have extensive programs in place:
I Alhambra Unified School District ( USD) and Mesa USD have aggressive professional
development programs. Alhambra's program directly links professional development
and teacher evaluations to student achievement. The District offers 53 professional
development courses and activities each semester. Mesa offers between 60 to 100 in-service
training courses each semester, and requires teachers to submit professional
growth plank A district educational management group coordinates and disseminates
information about professional development activities throughout the District.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Legislature and the Board of Education should consider eliminating unnecessary
certification requirements by:
Repealing A. R. S. 515- 533, which requires a basic skills examination for some
applicants applying for certification,
Eliminating requirements for the Arizona Teacher Proficiency Examination in R7- 2-
604, and
Repealing A. R. S. 515532 which requires all applicants for certification to pass an
examination on the U. S. and Arizona Constitutions.
2. The Board of Education should establish a performance- based teacher certification
system by:
Developing standards for teacher knowledge and skills,
Testing applicants on subject matter and professional skills reflecting the standards,
and
Providing systematic feedback to teacher preparation programs on the ability of
their graduates to meet state teaching standards.
3. The Board of Education and ADE should, at a minimum, encourage continuing
professional development of teachers by providing assistance and information to
districts, particularly about professional development " best practices."
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
FINDING II
ARIZONA COULD DO MORE TO ADDRESS
DISTRICTS' NEEDS FOR TEACHERS
Although ADE records show Arizona has many more certified teachers than the number
working in the public school system, rural districts and districts seeking certain types of
specialty teachers cannot find enough qualified applicants to fill all their positions. Rural
districts sometime have difficulty filling positions in general subject areas such as math,
science, and English. Statewide, districts have difficulty finding an adequate number of
certified special education, bilingual, English as a Second Language ( ESL), and substitute
teachers. While these problems have no simple solutions, several actions would help to
address the shortages.
Background
To meet legal and accreditation requirements, districts must generally employ only
certified teachers, although districts can also meet immediate needs by using three types
of underqualified teachers. Holders of elementary certificates can teach in kindergarten
through 8th grade, while holders of secondary certificates can teach in the 7th through
12th grades. At the secondary level, certificates speclfy the subject the teacher is qualified
to teach, and districts must use teachers with correct qualifications for all subjects required
by the State Board. At all levels, special training is required for certification or
endorsement to teach ESL, bilingual, and special education classes.' Arizona regulations
allow three kinds of exceptions to the certification requirements. First, an applicant who
lacks certain requirements ( constitution knowledge, mathematics, reading, or the Arizona
Teacher Proficiency Examination) can obtain a certificate that allows him or her to teach
for one year while making up the deficiencies. Second, an applicant who lacks other
requirements but has a bachelor's degree can obtain a one- year emergency certificate if
a district superintendent requests that such a certificate be granted due to a district
emergency. Finally, ADE offers provisional certificates for vocational, bilingual, and certain
other specialties to applicants who meet some but not all requirements and demonstrate
they are working toward meeting the remaining requirements. Teachers holding
emergency or provisional certificates are referred to as underqualified.
1 An endorsement is an addition to a certificate, indicating that the holder is qualified in a specialized area such
as bilingual education in addition to the general qualification indicated by the certificate itself.
Rural School Districts Have a
Shortage of Certified Teachers
Many rural districts have a shortage of certified teachers in general content areas such as
math, science, and English, as well as in the specialty areas that are problematic statewide.
As a result, districts are forced to assign certified teachers to teach subjects in which they
are not certified, consolidate and/ or cancel classes, and hire teachers who have emergency
or provisional certificates. Several factors contribute to teacher shortages in rural districts.
Many school districts outside the major metropolitan areas have significant shortages of
certified teachers, as indicated by their employment of underqualified teachers ( teachers
holding emergency or provisional certificates). According to ADE records, in the 1994- 95
school year, 1,837 of the State's 33,335 full- time teachers ( 5.5 percent) had these types of
certificates. These teachers worked in 154 of the State's 219 districts. That year, 22
districts - 21 outside the metropolitan areas - used underqualified teachers to fill over one-fifth
of their full- time teaching positions, and in 10 of these districts, 1 teacher in 3 was
underqualified. Our interviews with district superintendents found that in February 1996,
each of the 12 districts we contacted were using 1 or more underqualified teachers in
several types of classrooms. These 12 districts employed a total of 122 underqualified
teachers, with one district located in a metropolitan area employing 32 underqualified
teachers and a district located on an Indian reservation employing 41 underqualified
teachers. Although the classes taught by underqualified teachers are generally in specialty
areas such as English as a Second Language, underqualified teachers filled 45 positions
in such areas as English, math, auto mechanics, and gifted education.
Eight of the nine rural district superintendents surveyed identified the shortage of certified
teachers as either a " very serious" or " somewhat serious" problem. The other stated that
the shortage of specialty teachers is a very serious problem. According to these officials,
their districts must:
Spend time and money recruiting teachers from other states. Recruiting out- of- state
teachers often requires school district officials to attend job fairs in other states, which
is time- consuming as well as expensive. One official stated that his district spends
$ 12,000 to $ 15,000 per year on recruiting, and another said approximately 17 percent
of the teachers his district hired this year were from out of state. One district reported
that many of these out- of- state teachers leave after only two or three years of
employment, contributing up to 70 percent of that districts 30- 50 percent turnover rate.
Cancel or consolidate classes. Sometimes, school districts must cancel classes because
they lack the necessary number and type of teachers. One official stated that his district
has canceled two separate language courses ( Spanish and German) because the district
has been unable to fill the vacancies. He reported that the students had to be
consolidated into other classes.
Assign teachers to teach subjects they are not certified to teach. Several district officials
surveyed said they have to use teachers certified in one subject to teach another subject
in which they are not certified. For example, one district uses a certified elementary
teacher as a special education teacher, even though this teacher has not been trained
or certified to teach these special- needs children.
