This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
September/October 2001

Keeping track of re-certification for Illinois teachers

by Lynn Bush and Karen Becker

As schools continue to move toward additional educational reform, one fact that remains obvious is that a school plan for professional development for teachers is strongly needed. The majority of Illinois administrators, school board members, teachers and parents would agree and need to know what current law requires.

Senate Bill 556, which became official in July 2000, addressed three levels of certificates for Illinois teachers. Level One teachers can obtain an initial teaching certificate after completing an approved teacher education program, while Level Three addresses teacher certification for those individuals who have achieved National Board Certification and are recognized as master teachers. The vast majority of teachers in Illinois are at Level Two.

Level Two includes teachers who held a standard certificate prior to February 2000. When it is time for certificate renewal, each teacher will need to show proof of continuing education or professional development in the form of Continuing Professional Development Units (CPDU) (www.isbe.state.il.us). As suggested by the Illinois State Board of Education, monitoring the professional development program of each teacher will be in the hands of peers named to the school district's Local Professional Development Committee (LPDC).

We were curious to find out what teachers are saying about the process so far and what changes have taken place in their teaching lives.

Two hundred practicing teachers were asked to complete an open-ended survey on their understanding of the new re-certification process. "Practicing teachers" were identified as working in Illinois classrooms and were enrolled as graduate students for a master's degree. Of the 200, 59 of the surveys were returned, making the return rate a little over 25 percent. Of those, 81 percent were from teachers in large school districts (classified as those with more than 1,000 students). In addition, 49 percent identified their schools as a kindergarten through grade five building, and 88 percent were female.

Teachers were asked 10 open-ended questions about their current understanding of the re-certification process. Questions included:

Most teachers talked about an LPDC, which assumed a variety of roles and responsibilities in their district. For some teachers, the committee simply existed; for others, it answered questions about the re-certification process. For still others, it guided them through a five-year plan of professional development and implementation strategies or specifically helped them write the plan and controlled its approval or disapproval.

Other teachers talked about individual action, such as filling out the forms, following the school district's re-certification schedule, needing to write a five-year plan, writing a five-year plan, putting the plan in place, attending faculty, union and workshop meetings, and being given a packet of information.

More than half the teachers who responded (61 percent) said they had little or no involvement. Others said they filled out forms, submitted a plan, read the packet and attended a meeting. Few (less than 5 percent) said they had total involvement.

Most teachers talked about graduate programs, courses and workshops to enhance and improve teaching. This faith and reliance on graduate coursework alone makes the connection to student learning for some. One said: "As I learn, the more I can give my students." Another said: "It (student learning) connects if you choose a course/workshop that addresses the needs of your students."

The highest percentage of answers indicated teachers were active in taking course work. This is not surprising, since those identified in the study were graduate students.

The second highest response revealed they were involved in taking workshops through their districts. This reply also was not surprising since teachers are engaged yearly in professional development. These programs are set up within the school year and attendance is mandatory.

The third highest response was the most surprising: teachers said they completed no activities. This seems inconsistent, since professional development programs are planned by school districts within the academic year. However, this response may indicate teachers are not well informed about CPDUs.

The majority of teachers agreed they would continue their graduate course while involved in the program and beyond. This may indicate teachers feel taking a graduate course is worthwhile. However, this reply may be connected to contractual incentives, such as changes in the pay scale.

The second highest response implied no future plans for continued professional development. This may show that teachers are not informed of current planning within their districts or they are not involved with plans for such events.

The third highest reply was "no response." Sadly, this lack of response may denote that teachers are not informed or are not actively involved in the process of planning such events.

The highest percentage of answers indicated that school districts are monitoring them.

However, the respondents did not identify the individuals monitoring these units. Once again, this may reveal that Illinois teachers are in the dark about this process.

The second highest reply was that a committee of peers exists to monitor the teachers. This indicates some large districts are taking an active role in beginning the process as explained by ISBE.

The greatest concern appeared when teachers wrote they were "on their own" when it came to monitoring. Although this may be true in some sense, the process outlined by ISBE suggests that a committee of peers would monitor this process within each school district.

This also may indicate teachers are not informed and/or involved in the current process.

In general, most teachers accepted the idea of re-certification and upgrading their skills and were interested in pursuing professional development opportunities. A greater challenge may come from the teachers themselves, many of whom appear to be taking a passive, cautious or skeptical role. It almost appears as if teachers are taking a back seat to the re-certification process, allowing "something to be done to them" rather than having a strong, involved voice. In one teacher's words: "It is important to continue to improve and update ourselves - but how can the state possibly determine that we are or aren't successfully doing this?"

Policymakers should view professional development as an important career process, not just a single event for the purpose of re-certification. According to Darling-Hammond (1995), "We cannot continue to allow the professional development of teachers to occur in a haphazard way, hoping that some major innovation in teaching and learning will ultimately rocket test scores to the top" (p. 598).

Although the Illinois Legislature should be praised for its efforts to expand and encourage professional development activities, questions still remain. Opportunities exist to improve the quality of teaching for the benefit of Illinois children when the purpose of the re-certification process is clear, organized and interactive. Some teachers say this is not the case.

Keeping track of the re-certification process means asking questions and continuing the dialogue during implementation. The key to success in professional development rests not so much in the discovery of new knowledge and teaching skills, but in the capacity to use the knowledge teachers have (Guskey, 1999).

Perhaps the most pertinent questions do not necessarily focus on the process of re-certification, but on how professional development can contribute to the lives of teachers and, more importantly, to the lives of students in Illinois.

Becker, K., & Bush, L., (1999). "Dialogue of change: Interpretations of professional development in teacher recertification in Illinois." Unpublished manuscript.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). "Policies that support professional development in an era of reform." Phi Delta Kappan. 76(8). 597-604.

Guskey, T.R. (1999, May 20). Results-oriented professional development: In search of an optimal mix of effective practices. (Online). 1-17. Available: Info trac search bank (1999, May 20).

Illinois State Board of Education (2001). "Teacher recertification process." (Online). Available: www. isbe.state il.us.

Stewart, D., Prebble, T., Duncan, P. (1997). "The reflective principal: Leading the school development process." New York: Richard C. Owens.