============================
from <joan@m---.org>
to michael.debell@seattleschools.org, ccschoolboard@seattleschools.org, nrtreat@seattleschools.org, jcerqui@seattleschools.org, et al.
date Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:34 PM
subject TFA contract: Please ask your legal dept. to review this analysis
Dear Directors,
Please include this and all email communications from me in your administrative record, pursuant to state law.
Pleae give this email message as much weight as had it been communicated to you via public testimony.
Whenever SPS hires a person to teach that does not meet the NCLB definition of "highly qualified teacher," SPS is violating NCLB, and is putting its Title 1 funding in jeopardy.
This is my third, and most succinct, presentation of the legal arguments that attempt to establish unequivocally that TFA recruits do not meet the NCLB definition of "highly qualified teachers."
The attached file is revised, now has an index, and is better formatted for readability. The attached file contains quotations of all applicable state laws and regulations (from WAC) such as I was able to find.
Please send this to your legal department for review and response.
For your convenience and the convenience of your lawyers, I have attached a pdf of the Ninth Circuit Court ruling (Renee v. Duncant, Sept. 27, 2010).
I hope that your lawyers will provide a clear, cogent, legally sound response to this argument via oral comment at Wednesday's public legislative session of the School Board, and via written response.
Please send me any written response that you receive from your legal department.
Respectfully,
J--------
206 3-- 7---
Background
SPS lawyers have analyzed whether the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in Renee v. Duncan is applicable to the proposed contract betwen SPS and TFA; a district lawyer reported orally to the Board at the most recent public legislative session that the Ninth Circuit ruling is not applicable.
Based on a careful analysis of the court ruling, state law, and state administrative code, I find that your lawyers have very likely erred. As you will see from my analysis below, the question on whether NCLB allows SPS to hire TFA recruits hinges on what is this state''s definition of "full state certification."
The Ninth Circuit Court decision, issued Sept. 27, 2010, in Renee et al., v. Arne Duncan establishes the following.
1. In its legislation known as NCLB, Congress clearly defined "highly qualified teachers" (HQT) as "teachers possessing full state certification."
2. "Making progress toward acquiring full state certification" does NOT meet NCLB's definition of HQT.
3. "Full State certification" is not defined in NCLB.
4. The Court is not concerned with defining the meaning of the term "full certification;" rather,
5. the Court views the task of defining "full certification" as one that is held by each state.
6. To know whether a teacher of record meets the NCLB definition of HQT, one must first establish precisely how the state statutes and regulations define "full certification." If a teacher of record does not already possess full certification as so defined, then the teacher of record does NOT meet NCLB's definition of "highly qualified teacher."
Critical Questions.
Thus, the application of this decision to Washington State and to the question of whether TFA recruits can legally teach in Title 1 districts in Washington state, and in particular, to the question of whether TFA recruits can teach in high poverty schools in SPS, necessitates that the following questions be answered correctly:
Q1. What is the State of Washington definition of a fully certified teacher?
Q2. Does a TFA recruit possess "full state certification" in Washington at the start of his or her two-year mentored teaching internship commitment in a Washington school?
To recap, it is clear that in order to know if TFA recruits meet the NCLB defintion of "HQT," it is important to develop a clear understanding of what is Washington State's statutory definition of "full certification."
Answers to Critical Questions.
Q1. What is the State of Washington defintition of a fully certified teacher?
A1. The State of Washington definition of "fully certified teacher" includes "teacher certificate," "residency teacher certificate," and "professional teacher certificate."
(1) We assert that the term "teacher certificate' used in WAC 181-79A-140 corresponds to the term "full state certification" in NCLB.
(2) We assert that the term "residency teacher certification" used in RCW28A.660.040 and WAC 181-79A-145, and the term "teacher certificate" used in WAC 181-79A140(1) correspond to the term "full state certification" in NCLB. Under WAC 181-79A-145, "residency" and "professional" are two levels of teacher certificates. The initial teacher certificate is always a "residency" certificate. The "professional" level certificate requires National Board certification.
(3) We note that RCW 28A.410.025 specifies that "No person shall be accounted as a qualified teacher within the meaning of the school law who is not the holder of a valid teacher's certificate or permit issued by lawful authority of this state."
Q2. Does a TFA recruit who is seeking certification through an alternative route (RCW 28A.660.440) possess "full state certification" in Washington at the start of his or her two year mentored internship teaching commitment in a Washington school?
A2. The answer is multi-part.
(a) Enroll
1. The alternative route to certification leads toward full state certification, since it is a recognized route of preparation for a "residency teaching certification," RCW28A.660.040.
2. State law RCW28A.660.040 makes clear that participants in an alternative certification route of teacher preparation are teaching as "mentored interns," and are not eligible for "residency teaching certification" (i.e.,the first level of full state certification) until after they complete the alternatiive pathway program requirements.
In short, a person who is enrolled in but has not completed an alternative certification program does not under state law and regulation possess a regular teaching certificate.
"Alternative route programs under this chapter shall operate one to four specific route programs. Successful completion of the program shall make a candidate eligible for residency teacher certification." RCW 28A.660.040.
3. WAC 181-79A-150(4) stipulates that
"Applicants for certification as teachers....except as otherwise provided in WAC 181-79A-257, and 181-79A-231, and in chapter 181-77 WAC...shall have completed a state approved college/university preparation program in the professional field for which certification is to be issued."