Smml factm make rural districts unappealing to Arizona graduates - Although rural
districts attempt'to recruit in- state education graduates, they are unable to compete with
urban school districts for the limited number of quality teachers. The majority of the rural
districts surveyed reported that their geographic locations impede their in- state recruiting
efforts. Rural districts often lack available housing- in fact, one official from a district
located on an Indian reservation stated there are no homes within 30 miles of its schools,
and a superintendent in another rural community indicated that many district teachers
commute 3 hours daily from Phoenix due to a lack of suitable housing in town. In addition,
rural districts may offer less access to professional development, and sometimes make
more demands on teachers by asking teachers to spend more time on duties other than
teaching, such as performing custodial activities and coaching. While reservation districts
can sometimes pay salaries comparable to urban districts,' some of the rural district
officials we spoke to said their salaries were not competitive with the metropolitan areas.
Shortages Are Not Limited
to Rural School Districts
Statewide, school districts in all areas encounter a shortage of special education, ESL, and
bilingual teachers, and certified substitutes. Even urban school districts have significant
difficulty finding and hiring teachers in these specialties.
All of the districts surveyed, including those in urban areas, reported difficulty in hiring
and retaining enough certified special education, ESL, and bilingual teachers. ADE figures
show that in 1994- 95, only about 70 percent of the statewide demand for special education
teachers was met with fully certified teachers. That year, Arizona school districts had 306
special education positions, but employed only 214 fully certified special education
teachers. Districts filled 85 positions with underqualified teachers, and had 7 vacancies.
Further, all three urban school district officials surveyed described the shortage of specialty
teachers as either " somewhat seriousff or " very serious." According to these officials, their
districts must cancel classes, consolidate their classes with those in other districts, and use
substitute teachers to cover vacancies. For example, one district has been forced to staff
its classroom for severely and moderately handicapped special education students with
a teacher aide and about a dozen emergency substitutes who work in rotation due to
regulatory limits on the number of consecutive days an emergency substitute may work
in any one classroom.
In addition to the shortage of specialty teachers, all of the districts surveyed reported
problems finding sufficient certified substitute teachers to meet district needs. For standard
one- year certification as a substitute, an applicant must have a four- year college degree,
as well as undergo a background check. When certified substitutes are unavailable,
districts hire emergency substitute teachers, who are only required to have a high school
diploma or GED in addition to a background check. Half of the 12 districts surveyed used
emergency substitutes at least as often as certified substitutes.
Districts and Other States
Have Implemented
Several Partial Solutions
The problem of teacher shortages, especially in special education, cannot be easily
addressed. However, there are a number of promising strategies that could increase the
supply of qualified teachers. Other states have similar problems and have implemented
a variety of partial solutions, as have some Arizona school districts.
0 t h states have shortages- Arizona is not alone in experiencing teacher shortages. The
results of our nine- state survey revealed that the shortage of special education teachers
is not limited to Arizona, but is severe in all nine states, and eight of the nine states also
have shortages of bilingual and ESL teachers.' Education officials from these states
indicated the shortage of specialty teachers, especially in special education, is a national
problem. The shortage of bilingual and ESL teachers is especially acute because of the
increased demand for their skills. According to a 1994 General Accounting Office report,
the number of limited English- proficient students increased nationally by almost 26 percent
over the last decade.
Several optiosss am available- Our research identified a number of actions the State and
school districts can take to increase the supply of teachers, encourage teachers to work
in underserved areas, and help districts fill vacant positions.
ADE could provide a means for districts with vacancies
E'ersonnel clearinghouse- and teachers seeking positions to find each other. Texas
and Florida operate teacher clearinghouses to enable
districts with vacancies to find qualified applicants. A
similar program in Arizona was discontinued in 1994 because of limited participation by
school districts, but ADE is currently working to reestablish a portion of the clearinghouse
Nine states ( California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Utah) were
surveyed regarding teacher shortages. These states were selected because they resemble Arizona in having a
mix of large urban and very remote rural areas, or because they have similar populations of non- English
speaking students. Others were chosen because they had been identified as states that might have found ways
to overcome teacher shortages without sacrificing quality of teaching.
using its new Internet site. This clearinghouse will apply only to the Troops to Teachers
program. In addition to the Internet clearinghouse, ADE plans to begin asking certification
applicants to indicate their willingness to interview for specific types of positions. Then,
when a district requests an emergency certificate for an applicant, ADE plans to send the
district a list of other applicants who are qualified and available for the position. ADE
will also provide the list to any district upon request.
Some states provide financial incentives to encourage
l? imncial incentives offered education students to teach in underserved areas or
in some states - specialties. For example, Florida's Teacher Scholarship
and Forgivable Loan Program exempts teachers who
teach in a targeted area, such as bilingual or special
education, or in a targeted geographic hardship area, from repaying certain student loans.
Similarly, Utah's Career Teaching Scholarship Program offers recipients a waiver of tuition
and fees at public universities or a $ 970 per- semester scholarship at private universities
if they agree to teach in a Utah public school. Preference is given to scholarship applicants
who plan to teach in an area where there is a shortage. Arizona's Teacher Incentive
Program provided education students with loans of $ 5,000 per year to a lifetime maximum
of $ 10,000. If the students worked in underserved areas after graduation, these loans were
forgiven at the rate of one year's loan per two years' work. The Program was funded at
$ 90,000 in fiscal year 1989- 90 and again in fiscal year 1990- 91, but has not been funded
since.
A variation of this approach is to provide ongoing financial incentives to reward teachers
for working in underserved areas. For example, New Mexico provides districts with funds
based on the number of students requiring bilingual and ESL services, and the districts
then distribute the funds to teachers in these areas as pay incentives. In one district,
bilingual teachers receive an extra $ 1,000 per year, and ESL teachers receive an extra $ 600.
