Archived Licensure Framework Documents
The Indiana Professional Standards Board

Licensure Committee Study of Reciprocity Issues
F. Edward Wall, Consultant
April 28, 1999
Purpose of the Study

This study was requested by the Licensure Committee to gather data and draw conclusions about how readily states with a license reciprocity agreement with Indiana would accept the proposed standards-based licensure system.

Process

On March 8, 1999, survey packets were mailed to the 40 states with whom Indiana has reciprocity through the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC). The survey packet contained an introductory letter (signed by Dr. Scannell), a complete copy of the January, 1999 Draft Framework, a page of clarifications and revisions in Developmental Levels and Social Studies (reflecting the thinking of the Licensure Committee as of March 8, 1999), and a response form.

Surveys were mailed with a return deadline date of April 1, 1999. All states that had not responded by March 25, 1999, we sent reminders via e-mail or FAX. A second set of reminders was e-mailed on April 6, 1999, with an extended return deadline of April 15, 1999. Correspondence continued with non-responding states through April 23, 1999.

State responses to the survey have been entered verbatim on the attached chart.

Results

Number of surveys mailed	40
Number of survey responses returned	27 (67.5%)
Number of states who responded but did not return survey	4 (10.0%)
Number of states giving no response	9 (22.5%)

Response	Question #1--Would your state grant an initial reciprocal license issued on the proposed licensure framework?	Question #2--Would you be willing to continue our reciprocity agreement if the proposed licensure framework is adopted?
Unqualified Yes	17	19
Qualified Yes	4	-
Unqualified No	3	2
Qualified No	2	1
More Study Needed	-	2

Consultant's Comments

Seven survey responses contained specific concerns about the developmental levels. Several states did not understand that a candidate could have more than one developmental level. In some instances, the responding state's developmental levels did not correspond to those proposed for Indiana. In the time period since the survey was mailed, the work of the Licensure Committee to clarify the developmental levels will, in my opinion, alleviate many of the concerns expressed in the survey responses.

Eight surveys indicated the responding state was moving toward standards-based licensure.

Ten survey responses complimented Indiana for its work on standards-based licensure and/or indicated a continuing interest in our progress.

Consultant's Conclusion

License reciprocity is not a deterrent to the adoption of standards-based licensure.

State* INTASC State	Would your state grant an initial reciprocal license issued on the proposed licensure framework?	Would you be willing to continue our reciprocity agreement if the proposed licensure framework is adopted?	Additional Comments
Alabama	Yes	Yes
Arizona*	Yes, Arizona would accept Indiana's certificate under our reciprocity agreement. In fact, we have just undergone the same process you are considering, adopting performance-based standards rather than course requirements for certification.	Yes, we would continue the reciprocity agreement.	There would be a discrepancy with the level of your certificates and ours. Our certificates are K- 8 and 7-12, but K-12 for special education certificates. It is our practice to issue the certificate that most closely matches the grade level of the certificate from the other states.
Arkansas*			Mailed second copy. Survey not returned.
California*	First Respondent: Yes. Under the provisions of AB 1620 (Scott) California could issue a 5 year Preliminary Credential to Indiana graduates if the Indiana standards are deemed comparable. Second respondent: No - not in Special Education. Framework for exceptional needs has too few categories and too many different age ranges.	First Respondent: Yes. I strongly support what Indiana is doing. Second respondent: Not in Special Education.	First Respondent: I believe you are to be commended for your efforts, especially the age- level development configuration. Second Respondent: No Comment Third respondent: As a member of the AB1620 task force I have reviewed many of the frameworks and teacher prep programs from Indiana. They meet and exceed, in many cases, California standard.
Colorado			Mailed second copy. Survey not returned.
Connecticut*	Yes	Yes
Delaware	There is some problem matching IPSB developmental levels with Delaware certificate titles. We may need to look at the coursework component of your adolescent/young adult.	We would honor your certificate with as close a match as possible. We are an importing state so we need to work out reciprocity.	I like your structure. We will be looking at our whole system and I will propose something similar. P.S. I like your framework in general. I know how much work you have put into it! It shows.
Florida			Corresponded. Survey not returned.