Notes. It appears that this rule has not yet been updated to reflect the statutory adoption of alternative certification pathways, as provided in RCW 28A.660.040. Nevertheless, this rule makes clear that a preparation program must be COMPLETED before a person is eligible to apply for certification as a teacher. This code is referring to regular, rather than limited, certification. The limited certificate is defined in WAC 181-79A-231, and is distinguised from a "teacher certificate" in WAC 181-79A-140. Exceptions to the requirement that the preparation program must have already have been completed in order for person to apply for a certification as a teacher (i.e., WAC 181-79A-257, 181-79A-231, 181-77) are not applicable to the present question.
4. RCW 28A.410.025 specifies that "No person shall be accounted as a qualified teacher within the meaning of the school law who is not the holder of a valid teacher's certificate or permit issued by lawful authority of this state."
(b) Holders of conditional certificates.
1. A conditional certificate is one of eight types of "limited certificates." 181-79A-231. 181-79A-231 includes detailed explanations of the qualifications for and purposes of limited certificates, and the conditions under which persons holding these certificates may serve as a teacher of record or a substitute teacher. Of these eight types of limited certificates, and due to Seattle Public Schools having no shortage of qualified applicants for certified teaching jobs, the only type that is is potentially applicable to enrollees of an alternative certification program (under RCW 28A.660.040) within Seattle Public Schools is the Conditional Certificate.
2. WAC 181-82-105, subsection (9) provides that a person with any type of limited certificate can serve as a teacher, within the limitations set for each of those types of limited certificates. "Any certificated person holding a limited certificate as specified in WAC 181-79A-230** ....may be assigned as per the provisions of such section or chapter."
**181-79A-230 no longer exists, and evidently has been supplanted by 181-79A-231 Limited Certificates.
3. From WAC 181-82-105, we must understand that a person that does not hold a teaching certificate or a limited certificate is not permitted to teach as a regular or substitute teacher in Washington State. This means that a person who is enrolled in an alternativie certification pathway is not eligible to teach in schools in Washington state unless that person holds at limited certificate.
5. It is possible that, prior to begining the mentored teaching internship of the alternative route to certification pathay #3 or #4, some TFA interns will be issued conditional certification under WAC 181-79A-231 (1)(b)(i), From WAC 181-79A-231 and WAC 181-82-105 subsection (9) we know that a TFA recruit possessing a conditional certificate is eligible under Washington state laws and regulations to serve as a teacher of record.
6. It does not necessarily follow that a TFA recruit holding a conditional certificate meets the NCLB definition of "Highly Qualified Teacher."
7. Under WAC, a conditional certificate is one of eight types of "limited" certificates, and is.distinct from the certificates that correspond to full state certification; thus holding a conditional certificate does confer to status of "highly qualified teacher" as defined in NCLB.
i. Conditional certification is defined in the administrative code [WAC 181-79A-140 (6), WAC 181-79A-231(1)], but not in state law.
ii. The administrative code makes clear that a conditional certificate is distinct from a "teaching certificate." WAC 181-79A-140(1),(6). A conditional certificate is identified by WAC 181-79A-140(6) as one of several types of "limited" certificates. Because "conditional certificate" is in Washingon regulations distinct from, and more limited than, a "teaching certificate," (the latter term we assert does qualify as full state certification) a conditional certificate does not make the bearer highly qualifed under NCLB.
iii. Clauses (1)- (4) of of WAC 181-82-105 refer to standard continuing, unendorsed continuing, initial, residency, endorsed continuing, and professional teacher certificates. Clause (9) specifically mentions "certificated person holding a limited certificate." Thus WAC 181-82-105 makes a distinction between holders of limited certificates, and holders of the types of certificates mentioned in clauses (1)-(4) of WAC 181-82-105. We assert that all the certificates listed in clauses (1)-(4) of WAC 181-82-105 are "levels" of full state certification, whereas the differentiated limited conditional certificate is not in this category. WAC 181-79A-145 lists the "levels" of teacher certificates. Conditional certificates is not included in this list.
iv. The very fact of the adjective "limited" being attached to "conditional certificates," is indicative that a conditional certificate is not a "full" certificate within Washington state laws and regulations. WAC 181-79A-231
v. WAC 181-79A-231 says that limited certificates "shall be issued under specific circumstances set forth below for limited service." Clearly, this phrase alone indicates that a limited certificate in general (and therefore also conditional certificates) are not equivalent to "full state certification."
vi. The following sentence from WAC 181-79A-231, when read in context, provides yet another clear indication that limited certificates (and therefore conditional certificates) are distinct from full certificates: "The professional educator standards board encourages in all cases the hiring of fully certificated individuals and understands that districts will employ individuals with conditional certificates only after careful review of all other options.
(c) Enrollees in a Route 3 alternative certification pathway program who lack any type or level of teacher certification from the state.
1. From RCW 28A.660, it seems that it is the intent of the legislature that, once a teacher mentor has decided that the person is competent to do so, an individual enrolled in such program is to be allowed to serve as a teacher of record, despite not having yet earned or not having yet been issued a limited or full teaching certificate.
2. WAC 181-82-105 says that a person must hold at least a limited certificate to teach in a school. This regulation appears to be in conflict with the intent of RCW28A.660.
3. Even if the administrated code is brought into alignment with RCW 28A.660, this still does not solve the problem that a person who lacks full state certification does not meet NCLB's definition of a "highly qualified teacher."
Closing Comment.
It is not illegal for SPS to hire TFA recruits, provided that the recruits posses at least a limited conditional teaching certificate. This is permitted under state law. Federal also does not prohibit this. Federal law does provide however, that the U.S. Secretary of Education may withhold Title 1 grants from eligible districts that do not have all of its teachers meeting the NCLB definition of "highly qualified." See Renee v. Duncan 2010 or ESEA Sec 1119 (a) (3).
Respectfully,
J----------
No comments:
Post a Comment