New York's legislature is considering a similar plan for teachers who work in schools
targeted due to low student achievement. In Arizona, some school districts on Indian
reservations, in addition to offering competitive salary schedules, provide housing at a
very low rent to attract teachers. Although these districts continue to experience high
turnover, this incentive has been successful in helping the districts to hire enough teachers
to meet their needs.
Alternative certification programs offer another way to
certification increase the supply of teachers. Although Arizona already
available to college has such a program, it could be expanded. These programs
graduates - enable college graduates to earn teacher certification without
returning to the university. Arizona's program requires
districts to work with ADE to develop a training plan and monitor participant progress
during a year of on- the- job and in- service training. At the end of the year, ADE issues a
teaching certificate based on the district's recommendation. Currently, the program is
19
limited to secondary certification, and has not been widely used- in fact, only 49 teachers
statewide will have been certified this way by the end of the 1995- 96 school year.
Once a performance- based certification system is in place, as recommended in Finding
I ( see pages 5 through 13), the alternative certification program could be improved and
expanded. According to ADE, one weakness of the current program is the lack of testing
to ensure alternatively certified teachers can perform as well as traditionally prepared
teachers. A performance- based system would provide a mechanism for such testing.
Further, Arizona's program could be expanded by improving communication between
ADE and the districts. In our discussions with district officials, we found at least two who
were unaware of the program or were confused about the requirements.
Other states, including Colorado and the District of Columbia, offer ESL, bilingual, and
special education certificates through their alternative certification programs. These states
require proficiency examinations at entry and exit, and either take more time to complete
or require extensive course work at community colleges or district offices. ADE could also
expand its program by including other types of certification and using performance- based
measures to assess candidate qualifications.
In addition to statewide efforts by ADE and the
ReMarteache~ ca nob- Legislature, other steps toward reducing shortages of
fain specialty c ~ ~ c a t i o nsp ecialty teachers can be taken by school districts. One such
requirements - step is to help regular teachers earn ESL, bilingual, or
special education certification. Districts could provide
training opportunities and classroom experience to enable
teachers to meet performance standards in specialty areas. For example, in Utah, the
Department of Education coordinates in- service and university classes offered at districts
to enable teachers to earn ESL and bilingual endorsements. In Arizona, the Cartwright
School District requires its new teachers to earn ESL certification, and the District works
in coordination with Chapman University to provide the preparation teachers need to meet
that requirement.
School community mem-bers
can become teach-
Finally, another district- initiated solution involves
identifying potential teachers among teacher aides and
other school employees, and helping them to become
ers- certified. Several urban districts in Maricopa County have
joined together to address shortages of ESL and bilingual
teachers in this way. Several school districts work with
local community colleges and universities to offer promising candidates assistance in
earning their certification. The districts provide the candidates with guidance and
encouragement, flexible work schedules to enable them to attend college courses, and
sometimes financial assistance to purchase textbooks. In addition, each district guarantees
a job interview to the candidates it sponsors.
Assisting local residents in becoming certified teachers could alleviate the major obstacle
rural districts face in filling vacancies. Because these people already live in the community,
this solution would overcome the difficulty of finding teachers who are willing and able
to live in rural districts. Teacher preparation programs are already available to rural
residents through community colleges and Northern Arizona University's distance
learning system. ADE could assist rural districts in implementing such programs by
disseminating information from the successful urban programs and providing advice.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ADE should establish and maintain a clearinghouse of information about available
teachers and available teaching jobs.
2. The Legislature should consider establishing financial incentives to attract teachers
to underserved locations and specialties. Options for financial incentives used in other
states include providing scholarships or forgivable loans for education students, and
funding salary incentives for specialty teachers.
3. The State Board of Education and the ' legislature should consider expanding the
State's alternative teacher certification program to include special education, bilingual,
and ESL certificates. This could involve extending the training period or increasing
the training requirements.
4. ADE should disseminate information to school districts about methods for increasing
the supply of specialty and rural teachers, such as assisting school employees in
becoming certified teachers, participating in the alternative certification program,
and providing opportunities for certified teachers to obtain specialty certificates.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
FINDING Ill
ADE SHOULD CONTINUE EFFORTS
TO SHORTEN THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS
The current certification process in Arizona takes too long for certain types of applications.
While ADE issues many teaching certificates quickly, several factors cause delays and
frustration for some applicants and for the school districts that want to hire them. Revision
of the complex teacher certification process may help ensure all teaching certificates are
issued in a timely manner.
Background
ADE processes thousands of certificates and endorsements every year at several offices.
In 1995, the ADE Certification unit reviewed approximately 45,500 applications, including
9,265 renewal applications. Most applications for certification services are received between
April and September. Processing steps required for each application vary. For example,
new graduates of six approved Arizona teacher education programs present an
Institutional Recommendation ( IR), which can be handled in one step, by one person. 1
Renewal and substitute certificate applications are also simple to process. Other
applications require more expertise and processing time to evaluate transcripts for courses
taken and semester hour requirements.
While Many Applications Are
Handled Quickly, Delays Remain
a Problem for Some
ADE has difficulty issuing teaching certificates to some applicants in a timely manner.
While over two- thirds of certificates are issued within two weeks, other certificates are
delayed. About 7 percent of the certificates take over 2 months to issue. Application delays
cause school districts to request rush treatment for applicants they intend to employ,
resulting in inequities and further delays for applications set aside while ADE processes
the district requests. The lengthy and complex certification process also impedes districts'
ability to place teachers in the classroom in a timely manner.