State* INTASC State	Would your state grant an initial reciprocal license issued on the proposed licensure framework?	Would you be willing to continue our reciprocity agreement if the proposed licensure framework is adopted?	Additional Comments
Georgia*	Under current Georgia certification rules, many of your proposed certificates, as defined by the developmental levels, do not appear to be comparable with the scope, content or practice requirements of Georgia certificates and would, therefore, not be acceptable. Additional requirements would include course work and/or practicums. As for your Special Education certificates, we will need additional information to determine compatibility with our BD, LD, MR and Interrelated certificates.	Under existing certification rules, Georgia would not be able to accept all Indiana certificates, in particular those that do not include preparation or certification for equivalent grade levels or content area scope. While Indiana may address this with internal hiring and infield procedures, the reciprocal issuance of our certificate would place these teachers in Georgia classrooms in which they are not prepared.	We sincerely applaud both your efforts in exploring the leading edge of preparation and certification as well as your willingness and desire to coordinate these efforts. Georgia, as well as several other states, are also exploring new and better ways to address these challenges, in particular the performance based and/or alternative routes to a certificate. We hope the result of all these efforts will be stronger and more flexible preparation/certification programs that meet the needs of all our states. It may be that the time is right to present some of these new thoughts to NASDTEC for consideration in light of the upcoming 2000-2005 Interstate Reciprocity Agreements.
Hawaii			No response.
Idaho			No response.
Illinois*	Yes See "Additional Comments" below.	Yes
Kentucky	Yes	Yes	Kentucky has also gone to a performance-based program with new teacher standards, experienced teacher standards, and we recently adopted the ISLLC standards for administrators.
Louisiana*	Yes	Yes	Please send us the summary of the responses and notification of your progress. We expect to begin the same process and hope to profit from the experiences of others
Maine*	Yes	Yes
Maryland	If the initial certificate is a Level 1 Certificate (2 years), we would not accept it for reciprocity.	If the initial certificate is a Level 1 Certificate (2 years), we would not accept it for reciprocity.	There have been a number of applicants certified by Maryland whose evaluations by the college/university were in a narrative assessment format. This sometimes poses difficulty when evaluating transcripts for content mastery for additional endorsements. I applaud you for taking such a bold step!
Massachusetts			No response.

State* INTASC State	Would your state grant an initial reciprocal license issued on the proposed licensure framework?	Would you be willing to continue our reciprocity agreement if the proposed licensure framework is adopted?	Additional Comments
Mississippi	See "Narrative Comments" below.
Minnesota*	See "Narrative Comments" below.
Montana	See "Narrative Comments" below.
New Hampshire	Yes	Yes	New Hampshire is currently considering the same as your proposal.
New Jersey			No response.
New Mexico	Yes, would grant a license as close to your system as possible, but a true match might not always occur.	Yes	Good work. We may be "borrowing" some ideas!
New York			No response.
North Carolina			No response.
Ohio*	Yes. Ohio would continue to honor the interstate contract agreements based on Indiana's proposed framework. Candidates issued licenses in Indiana would continue to be "deemed to have met Ohio standards for licensure." However, given our new licensure framework compared to that envisioned for Indiana, a number of problems would exist that would cause our out-of-state consultant problems in "fitting" someone into a license. Briefly, our licenses will be: (see "Additional Comments" below.)	The "deemed to have met" is a philosophical stance that undergirds the interstate agreements (this is not necessarily reciprocal) and is a worthy concept. With the proliferation of frameworks in recent history in most states, it seems we will have to again stir the pot in looking for comparable teaching areas (as happened in the early 70-`s at the inception of the concept.) This, of course, does not affect the undergirding stance.	Clarification question - within your conception of the framework, could a teacher be prepared to teach just one level in a teaching area; ie, middle childhood foreign language? If so, this would exacerbate the comparability problem immensely.
Oklahoma			Mailed second copy. Survey not returned.
Oregon			No response.
Pennsylvania	While we currently have an Interstate Agreement with Indiana for Instructional certification, that agreement is based on the provision for comparable certificate or discipline. In many cases with the new framework proposed by Indiana, we would be unable to apply the agreement when developmental levels limit the grade level scope, even when the content area scope is comparable.	Under the draft NASDTEC Interstate Contract proposed for years 2000-2005, the requirement for a comparable or broader discipline has been retained. In that context, if our certification is not changed (we currently are writing new teacher preparation standards), we would not apply the Interstate Agreement to applications when candidates are not prepared or certified under the equivalent grade levels or content area scope.	We applaud your Committee's vision and willingness to address new challenges in teacher licensure. Because we are also scheduling focus groups to develop more meaningful teacher preparation standards, we hope that we can continue this discussion on the reciprocity agreement when our respective states have completed their work.

