Final Considerations

The ultimate goal of revisiting teacher professional development and advancement policies is to improve and retain teacher talent, especially in our highest-need schools. Because these are model policies for teacher professional development and advancement, not customized ones, some elements offered here may not make sense within a given state. But, generally, strong evidence-based, high-quality systems of educator professional development and advancement exist only in rare pockets of excellence, and often do not benefit the students most in need of high-quality instruction. The objective of offering these model policies is not to advocate for throwing every baby out with the bathwater, but rather to indicate what an effective, comprehensive approach to high-quality human capital systems would look like if built from the ground up, with MCs incorporated as part of the solution.

The proposals offered here attempt to be realistic about what is feasible within state and LEA budgets under normal circumstances. However, while finding ways to fund new initiatives is always a challenge, this is particularly true right now, in the middle of a pandemic. A more detailed analysis of current state and LEA spending on teacher development and advancement initiatives would be useful to determine the level of funding that states and LEAs may be able to redirect from existing funding streams.

That said, during tough budget times, it is even more important that education leaders and policymakers not just invest in high-potential tools and approaches, but make efforts to ensure that they actually achieve that potential, so that students can benefit from the investment and scarce dollars are not wasted. Policy makers should not expect any tool to be a “silver bullet”: many research studies of teacher PD find that “evidence-based” approaches only work under certain conditions, and MCs will be no different.¹ We will not realize the potential of educator MCs without taking steps toward a comprehensive review—and in many cases, a complete overhaul—of existing policies and systems, with an eye toward ensuring additional support for those schools serving the students with the most need.

Political challenges also exist. Currently, many entities are making money by offering PD for educators, including education consultants, institutions of higher education, software companies, some educator associations, and so on. Any attempt to disrupt or shift the way the current market works will likely be met by pushback. But having a clearly considered theory of action and inclusive process for taking policy steps, such as the one outlined here, will minimize friction.

Another possible source of difficulty is gaining support from educators themselves. Educators may have negative preconceived notions about the value of micro-credentials or be cynical about the staying power of any new initiative, having watched previous “reforms” come and go. The state should involve principals and teachers from the outset of the MC discussion. States can maximize teacher buy-in by inviting them into the design and implementation process and by offering the incentives listed above. Of particular concern will be teachers who already hold advanced roles or designations or are currently working toward them. States must take measures to ensure that those who currently hold a particular advanced designation, role, or position in a school not be negatively impacted by any changes to advanced designation policies. They must also outline a fair process for those teachers who are already a significant portion of the way on a current path that the state is planning to close in the future.

Moving from the status quo is always difficult. But failing to meet the needs of our educators and, most importantly, the needs of the students they serve is not an option to achieve the society we need, desire, and deserve.