Arizona State University, the University of Arizona, Northern Arizona University, Grand Canyon University,
Prescott College, and Southwestern Baptist Bible College review their own graduates' qualifications for
mrtification The institution then sends a complete application package to ADE venfylng that the graduate has
met all requirements.
To determine timeliness in certifying teachers, a sample of 360 was drawn from the 31,116
certification actions taken between November 1,1994, and October 31,1995. The total
number of days from the date the last item of the application package was received by
the Certification unit until issuance of a handwritten " Memorandum of Certification" was
then calculated? As shown in Table 1 ( page 25), the average processing time for
certification applications ranges from 4 to 32 days, depending on the type of certificate
and type of application. Many applications, such as entry- level certificates with
Institutional Recommendations ( IR) and Substitute certificates, were handled in less than
one week. However, while the average processing time for certification appears reasonable,
processing times within each type of certificate can vary widely. For example, of 20 new
entry- level certificates without an IR, 5 were issued within 20 days, but 4 took more than
60 days to issue. Additionally, other cases revealed excessive delays:
A teacher in a rural Arizona town applied for certification as an ESL teacher, but
processing delays forced her to wait three months. ADE received her application on
June 21, 1995. A school district official sent a " rush" request on September 18,
explaining that the applicant might lose her ESL stipend without immediate
certification. ADE issued the certificate on September 21,92 days after the application
was received. According to ADE staff, an excessive backlog of applications likely
caused the delay.
A teacher sent her certificate renewal application on June 22,1994. ADE did not issue
her certificate until November 3, although ADE received a letter from the applicant
on August 30 expressing concern about the delay. The total processing time for this
renewal was 126 days.
An out- of- state teacher applied for an initial teaching certificate on May 19, 1995.
During the 1995 summer peak period, ADE's process was to address out- of- state
applications last, after processing applications from Arizona residents. The certificate
was eventually issued on October 4,1995, almost five months later.
Delays in processing create difficulties for school districts in placing qualified teachers
in the classroom on time. Rural superintendents told us delays hurt them in particular,
because they often must recruit from out of state, so ADE must evaluate their applicants'
transcripts in detail instead of relying on the recommendation of the teacher preparation
program. One district was forced to circumvent certification requirements in order to hire
an experienced out- of- state teacher with excellent skills and recommendations. Because
the teacher's certificate had not been issued by the beginning of the school year, the district
Although the handwritten memorandum is proof of certification, a few districts will not employ or pay teachers
until they receive a more formal printed certificate. On average, ADE's Data Entry unit requires approximately
55 days after the handwritten memorandum date to issue the printed certificate.
hired the teacher as a " consultant" at additional expense and placed a certified substitute
in the same classroom to comply with legal and accreditation requirements.
Table 1
Processing Time for a Sample of Certification Actions
November 1, 1994- October 31, 1995( a)
Certificates Processed by Days to Process
Type of Total 6- 16- 31- 46- 61- 76- Avg.
Certificate - No. 0- 5 15 30 45 60 75 90 91+ m( b)
Entry- Level Elementary
and Secondary- with
Institutional
Recommenda tion 25 22 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3.92
Entry- Level Elementary
and Secondary- without
Institutional
Recornmenda tion 20 4 1 8 1 2 2 2 0 32.10
Advanced- Level
Elementary and
Secondary 26 12 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 24.88
Substitute 22 18 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 4.55
Other Certificate Types(') 14 2 4 4 1 2 0 1 0 24.86
Renewal 87 43 22 10 6 3 2 0 1 13.17
Other ~ ctions(~) 80 1 2 1 3 5 - 3 - 1 - 2 - 3 17.86
Total Number of
Records 2- 74 - 137 5- 0 = 39 - 16 1- 2 z- -- 8 - 5 - 16.09
(' I We- hundred sixty records were selected at random from certification actions taken between November
1,1994, and October 31,1995. Eighty- six records that did not contain enough information to calculate
processing time were excluded prior to analysis.
@' Average days of processing time for all cases in this category.
Other certificate types include adult education, emergency, provisionalt vocational, early childhood,
handicapped, and speech and language therapy.
Other actions include adding an endorsement or academic major to an existing certificate, issuing a
certificate after deficiencies are removed, notifying an applicant that he/ she failed to qualify for the
certificate, reissuing a lost certificate, and recording a name change.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of ADE teacher certification records.
ADE Should Continue Efforts
to Resolve Certification Delays
ADE should continue to address factors contributing to teacher certification delays,
Although ADE has begun to resolve some of these problems, further improvements are
needed. To better serve districts' and teachers' needs, ADE could employ some certification
practices used in other states.
Several factors & ve contributed to the delays- The current teacher certification process
has been burdened by inadequate automation, inefficient practices, lack of policy manuals,
and seasonal peaks in workload. For example:
Inadequate management information system- The Certification unit's existing
computer system is limited in its usefulness. For example, it does not contain certain
important data fields, such as application date, that would help management to
monitor unit performance. Complicated computer programs must be written in order
to query the system, so management cannot readily obtain information regarding the
volume and nature of services. Staff can locate individual records by entering the
predefined key field information, but cannot search the data file if the key field
information is incorrect or missing. As a result, evaluators spend excessive time
searching for applicant information among hard copy records, and management lacks
information needed to efficiently allocate work among staff.
Inefficient practices - Files and forms used by the Certification unit appear needlessly
complex. During processing, application files are maintained in eight locations based
on stage of completion, resulting in occasional loss of files or portions of files. For
example, one applicant for an ESL endorsement was required to resubmit transcripts
after ADE lost the first set she submitted, causing a total processing time of almost five
months. Forms have been another source of inefficiency, because some contained
incorrect instructions until their recent revision.
Lack of policy manuals - Until recently the Certification unit had not developed policy,
procedure, and training manuals. As a result, many questions that arose during
processing were resolved on a case- by- case basis. This was not only time- consuming,
but could lead to inconsistent decisions, according to one certification specialist.