State* INTASC State	Would your state grant an initial reciprocal license issued on the proposed licensure framework?	Would you be willing to continue our reciprocity agreement if the proposed licensure framework is adopted?	Additional Comments
South Carolina*	Yes	Yes
Tennessee	Yes	Yes	If a candidate for licensure in Tennessee completes a teacher prep program through an accredited teacher preparation institution in an area we offer we will certify that candidate provided any ancillary requirements required in Tennessee have been met. If the framework changes the endorsement area recommended, we may not be able to accommodate all teachers.
Texas	Yes. Texas is moving toward performance-based licensure. One problem is with the development levels - Texas has only PK-6 and 6-12. Applicant might need to have more coursework to be acceptable. In content areas, Indiana is going to many composites, as is Texas. But Texas has only an endorsement for English as a Second Language. This is needed to teach the content areas to our large Spanish speaking population. Texas has a middle-level management license for principals and superintendents.	Yes	We are very interested in what you are doing.
Utah	Yes	Yes	A great concept and move to link position assignment to performance standards competency. We are conducting a similar study so your information has been very helpful.
Vermont			No response.

State* INTASC State	Would your state grant an initial reciprocal license issued on the proposed licensure framework?	Would you be willing to continue our reciprocity agreement if the proposed licensure framework is adopted?	Additional Comments
Virginia	Virginia would issue comparable endorsements only. For example, this state offers a middle education 6-8 endorsement requiring two areas of concentration of 21 semester hours in mathematics, science, history/social sciences, and English. Individuals with your Middle Childhood 7-12 endorsement would not automatically be granted our endorsement since they are not comparable. This state does not offer a "generalist" endorsement; therefore, an individual cannot be granted such an endorsement in Virginia.	Yes, with the understanding that only comparable endorsements may be granted.
Washington	Yes	Yes	Our requirement for certification is that the individual has completed a state-approved teacher preparation program as verified by the college or university. In essence, we offer reciprocity to all states.
Washington, D.C.			No response - Interim Director
West Virginia	It appears that we would be able to grant comparable endorsements in most specializations. The middle childhood generalist and the exceptional needs endorsements may create problems. Candidates would have to meet all of our ancillary requirements (citizenship, GPS, testing, etc.).	It appears that we would agree to sign the contract for teacher, professional support and vocational teachers. However, the administrative contract would be questionable since we are moving to a single endorsement for educational leadership. We would not have an endorsement comparable to your central office or building level administrator endorsement.	We are in the process of drafting amendments to our teacher preparation and licensure policies. The outcome of our proposals could impact our response to your framework.
Wyoming	Yes	Yes

Narrative Comments

The following states did not respond in the format of the survey, but rather submitted the following comments:

Mississippi - "A person with a valid standard license in another state and a minimum of two years experience can be issued a license in Mississippi with no other requirements. Persons with less than a standard license in another state or a standard license but less than two years experience can be issued a license valid for two school years. During that time they have to meet our requirements whatever it may be that they lacked to receive a license initially."

Minnesota - Note: Minnesota is not a reciprocal state with Indiana, but it is an INTASC Partner State. For that reason, the state was sent a survey packet and asked to comment on the proposed licensure plan. The following response is from Dr. Judith Wain:

"Since Minnesota does not have reciprocity with any state, I'm not able to respond to the questionnaire. However, you've asked for general reactions/comments to the proposal, so here goes --

Overall, Indiana's new licensure framework is very similar in concept to that of Minnesota. We also have adopted the same three phases of the continuum and have just adopted a new set of licensure standards to implement a restructured Phase I (initial teacher preparation).

Our new licensure rules are also based on knowledge and skills related to standards; rather than on credit hours and/or course requirements. There are no majors, minors or endorsements as well. All of the licenses are based on the 10 INTASC principles. Colleges and universities are responsible for assessing candidates in relationship to the standards, and determining whether candidates have met the standards.

These new standards may be accessed at www.cfl.state.mn.us then click the "Boards and Affiliates" red bar; then click "Board of Teaching." This will bring you to the Board's web site.

We have similar developmental levels; however, a major difference in the Indiana and Minnesota approaches is that our developmental levels overlap; that is, candidates for licensure must meet more than one developmental level. We will have a birth-grade 3 license (we proposed a birth-age 8 license; however, the early childhood community felt that the age designation would be confusing because students are at different ages in each grade; e.g., who teaches the student who turns age 9 and is in third grade and has been previously taught by the teacher with the birth-age 8 license). We also have an elementary (K-6) generalist license; however, elementary teachers must also complete a preprimary specialty (your early childhood-preschool, I assume) or a middle level specialty in a selected field (your early adolescence level). The traditional secondary teacher, grades 7-12, will now need to complete a grades 5-12 level in a content field (which corresponds to your early adolescence and adolescence/young adult license). We also have some preK-12 and K-12 fields.

