State Variations in Certification of Teachers of Students With Visual Impairments

Document Collection

The researchers conducted desk research to collect publicly available digital documents between January and February 2021. Further documents were gathered to provide the missing information in August and September 2021. The research team determined that all policy documents would take coding precedence over guidance documents provided by states. The documents gathered were administrative codes or rules, statutes, regulations, and other official state documents, such as procedural manuals. Often five or more documents were collected for each state to gather all necessary information. Documents were gathered from official state websites (e.g., state department of education website, state legislature website).

Visual Impairment Certification Codebook Components

The team developed 15 variables to capture a broad overview of each state's certification requirements for TVIs. Twelve codes were quantitative (eight binary, two continuous, and one categorical) and four were nominal data in the form of qualitative text responses about the terminology used within the documents.

Coding Procedures and Reliability

A codebook with the aforementioned variable codes was created jointly by the research team using a priori codes to establish intercoder reliability. The a priori codes were created through a review of a selection of the initial documentation. The codebook established the name of the code, a definition, code type, code, and notes. An initial reliability check was conducted using two coders to code 20% of the total states (n = 11). Then, the team refined the definition for four codes within the coding frame with lower intercoder reliability (ICR). The outcome of the intercoder reliability was 82.9% with a range of 60.0–96.4% for individual codes. The variables with weaker levels of agreement were: (a) initial license, (b) standards listed, (c) provisional renewable, and (d) emergency certification available. In general, the documentation required a high degree of interpretation due to the depth of the documents and the latent content. The initial license data was challenging to gather because it was often situated under a different umbrella of certification (e.g., general teacher or special education). Standards were often found in supplemental documentation. Dense or latent content prevented the coders from understanding if a certain certification was renewable. Emergency certifications had varied terminology and many stipulations depending on the certification making it difficult to find the correct information.

The researchers recognize that reliability may be lower than typically presented. However, “more conceptually sophisticated coding frames typically produce lower ICR calculations” (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020, p. 8). Due to the complexity of the documents reviewed, it was determined that 100% of the data would be double-coded to increase validity of the results and improve trustworthiness of the data. If agreement was still not reached on an individual code, all three coders reread the documents and came to a consensus. The variables for lower reliability (lower than 80%) were discussed with all researchers.

License and Endorsement Data

A limited number of states (n = 23) offered a TVI license that was not contingent on additional certification areas. Most states required a previously or concurrently earned teaching license, such as elementary or special education, to add TVI certification. All states had options for endorsement in TVI, so this was not included in Table 1.

Coursework, Standards, and Testing Requirements

Coursework was coded as required if the state documents listed specific set and hours of university coursework directly related to earning TVI certification. Fifty-six percent of the states (n = 31) did not require specific coursework. For the states that did have a specific coursework requirement, they either provided a required number of semester hours (e.g., 36 credit hours), specific coursework (e.g., eye anatomy), or both. Some states included semester hours for a specific topic (e.g., three credits of braille). Other states had a general requirement to take coursework within the visual impairment field, which could include other related fields such as orientation and mobility.

Standards were coded as yes (1) if the state documents included specific state or professional organization standards to be met to earn TVI certification. Testing requirements were coded as yes (1) if any content tests were required to earn TVI certification. Sixty-two percent of states (n = 34) did not list standards directly related to visual impairments. For states that did list standards, they were sometimes from a professional organization (e.g., Council for Exceptional Children) and sometimes they were state-specific standards. Sixty-four percent of the states (n = 35) required specific tests for TVI certification. Based on the initial coding of test types, the majority of the states required Praxis tests, though some had state-specific testing requirements. For the above codes, requirements for earning an initial teaching license in general or special education were not considered; only requirements specific to obtaining certification in the field of visual impairments were included.

Thirty-six percent of states (n = 20) did not require specific coursework but did require passing a test as a requirement for certification. Forty-two percent of states (n = 23) did not list specific standards but did require passing a test for certification. Six states (n = 6) did not have any requirements listed for coursework, standards, or testing requirements. See Figure 1 for a heat map of states that had courses or standards required. See Figure 2 for a heat map of states that had testing required.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

States With Required Courses or Professional Standards.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

States With Required Testing.

Provisional and Emergency Certification

There were many variations in terminology used to describe what we defined as provisional certification: Provisional, Conditional, Limited, and Out of Field Authorization. Forty-two states (n = 42) offered some provisional certification. Provisional certification was valid for 1–5 years depending on the state, and 19 states (n = 19) permitted renewal (see Table 1).

Emergency certification was also called by different names across states: Temporary, Limited, and Emergency. Thirty-six percent (n = 20) had some emergency certification, valid for 1–3 years depending on the state, and 20% (n = 11) of states allowed emergency certification to be renewed. See Figure 3 for a heat map of states that offered emergency certification.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

States With Emergency Certification.