Seasonal peaks- Causing further process delays is the seasonal nature of the
workload. Beginning in April, the Certification unit receives an influx of applications
from three teacher groups: new teachers graduating in early May, Arizona teachers
seeking renewals before the July 1 certificate expiration date, and out- of- state teachers
wanting certification before school starts. The enormous volume of summer
applications creates a processing backlog. On September 22,1995, unit staff estimated
the backlog at 4,000 applications, and by November 1, a count of the applications
showed 900 still remained from the summer peak.
In addition, increased workload with no increase in staff has contributed to the unit's
timeliness problems.
Inadequate staffing- According to Certification unit records, between 1991 and 1995,
the number of services provided by the unit increased by approximately 79 percent,
from an estimated 25,586 to 45,888. However, the number of staff allocated to the unit
has remained stable. While ADE expects to achieve some increased productivity by
implementing a new computer system, staffing in the unit may need to be reevaluated
in view of the change in workload.
ADE is making efotZs to improve- ADE officials recognize the need to improve timeliness
and have taken a number of steps. For example,
H Business Process Improvement ( BPI)- ADE has initiated a Business Process
Improvement team ( BPI), comprised of Certification unit employees, to recommend
changes to certification processes and requirements. As a result, ADE has conducted
workshops to train school district and university personnel and has redesigned its
applicant waiting areas and staff work areas. ADE is also revising its application
packet, which will include accurate, color- coded application forms. The BPI team has
also recommended, but ADE has not yet implemented, revisions for application forms
and staggered certificate renewal dates. The team also made several recommendations
to reduce the number of certificate types and streamline the requirements.
H Computer system enhancements - ADE has contracted for development of workflow
and optical records management enhancements to its computer system, and has already
begun installation of the necessary hardware. The system should provide on- line access
to applicant information, and facilitate assigning responsibility for each application
to a single evaluator. At this stage, it is too early to determine the new system's impact
on certification timeliness.
H Background check changes- Further, to enable districts to hire teachers quickly, ADE
recently changed fingerprint clearance practices. Since January 23,1996, school districts
have been able to conduct their own background checks to expedite the certification
process. The FBI fingerprint check is still conducted, but the applicant may begin
teaching before FBI results are received. For additional information on this issue, see
Other Pertinent Information, page 31.
Regional offices - In addition to its permanent offices in Phoenix and Tucson, ADE
has opened regional offices in Flagstaff, Yuma, and Window Rock to better serve
applicants in remote Arizona locations. These offices are only open for part of the year
and are not listed in application packets, but they do provide a valuable service in
helping applicants to submit complete and accurate applications, and breaking the
statewide workload into more manageable segments.
Policy and training manuals - ADE has prepared new manuals to improve consistency
and reduce the need for time- consuming, case- by- case decision making. These manuals
have been approved by unit management and should be printed and distributed by
mid- summer 1996.
Mm can be dm- In addition to these actions, ADE should consider adopting practices
that have been effective in other states. We surveyed nine states regarding their
certification practices, and found that several have implemented additional efficient
practices in their certification units. For example,
Remote access to computer system- In Georgia, districts have remote access to the
State's computer system for checking application status, to give evaluators more time
for processing applications instead of responding to telephone queries. This has also
had the effect of reducing district " rush" requests.
On- line access to background check information- Washington has gone further to
expedite its certification process, by giving its network of regional certification offices
remote access to state law enforcement background check information. The access to
law enforcement information allows certificate issuance within 24 hours of clearance.
Bundling applications- Two states reduce eonfusion by bundling completed
applications according to the service required, such as initial issuance, renewal, or
evaluation of additional course work. Because evaluators work on one bundle of
similar applications at a time, they can process each application more quickly.
Automated telephone queries- Georgia's advanced phone system allows applicants
to call and check application status by social security number, thereby freeing phone
lines for more difficult questions. The Georgia Professional Standards Commission
linked its phone system into an advanced statewide phone system and pays only a
monthly users' fee.
Expanded use of regional ofices - Four of the states we contacted have regional offices
to assist applicants with information and/ or perform application processing. These
offices are open all year and are specifically listed in application packets. To be most
effective, Arizona regional offices would require year- round staffing and computer
hookups to the central office.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ADE should continue its efforts to improve teacher certification timeliness by
implementing Business Process Improvement team recommendations, such as making
computer system enhancements and staggering certificate renewal dates.
2. ADE should further improve processing efficiency by developing policies and
procedures, simplifying its filing system, and clarifying its application forms.
3. ADE should make better use of regional offices by providing information about them
on application forms and keeping them open for as many months as the workload
requires.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During the audit, information was collected about teacher incentive programs used in
Arizona and other states, and about school districts' use of private investigation firms to
conduct background checks.
Arizona's Career Ladder
and Performance Incentive Programs
Currently, Arizona has a career ladder teacher incentive program designed to attract and ward
highly skilled teachers. Arizona's program differs from other sthtes' career ladders in that
Arizona ties teacher salaries to inmased student achievement While many educators, including
most career ladder participants, support the program, its success has never been fully evaluated
and it has never been funded for all districts. Another program, the Optional Performance
Incentive Program ( PIP), provides rewards to entire schools.
Career Ladder
Background- A. R. S. § 918( D) defines the career ladder program as a multi- level system of
teaching positions that provides opportunities for continual professional advancement The
statute requires that teachers demonstrate improved teaching skills, higher instructional
responsibilities, and increased student achievement to advance on the career ladder. Teachers
receive additional compensation as they advance. Participation in the program is optional.