You may be interested in the rationale of the Board of Teaching in creating overlapping developmental levels for licensure. The Board recognized that Minnesota has over fifty different types of organizational patterns in its preK-12 schools. Licensure must accommodate these patterns, but also ensure that teachers have the skills necessary to teach students at varying developmental levels. The structure recognizes that there are similarities among students as they progress through various stages of development, but that they progress at different rates. It also recognizes that there is not a "best" school model for all students or for all educators and also recognizes that students do not develop at the same rate. There were concerns from some educators that the overlapping developmental levels required for licensure would result in beginning teachers being inadequately prepared to serve the dramatically different learning needs and developmental characteristics of students at the opposite ends of each designation. However, the Board felt that establishing a system that divides the teaching force into birth to grade 3, grades 4-8, and grades 9-12 was not reasonable, since many school districts would not have the capacity for employing full-time individuals with expertise in the same academic field at two different age/grade spans and would request rule exceptions to permit teachers to teach out of their fields of preparation, thereby resulting in denying students access to teachers who are properly prepared for the assignment. Also, this configuration would not meet the need of teachers to possess the skills and knowledge to reach a broad range of student development, nor does it respond to the legislative mandate to address flexible, school-based organizational structures.

Some of our licensure categories are not the same; for example, our special education licensure fields are based on disability areas, rather than levels of service. I assume that under the Fine Arts area Indiana will issue separate licenses in each of the disciplines, since the comment states that the standards define each of the fine arts as discrete disciplines. I assume the same is true for the science disciplines and health/physical education disciplines. Our language arts is now titled "Communication Arts and Literature" and appears to be similar to Indiana's "Language Arts." We will be reviewing the vocational licensure fields at some future time.

Thanks so much for sharing the January 1999 Draft Framework. The document provides an excellent description of the framework and the work that has been done. We all need to realize what progress has been made over the past few years in moving toward a performance-based licensure system, even though at times the task seems overwhelming. States such as Indiana and Minnesota are providing leadership through our professional standards boards in leading the nation to a common vision of teacher preparation and licensing based on a credible system. Keep up the excellent work!"

Montana - "We accept applicants who have completed state approved, college-based, teacher preparation programs. We, too, are anticipating a change within the next few years to performance-based standards for teacher preparation programs in Montana.

Our recommendations for changes within the next year are anticipated to include the INTASC standards as a core for approval of all programs in Montana. We have been a National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Partner State since 1989 and have had state standards and five-year on-site reviews for teacher preparation programs since 1979.

Our concerns with the Interstate Contract have been persons certified by a state and endorsed in areas without completing a state-approved program. Several states have cleaned this up in recent years and, happily, fewer of these situations occur. We still believe that a state has the right to establish higher standards and to issue a temporary certificate under the Interstate Contract with provisions for the holder to meet the higher standard within a reasonable time period.

Indiana's progress in recent years has been noted and is a model for many of us to follow. Keep up the good work!"

Additional Comments

Illinois - "We only had time to do a cursory review of your standards in some areas. I don't think we will have a problem since they are somewhat similar to our proposed standards which hopefully will be accepted sometime this summer. Our format is different in that we have more specific measurable statements for the content rather than a narrative description. Our Initial Certificate is issued for four years and is not renewable. Teachers move to the Standard Certificate by passing a Standard Examination not yet developed. Our Initial Certificate and Standard Certificate tests won't be ready until 2003. I don't know how we will do course by course evaluations with states operating on standards based systems until we get started here, but that is our problem. I think perhaps as you folks did, we can review the standards in place in the states and either accept or reject based on the quality of the standards. How would you folks assess Illinois teachers with K-12 certificates? How about our endorsements? Would they appear on the Indiana developmental level certificate? Can Indiana teachers qualify in other teaching fields later in their careers like to many secondary teachers do through the old endorsement process. How will Indiana grandfather current teachers into the new certification system?"

Ohio - "Briefly, our licenses will be:

A.	Early Childhood - pre-k to grade three and ages 3 to 8. These persons will be generalists who will teach all children including through Mild/Moderate handicaps;
B.	Middle Childhood - Grades 4-9 and ages 8-14. Such persons will be prepared to teach two of four content areas: math, science, language arts, or social studies and will not be prepared to assume teaching duties in a self-contained classroom.
C.	Adolescence to Young Adult - Grades 7-12 and ages 12-21. Areas in the former high school teaching levels will be mostly integrated and will include language arts, social studies, mathematics, and science.
D.	Multi-Age licensure will prepare teachers to assume teaching duties in specific areas pre-k-12 - health, phys ed, dance, drama, foreign language, etc.
E.	Vocational Education will include areas like business, ag, family and consumer science, technology education, etc.
F.	Special Education will be Mild/Moderate, Moderate/Intensive/ Hearing and Visual - K-12.

Therefore, there will be some difficulty in getting beyond the deemed to have met to issuing a comparable license. In some cases, there may be no comparable license to issue."