Ages and Grades

The ages and grade ranges associated with the TVI certification vary widely. Depending on the state, teachers can either be certified to teach birth–21 years or 3–21 years. TVIs certified in one state might be granted reciprocity in another state, and thereby, be certified to provide services to students for which they have received no preparation. Meaning this teacher would be considered qualified but has never been trained or taken coursework to work with infants and young children. Since younger children require a different pedagogical approach, the inconsistency of age certification may impact services provided to during this critical time of development.

Another issue to highlight in the area of ages and grade ranges is the number of states that do not have TVI certification covering the birth–3 years population. Presumably, there are mechanisms within states for allowing TVIs to serve on IFSP teams and work with families of young children with visual impairments, but the official state policy documents are not clear on the matter of how teachers who are not licensed in this age range are able to serve this population of students.

Certification Testing, Coursework, and Standards Requirements

State requirements for coursework, standards, and testing varied. The majority of states did not have particular course or standard requirements, but they did have specified test requirements. The foundation of new TVIs differs based on the program they attended, and it may be more challenging in some states and less stringent in others to complete the standards. Some states offer certifications in which teachers may choose to simply take the exam. Assessment and course requirements can affect how teachers feel about preparedness when they enter the field.

There are national professional standards for teaching students with visual impairments set by agencies such as the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER). While many university programs require that students meet professional standards to become a TVI; state regulations do not align with university requirements. For example, in a Midwestern state, students in the university program must meet CEC standards to receive an endorsement license in TVI. However, the regulations do not state that CEC standards are required to obtain the endorsement.

It is unclear how states with TVI preparation programs relate to the requirements. There are approximately 36 TVI programs in 30 states. Due to the lack of an up-to-date public listing of professional preparation programs for TVIs, this figure may vary. The preliminary research did not reveal a direct correlation between states requiring courses, the requirements within the regulations, and states offering TVI programs. State A, for example, offers two personnel preparation programs, but neither coursework nor standard requirements are included in the state rules. On the other hand, State B has significant coursework requirements within the regulations but no TVI personnel preparation program, which demanded a minimum of thirty (30) semester credits in visual impairment, although they did not list any specific coursework.

Types of Certification

The terms emergency, temporary, and provisional were used in ESSA and the 2022 OSEP memorandum as types of certifications that cannot be granted. However, after a conference with OSEP representatives, the inability to offer waivers as they are labeled is more of an issue with semantics within state documentation. In some states, the definition of emergency, temporary, or provisional certification aligns with the federal guidelines of an alternative route to certification. Therefore, those alternative routes of certification are still allowable under ESSA, even if the state refers to it as an emergency, temporary, or provisional certification process. Ultimately the terminology that is used in state documentation is not as important as the description of the process. Future policies should be updated to be more in line with the terminology of ESSA to avoid confusion.

Limitations

This study has two main limitations. First, it represents conditions present during the period in which the research was conducted. Many states were in the process of updating the codes and regulations that guide teacher licensure, and these changes are not reflected in the data.

Second, the researchers only coded the information found directly in the publicly available state policy documents which sometimes included making inferences about which sections of the regulations were applicable to TVIs. In general, the number of documents the information was spread across and the ambiguous language used in many documents made it difficult to locate all the information. Since most states require a foundational teaching license on which to add TVI certification, there are state requirements embedded in the initial licensing requirements (e.g., requirements to become a special education teacher) that are not captured in this data set.

Implications for Practice

Although this research may not directly affect the day-to-day practice of TVIs, there are significant implications for the quality of services being provided to children in different states. The discrepancies within the certification process create variations across states that cause differences in levels of teacher preparation and teacher quality.

There are substantial variances across state certification standards. In State A, for instance, a prospective teacher may merely need to pass a test to become a certified TVI. In State B, the same individual would require a master's degree to get certified. Varying certification requirements directly impact students because some may be assigned a special educator who has passed a test but has little to no preparation on the unique needs of students with visual impairments, while others are assigned teachers with considerable understanding of these needs. Another significant concern may be that the content assessments are not an effective measurement of the knowledge required to be an effective teacher in our field. While knowledge is helpful in understanding how to provide services to a unique population, there is other relevant information to consider, such as the application of skills and experience. Consequently, although reciprocity exists between most states, certification criteria across states remain inequitable which likely means that services to students remain inequitable. To make certification more equitable, states should focus on their requirements for demonstrating knowledge and skills (e.g., course requirements, professional standards, or both) rather than direct testing of only knowledge.

When guidance materials and agreements between departments of education and universities exist outside of the regulations, it adds another layer of complication to the process. These documents are not readily available to the public and outline essential components of the requirement for certification. Further research that focuses on in-depth interviews with state representatives who know all the licensing details for their state may provide more transparent and accurate data.