Arizona first implemented the career ladder program in 1985, when it established pilot projects
in 7 school districts. By 1994, a total of 29 districts participated in the program. Since that time,
the State has not authorized further expansion of the program. During 1994- 95, nearly 9,000
teachers participated. The State appropriated approximately $ 26 million for the career ladder
program in fiscal year 1995- 96, and districts must supplement state appropriations with local
funding.
Specific characteristics of career ladder programs vary from district to district For example,
Mesa's program has three components: district- wide incentives, school- wide incentives,
and individual teacher incentives. The district uses career ladder monies to reward
district and school personnel when they achieve district and school goals. Additionally,
the district rewards individual teachers as they progress on the career ladder. In order
to advance, Mesa teachers must submit a student achievement plan at the beginning
of each school year. At the end of the year, teachers must show how they preassessed, taught,
and post- tested the students for increased achievement
In contrast to Mesa, most other districts use career ladder monies only to reward individual
career ladder teachers. For example,
The Dysart District ( Phoenix) program rewards individual teachers based on calculated
composite placement scores. Teachers must submit Student Achievement Progress Reports
and undergo an evaluation process to advance on the ladder. These evaluations focus both
on student achievement and teacher performance.
The Payson Disgict bases career ladder advancement solely on peer evaluations. The review
process is extensive. Teachers cannot advance on the ladder unless their peers recognize
increased teaching and student performance. Currently, Payson is conducting a district- wide
evaluation of the career ladder program to determine its impact on student achievement,
Districts also use career ladder monies to enhance professional development activities. For
example,
The Sunnyside District ( Tucson) offers in- service training in a discipline system that helps
students become selfdkcted and self- disciplined by teaching them to be responsible for
their own behavior. Ganado District used career ladder monies to develop a culturally
relevant curriculum model of teaching that represents beliefs in the Navajo culture known
as the " Foundations of Learning."
Career laddevpropms isr other states- In 1985,13 states, including Arizona, had career ladder
programs or pilot projects. By 1994, only 4 states ( Arizona, Missouri, Tennessee, and Utah)
continued to fund career ladder programs. Most states terminated their career ladder programs
because they require large appropriations for full implementation. For example, Tennessee
appropriates over $ 100 million annually for its program, and Texas was appropriating nearly
$ 300 million annually before eliminating its program.
h n a ' s career ladder program differs from others because compensation and advancement
are directly linked to increased student achievement Although several early career ladder
programs in other states required demonstrated improvements in student achievement for
advancement on the ladder, the states eliminated this criteria. Now, no other state ties
advancement on the c m r ladder to student achievement Furthermore, Arizona has a separate
salary schedule for career ladder teachers, while other states apply career ladder pay increases
to traditional salary schedules.
Optional Performance
lncentive Program ( PIP)
In addition to the career ladder program, ARS. 515- 919 established the Optional Performance
Incentive Program ( PIP) in 1994. The Program uses state appropriations to reward entire schools,
rather than individual teachers, for enhanced performance. PIP uses survey information collected
from parents, students, and teachers to measure " customer satisfaction" with school
performance. Cukrently, HudsonHighSchool ( Tempe) and the Sedona- OakCreekSchool Distrid
are the only participants in the program. For fiscal year 1994- 95, the State funded the PIP
programs at Hudson and Sedona- Oak Creek at $ 105,000 and $ 202,000, respectively.
Concerns About
Arizona's Teacher
and School lncentive
Programs
Our analysis of state teacher and school incentive programs revealed that these programs have
not been adequately assessed to determine their impact on the quality of education Furthermore,
our study disclosed equity and fiscal accountability issues with each program.
Program Assessment- Currently, ADE does not conduct any systematic program
assessment of the career ladder program. Studies conducted by ADE ( 1994) and an outside
consulting firm ( 1993) of the program indicated that participants believed that it has
enhanced collegial relations, increased professional growth, and led to a more positive
learning environment However, there has not been a conclusive study that d h d y connects
career ladders to increased student achievement Consequently, it is still questionable
whether the program is meeting legislative objectives. PKs impact on student achievement
has not been assessed.
Equity Issues- Limited career ladder appropriations have resulted in inequities. First,
limited state funding of the program prohibits many districts from participating. Second,
districts with limited tax bases cannot easily fund career ladder programs. As a mult, poorer
districts would have a difficult time participating in the career ladder program even if further
state funding is available.
Fiscal Ovexsight- Currently, there is no state oversight of career ladder appropriations.
Districts have complete autonomy over the use of career ladder funds. Without state
oversight, a potential exists for districts to misuse career ladder monies.
Background Checks
According to school district officials and ADE staff, processing time for required FBI
fingerprint checks averages three months. To hire teachers more quickly, districts can conduct
their own background checks and sign a waiver accepting any liability. ADE then certifies
the teacher, while the FBI fingerprint check proceeds at its normal pace. However, private
background checks are limited, and certificates are not immediately revoked if the FBI check
discovers violations.
ADE's procedure for criminal background checks is timeconsuming but broad in scope. It
involves sending fingerprints to the Department of Public Safety ( DPS), which forwards the
fingerprints to the FBL DPS uses the applicant's name to obtain information from the Arizona
Crime Information Center ( ACIC), which includes Arizona arrest, warrant, and conviction
file information. The FBI uses the fingerprints to access a similar national information database.
Because a three- month delay may be unacceptable, districts use private firms to expedite the
fingerprint check Since January 23,1996, ADE has been allowing districts to conduct their
own background checks and sign a liability waiver to e w t e a potential teacher's certification
The newly certified person may teach in a classroom pending results of the FBI fingerprint
check. Districts routinely use private firms for background checks on non- certified staff, such
as school bus drivers.
We found that private firms cannot conduct as thorough a background check as ADE because
only law enforcement agencies and current law enforcement officials can legally access all
information contained in state and national databases. However, private firms may access:
Arizona Crime Information Center current warrant information via DPS, but not a criminal
history
Public court records and hearings
Motor Vehicle Division records
County felony convictions ( purchased from individual counties), which typically lag three
to four months behind current records. Purchased county records do not contain information
on misdemeanor arrests or convictions.
