Circuit Court Rules Alternate Certification Candidates Not Highly Qualified under NCLB

In a controversial decision, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that a federal regulation allowing participants in alternative certification programs, who are merely working toward full state certification, actually fail to meet Congress’s definition of Highly Qualified in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, currently known as No Child Left Behind.

The suit, Renee v. Duncan, was filed by two students in California, their parents and two nonprofits – Californians for Justice and California Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.   The suit alleged that NCLB’s regulation allowing candidates in alternative certification programs to be deemed highly qualified violates the plain meaning and intent of statute and resulted in California in a disproportionate number of “interns” – teachers without full state certification – to teach and high minority and low income students.

In ruling for the students, the Ninth Circuit discussed the evidence presented that 41% of “interns” in California teach in 25% of schools with the highest concentration of minority students, where only 2 % of “interns” teach in the 10% of schools with the lowest concentration of minority students.

One popular program which would be impacted by this ruling is Teach for America. TFA teachers are almost never fully certified, in any state, before their arrival in the classroom. Instead, they engage in summer programs, prior to their teaching assignment and participate in ongoing professional development during their tenure.

CEC has long been concerned about the number of special educators who are not fully certified. Currently, the National Center to Improve Recruitment and Retention of Qualified Personnel for Children with Disabilities reports there are currently 45,000 uncertified special education teachers. To address this crisis, CEC has recommendations on what alternative certification programs should look like if their candidates are allowed to teach before reaching full state certification on page two of its ESEA Reauthorization Recommendations.  With the recent Congressional and national focus on the importance of the quality of teachers, this is likely to continue to be a matter of hot debate.

Comments

[Frank Reese]

I applaud the CEC for recommending changes in the way special educators are preparede for alternative certification. I participated in an ACP during my first year of teaching. It was a good program with an excellent reputation, but it needed to offer far more information than it did.

I hate to think that the ninth circuit's opinion will be upheld. It is problematic that so many special educators are undertrained. But most of them are eager to learn and will be brought up to speed by their schools. Merely declaring that 45,000 special educators are now ineligible for their jobs will not produce 45,000 highly qualified ones to take their places.

[Tisha]

What outcomes are being sought? Is the intent to bring about awareness and unfair teaching/hiring practices, or to seek monetary damages? I commend these families for challenging the state and it's hiring and placement practices.
The bigger question is why is there such a large number of specialist who do not have full certification? There should have been deadlines placed on fulfillment of certification requirements. If those deadlines are not met, then the teachers should have been released from their positions.