Model Phase 1 MC Initiative Rollout

Careful and iterative implementation of human capital policies and practices that incorporate micro-credentials enables issues to be addressed before attempting to scale up. However, it is best to try to prevent avoidable issues in initial design, communication, and implementation, as these can alienate educators and reduce trust and engagement in future iterations. ¹

Design steps to consider:

• Determine what the objective is and what success looks like and work backward
• Engage and collaborate with stakeholders in the policy development process to address concerns and incorporate ideas up front; in states and LEAs with teacher contracts and/or collective bargaining, bringing educator associations into the conversation early will be important
• Clearly communicate about educator MCs and their purpose
• Ensure resources are in place to support implementation during the initial rollout and beyond²

Following are three complementary, synergistic, but separate proposals for implementing the first phase of a comprehensive professional learning and advancement initiative that incorporates MCs in a high-leverage way, while avoiding potential perverse incentives and other pitfalls.

A pragmatic and effective state MC phase-in should start with educator advancement for several reasons. First, a relatively small proportion of educators are likely to be interested in or qualify for advancement, and hence this aspect of the initiative should be the easiest to get off the ground. Second, the license renewal and ongoing PD segments of the Phase 1 rollout will be smoother and more successful if there are skilled teacher leaders on hand who have already engaged with MCs to demonstrate their skills, and can guide peers through the process.³ Third, advancement is the most straightforward application for educator MCs, as MCs are first and foremost an assessment tool for demonstration of competency, rather than for professional learning.

Steps for implementing Phase 1A could look like this:

1. The state conducts an analysis of the current advanced teaching designations and roles available within LEAs to determine the greatest impact and need.
2. The state collaborates with school and LEA leaders, as well as individuals currently in those roles, to map advanced designations and roles into the necessary skills and areas of candidate fit. Where applicable, skills could then be broken into discrete competencies measurable with a MC.
3. The state details a clear pathway(s) to attaining each advanced teaching role or designation, and its responsibilities and compensation. Some of these advanced designations could be attained, at least in part, through completion of a requisite set of MCs.
4. LEAs would determine whether any additional selection criteria would be used in their particular hiring processes beyond the minimum state requirements for holding the advanced teaching designation. Even if a candidate has demonstrated specific skills or effectiveness, candidate fit should always be measured with behavioral interview-style questions.⁴
5. The state would reassess and add new teacher leader roles over time if sufficient demand across LEAs sufficed, as the goal of this initiative is to standardize teacher leader roles to allow for in-state portability as well as transparency about what those roles entail.

Even experienced, effective teachers can struggle with adjusting to the more proactive and individualized approach embodied by most current high-quality MCs. Implementing educator MCs successfully beyond “innovators” and “early adopters”⁵ will almost definitely require providing them with additional time, support, and encouragement. Beginning MC implementation for relicensure in a small subset of LEAs, but implementing them there at scale, serves two goals. First, it allows the state to provide deeper financial support, and more targeted technical assistance to LEAs, and second, the need to serve every teacher makes it more likely that LEAs develop the structures and systems most likely to result in positive long-term impacts on teacher talent.

The state would present LEAs with the following two options for teacher license renewal:

1. Current currency and requirements to earn relicensure would continue without modification.
2. Opting to replace continuing education units (CEUs) with MCs

LEAs that choose option 2 would no longer follow previous requirements for relicensure, including the use of a Carnegie unit threshold. Instead, LEAs would receive substantial funding and support to facilitate a change toward requiring a number of earned MCs. The number of MCs teachers would be required to earn should be reasonable (e.g., three in a five-year period) with plans to reassess in the future as MCs become better understood. The MC choice set would be specific to the goals outlined by the state and/or LEA. The options should be informed and supported by a LEA’s educators.

Before a LEA proceeds with its plan for using MCs for license renewal, it would have to be approved by the state. The state would review proposals to ensure that LEAs have a clear plan to provide teachers the protected time and support needed to complete a MC and collaborate with peers and receive targeted coaching and feedback.