Due to limited information access, discrepancies between the DPS/ FBI fingerprint check and
private investigation firm check may occur. In one instance, a district official complained that
a private investigation firm check showed a clean record, while the DPS/ FBI fingerprint check
uncoved violations. Teachers in this situation do not face immediate certificate revocation,
but must have their cases reviewed by the State Board of Education. Until this hearing, the
district may choose to allow teachers to remain in the classroom, place them on administrative
leave, or terminate their employment
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Agency Response
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S
RESPONSE TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
ON TEACHER- RELATED PROGRAMS
The Arizona Department of Education ( ADE) Cextification Unit welcomed the Auditor
General's review of performance, as it was expected to substantiate the finding of an
internal review by a Business Process Improvement Committee, discover other areas of
inefficiency, and offer plausible rewmmmdations for improvement. The Auditor
General's staff approached the review with thoroughness and accuracy. The following
comments and information are offered for clarification.
In 1994. ADE management recognized serious problems with customer service and the
length of time to process samc applications for certification. Additionally, there was a
g e n d consensus among educational constituents that the entire system of certification
and tcacher evaluation had become outdated and irrelevant. The system did not support a
mission of providing excellent education for school children.
Cwtification Unit stsrr were trained in the Business Process Improvement ( BPI) approach
and completed an evaluation in April 1995. The team identified 24 problems with
process. policy, personnel. and equipment and proposed nearly 100 recommen& tions that
would improve the integrity of certification a. well as customer service. Nearly all of the
changes that were within thc authority of ADE have been implemented. However, most
of the business of certification is governed by State Board of Education Rules and
Regulations; changing thost rules requires considerably more time, and the process has
be-
Acting proactively, ADE assembled a committee of education constituents, known as the
Professional 1) evelopment Task Force ( the " Task Force"), to review the rule
remm~ endationsit intended to submit to the State Board. The '[ ask Force represented
school and district administrators, the deans of the colleges of education, teachers unions,
the PTA and othcr community organizations, and a number of other education
stakeholders. After four months, the Task Force made 25 recommendations to the State
Board of Education. Approximately half of the recommendations addressed specific rule
changes that were acceptable to all Task Force membcrs; the other half recommended
comprehensive review of the teacher evaluation and certification system.
A smaller group of constituents, the Skills Review Comrnittce (" SRC"), has been
working since January 1996 to prepare recomrncndations on new teacher standards, the
university program approval process, teacher evaluation and certification requircmcnts.
The SRC has drafted the teacher standards, proposed a three tier fiamework of
certification and assessment, and is Jiscusshg university program approval processes and
other critical issues. It is expcctcd to present recommendations to the State Board in
August. Rulemaking and tlle implementation is expected to be complete witbin two
Y-•
The aDE Professional Development Unit is committed to continual improvement of the
certification and evaluation system, working with the educational constituency. Sixty
percent of the recommendations of the BPI team have been implemented. Another 20%
art in process. The recommendations that have been implemented were the " quick and
easy" solutions; the remaining 204/ 0 of the remmmendations address morc serious and
systemic problems, the very issues noted by the Auditor General's report. With
continual effort t andommitment, those issues will be resolved or substantially alleviated
within the next two years.
The ADE expresses gratitude to the members of the Task Force and the SRC, who
mthusiastically embraccd the challenge of designing a aew system which, ultimately,
will improve student achievement, and Is the Auditor General's s M $ who validated both
the grohlcms nnd solutions identified by those groups.
FINDING I: THE STATE NEEDS TO REASSESS TEACHER PREPARATION
ANiD CERTIFICATION PRAGXICES
The ADE agrces that teacher preparation and dfication requirements in their present
form arc outdakd, lack zrccountability, and fail to ensure teacher quality- The current
Board rules and standards have not been reviewed comprehensively for several years.
Practices need to be reassessed and made more relevant to classroom performance.
Research has shown that no other factor has as much influenee on student achievement as
the teacher's proficiency. The State must invest in quality preparation programs, valid
profissional proficiency assessments, continued research, and professional growth of
teachers and administrators if it is to meet its mission sl'providing access to extraordinary
education.
Recommendation 1: The Legislature and the Board of Education shauld consider
eliminating unnecessary certification requirements. The ADE and most education
constituents agree with the recommendation. The. ADE has suggested several times that
these irrelevant rquire~ l~ enbtes repealed; thc Legislature has been unwilling do sponsor
such legishtion. UntiI the statutes are repealed, the Board must require basic skills
testing and Constitution courscwork
Recommendation 2: The Board of Education should establish a performancebased
teachcr certification system. Hislorically, it has been assurncd that proficiency is
demonstrated by successful completion of a number of university courses. However, the
quality of university teacher preparation programs varics and some coursework may not
be pruviding adequate practical experience and time for reflection. As noted in the
repoa some universities are using innovative approaches to teacher preparation, offering
instruction and dassroom practice simultaneously. If there were a formal mechanism for
district feedback regarding graduates' performance, those universities wodd be qui~ kPy
recognized for their successfbl endeavors.
A number of recommendations will be forthcoming from the SRC which would change
the entire character of the certification process to one that is perfomancc- based. The SRC
will recummend that teacher preparation programs be based on the new teacher standards.
It will also recommend that the State Board adopt assessments for content and
professional knowledge for the issuance of a provisional license, and a performance
assessment for the issuance of standard certificates. ADE will provide feedback to the
universities and the public about their graduates' performance on the proficiency
assessments.