Beyond being exempted from completing the traditionally required PD clock hours for license renewal, the following incentives would be attached to option 2:

• Additional financial and human capital support for program implementation. LEA officials would work closely with the state to ensure that structures are in place to support teachers to be successful with MCs. This includes adequate coaching, protected hours for professional learning, the creation of collaborative professional learning communities (PLCs) with peers, and financial support. If a LEA identifies additional resources that it would need to make the program successful (e.g., additional teachers to accommodate staffing shifts, etc.), the state will enter into a process with the LEA to identify how to meet that need.
• The state and LEA would communicate and provide direct incentives to teachers to promote buy-in. Teachers would no longer have to participate in “traditional” PD, and they would receive more job-embedded professional learning opportunities and support.⁶ Teachers should not be expected to pay for their MCs; this cost should be covered by the state. Any relicensure fees should also be greatly reduced.⁷ An alternative approach is to ensure that the cost to complete the MC requirements is significantly less than the traditional cost for license renewal.
• Some institutions of higher education may decide to offer graduate credits for completing specific stacks of MCs if they have coursework with which the MCs are aligned.

Teachers employed in option 1 LEAs would be allowed to individually pursue MCs in place of traditional time-based credits to broaden the number of educators who believe in the potential of MCs and who may become “earlyvangelists,” sharing the benefits of this novel approach with colleagues. It will also help provide states with more robust data about how to improve the initiative moving forward.⁸ However, this opportunity should be time-delimited so that teachers encourage their option 1 LEAs to select option 2 in the next phase of the MC initiative rollout. Additionally, to increase the incentive for LEAs to select option 2 in both phase 1 and phase 2, the state should establish a lower relicensure value for MCs earned in option 1 LEAs than is implied for the option 2 LEAs (e.g., would need to earn five MCs in a five-year period, instead of three).

The primary purpose of ongoing, personalized professional learning should be to improve individual teachers’ teaching skills, and with it, students’ learning and other outcomes. Professional growth plans (PGPs) are an approach that enables individualization of professional learning. Through the PGP process, teachers (often in conjunction with their colleagues) identify individual professional growth goals; map out a plan of activities to help achieve growth goals; and complete activities and submit evidence that the plan was effectively completed. A significant portion of states already require or encourage professional growth plans as a way to drive goal-oriented professional development. But in a large proportion of states, these requirements are only for novice and/or low-performing teachers, which inhibits a professional culture where ongoing professional learning and improvement is perceived as necessary for everyone.

Steps for implementing Phase 1C could look like this:

1. The state would develop an annual professional growth plan (PGP) process differentiated for the various educator roles in a school, and all educators would be required to develop and meet at least one growth goal each school year, depending on their needs and desires. PGPs would be driven by the individual educators themselves, but required to be developed in consultation with peers, coaches, and supervisors. The state would determine the guiding principles and process behind the PGP, including a sample plan template, training for assessors, and a sample rubric for assessing outcomes.
2. Educators would be asked to draw upon classroom, school, and LEA data and objectives in developing annual PGPs and work in consultation with local, regional, and/or statewide teacher leaders to identify strategies and processes for meeting those goals.
3. The state would create and fund teacher leader roles (potentially attained via MCs) to provide coaching and support to teachers as they develop, implement, and assess their PGPs.

The following incentives for LEAs and educators to engage with MCs would be attached to PGPs:

• Demonstrating attainment of a professional goal via a state-vetted MC would mean that an internal assessor would not have to assess the attainment of the goal.
• The state would cover any cost of enrolling and/or submitting documentation for a MC and would provide a small financial incentive attached to earning it (e.g., $50) to help attract educators unsure of the value of, or concerned with the risk of, trying the novel MC approach.⁹
• A teacher who attains an MC while fulfilling an authentic individual professional growth need that is also part of an advanced teaching MC could potentially achieve two goals at once.¹⁰