As noted on page 6, the ADE has no authority over teacher preparation programs. In fact,
creating and implementing a successful teacher preparation program requires the
collaboration of universities, district employers, the ADE and teachers as well as a fixus
on perfonnancc and continued research on best teaching practices.
Continid professional developinent is necessary and important. As student needs and
population change, schools must respond with different teaching strategies. The SRC
will recommend a program of continual professional growth that emphasizes:
A kginnii teacher support system, including mentoring and exposure to master
teachers in the classroom
Professional growth opportunities that include a widc range of relevant experiences
such as professional seminars and workshops, district in- service, educational research,
sewing on an accreditation team, being trained as a teacher evaluator, serving in a
leadership role of an educationd organization, or university coursework in thc field of
education or a subject content area.
Recommendation 3: The Board of Education and ADE should, at a minimum,
encourage continuing profe56ional development of teachers by providing assistance
and information to districts, particularly about profcssiood development & best
practices". The ADE intends to continue providing assistance and information to
districts and to improve its communication to districts about professional development
best practices.
FINDTNG 1I: ARIWNA COULD DO MOM TO ADDRESS DISTRICTS'
NEEDS FOR TEACHERS
The report documents a problem which undennincs the educational system not just in
Arizong but nationwide: unqualified teachers. Alleviating teacher shortages will require
collaborativn of aU stakeholders. Thc SRC discussions confirm a mutual desire of the
constituents to work on solutions.
As noted, the ADE will begin offcrhg personnel assistance to certified teachers and
districts through a clearinghouse as soon as the new computer system has bccn
implemented. Thc ADE will take a proactive approach to helping districts find qualified
individuals who are Mly certified and it will collect and disseminate gencral information
about teacher shortages.
As suggested on page 19, the State could help alleviate teacher shortages by offering
tuition waivers for certain contcnt areas and Mi salary bonuses for the geographic
areas that need the incentive to attract certified teachers. A Federal loan forgiveness
program exists for teachers working in a district with more than 15% underqualified
teachers, but not all graduates have loans to forgive. Salary incentives and tuition
waivers should be the most effecient responses to the teacher shortage problem.
The SRC is considering ways to increase the options for alternative teacher grcparation,
but it is imperative that valid pedormancc essessments are implemented before the
progrun is expanded. If there is suspicion that some university- prepared teachers fall
short of proficiency aft= two years of formd undergraduate training ( page 6), one must
also question how well novices can be prepared in a fourteen week district pmgram. Xt
may be that h e reason there were only 49 people who were altemativeiy ccrtificd during
the 1995- 96 school year is that most districts do not have thc, staff* or resources to
provide extensive training for the acer- ch~ gingin dividual. Training teachers diverts
hding and detracts from their primary purp~ sc of educating children. The Troops to
Teachers program has had disappointing results, in part because districts have not been
willing to employ people without formd educational preparation. Additionally, othcr
states often do not accept certificates issued on the basis of alternative preparation. When
crediblc pcrfonna. nce assessments have been implemented, and teachers demonstrate
proficiency before becoming cdlied, there will Be far less concern about altcrmtively
prepared teachers.
Universities we willing to provide career counseling into teacher shortage cueas, but they
need better information from districts and ADE regarding the number and location of
vacancies. ADE will look for ways to increase commuriication about shortage arm. As
suggested in the report, universities can also contribute to the s~ lutionb y collaborating
with districts to provide on- site or televised courses iu needed subject areas.
Additionally, districts will soon be able to request lists of qualified ( certified) individuals
when they have vacancies. The districts may be able to spot potential tcachers in their
community ( page 20); they are not likcly, however, to divert their stretched resources to
providing them assistance in attaining a dcgree. Professional associations could
contribute to the teacher shortage solution by recruiting out- of- state teachers.
I FINDING 111: ADlE SHOULD CONTINUE EFPORTS TO SHORTEN THE
CERTXFICATION PROCESS
The ADE is grateful for the acknowlcdgernent of the substantial effort it has put forth in
reducing processing time and improving customer service. As noted in the report ( page
27), many of the processes have already been changed. The telephone script is morc
informative. Public infonnation has been increased and ma& more accessible through
training workshops, regional offices, universities, districts, and associations. Staffing
changes have been made to improve accuracy and efficiency. Forms have been revised.
Trainhg manuals arc nearing completion. Fingerprint cards are accepted ahead of the
application to avoid delays. Imaging equipment has been purchased and implrmcnted. A
programmer has been contracted to design a database and automate as much of the
process as possible. The phone system was improved to allow better access to evaluators.
Most iniportantly, 57 rulc changes were submitted to the State Board in May and Ihe SRC
is preparing many more to be submitted later this year.
In spite of all these efforts, the inexease in work volume continues to remain a huge
problem ( see page 27). Increased efficiency and morc automation will help, but the
highly technical and analytical naturc of the evaluation process requires human resources.
Seasonal peaks are particularly difficult to handle. Thousands of applications arrive
during the summer, all nccding to be evaluated before school begins in August. While
part- time seasonal staff help somewhat, supervisors spend considerable time training and
monitoring their work. Permanent staff levels n dto be incnaced to handle the 79%
inacase in applications since 1991. Additional seasonal staff should be added as
necessary.
The hDE has prioritized the implementation of changes by an analysis of the cost and
benefit, and as resources have allowed. The BPI debated at Iength the dualing influences
of custmer service and efficient processing. As customer scrvicc increases, efficiency
decreases and the length of time to evaluate and process applications increases. While tbe
CerrScation Unit could increase efficiency greatly by closing the Phoenix office to
customers and decmsjing telephone service, customer complaints would soar. ' lie Unit
continues to emphasize that all Certification business can be conducted by phone or d,
but some customers insist on driving to an office. Discontinuing personal service is not a
reasonable solution.
The ADE is committad to making the changes that will continue to improve customer
service and efficiency.