Kentucky drops the masters degree requirement for teachers: What you need to know

I've seen a lot of concerned and angry responses in social media to yesterday's decision by the Education Professionals Standards Board (EPSB) to drop the long-standing requirement that Kentucky teachers earn a master's degree (or equivalent) by their tenth year of service. There seems to be some confusion and misinformation about this change, where it comes from, and what it will do. In this post I'd like to provide some background and perspective. While this change of policy has big implications for university educator preparation programs (like the ones where I work at Western Kentucky University), I believe the net impact will be positive for teachers and for teacher professional development overall.

As always, let me be clear that I am speaking solely for myself in what I write here. My perspectives are mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of anyone else affiliated with WKU (where I am professor of educational administration, leadership, and research) or the Kentucky Board of Education (where I serve as a member; note also that KBE has no role in this decision by the EPSB to change the Master's degree requirement).

Kentucky's pay and rank system

First, it's important to know that Kentucky is fairly unusual in requiring teachers to earn a master's degree, but it is very common for school districts across the country to pay teachers more when they do. Under Kentucky law, individual school districts establish teacher pay scales, but they are required to differentiate pay for teachers based on both years of experience and "rank." In Kentucky's unique language, Rank 3 means a bachelor's degree, Rank 2 is a master's degree (or an equivalent, "planned fifth year" program), and Rank 1 is 30 credits of graduate coursework in a planned program beyond the master's degree.

Kentucky teachers were required by regulation to earn Rank 2 by the time they've been teaching 10 years, and districts usually pay about $5,000 more per year when they do. Teachers could voluntarily choose to go ahead and earn Rank 1, and most districts again pay teachers around 5,000 additional dollars to those who do. Over the course of a career, these pay bumps for Rank 2 and Rank 1 can add up to a sizable salary difference.

Yesterday the EPSB voted to waive the requirement that teachers earn Rank 2. It now becomes a voluntary option for teachers who would like to earn more money in their district, just like earning Rank 1.

Why make this change?

The simple reason for eliminating this requirement is that, despite many good reasons for earning a master's degree, there is no evidence that just earning a master's degree in itself has any meaningful impact on teacher job performance. Numerous researchers have examined this connection in multiple states, including this recent study from North Carolina by Helen Ladd and Lucy Sorenson. 

High quality master's degree programs can be a good source of professional development, can help teachers add new credentials and certification areas, and can serve as a useful mechanism for networking with other educators. Research suggests (unsurprisingly) that teachers who earn advanced degrees are more likely to stay in the teaching profession, which is a net positive in that it places limits on costly teacher turnover. And, teachers can earn substantially more money in doing so, even after they pay off the cost of their degree.

These are all good reasons for teachers to think about earning a master's degree. But they are insufficient to justify requiring every teacher to do so in a one-size-fits-all state mandate.

What will be the consequences?

The chief concern I've heard from teachers about the elimination of the master's degree requirement is that districts will cease to pay extra for earning one. But I believe this fear is unfounded.

First, KRS 157.390 requires districts to differentiate teacher pay based on rank. The amount of the difference is not stipulated. Districts are voluntarily paying teachers $4,000 to $6,000 more annually for earning Rank 2. As far as I can tell, if districts wanted to reduce this pay bump there is no provision under current law stopping them, as long as the pay was some amount higher than Rank 3. There is no reason to assume that districts will now rush to slash teacher pay when there was nothing stopping them from doing so already.

But furthermore, districts don't want to cut teacher pay and have no incentive to do so. In Kentucky, where we have 173 school districts, many in close proximity to each other, competition for high-quality teachers forces districts to keep their salary schedules in line with their neighbors. The backlash against local districts attempting to do this would be enormous and politically unfeasible. Districts may find new and innovative ways to compensate teachers, but at least one way will be based on rank earned (voluntarily), and the risk of cuts in overall teacher pay seems virtually non-existent. 

The second concern about waiving the master's degree requirement is the impact it will have on university graduate programs in education that have been able to rely on a captive stream of tuition dollars. Enrollments in educator preparation programs at both the undergraduate and graduate level are down nationally, and Kentucky's universities have felt the pinch also. Will this change mean even fewer students in their programs?

Almost certainly it will, as there will be some group of teachers who opt not to earn a master's degree. But for the reasons I note above, there is no reason to assume that this change of policy alone will cause massive numbers of teachers to abandon the idea of an advanced degree. Furthermore, this change places more creative pressure on universities to make sure the graduate degrees they offer are ever more effective, relevant, and affordable - a challenge we must meet regardless of whether master's degrees are required.

What this is NOT about

A bewildering array of accusations have appeared in my social media feeds from educators trying to make sense of this change. Almost all of them are unfounded or completely false.

First, it is not true that waiving the requirement that teachers earn a master's degree means that supporters of this change don't value education. I have two master's degrees and a doctorate. I make my living as professor in a graduate education program. My whole career is about promoting high-quality education. One can find value in advanced degrees without believing that every other educator must be forced to earn one.

Nor is this change part of some vast, right-wing conspiracy to "dismantle public education" in Kentucky, as one teacher on Facebook put it. The recommendation for waiving the master's degree requirement came from an ad hoc EPSB committee made up of stakeholders including teachers, administrators, and higher education officials that has been studying this issue for 18 months. The committee has made an array of recommendations regarding Rank 2 and other certification requirements which EPSB may also consider in coming months designed to make continuing education for teachers more flexible and relevant. 

Perhaps the most absurd accusation of all is that waiving the master's degree requirement is somehow designed to help charter schools - which Kentucky does not have at this time, despite a charter law successful passing in 2017. This is part and parcel to the ocean of misinformation deliberately spread by many educator groups about charter schools. Kentucky's charter law is clear that teachers in charter schools will have to be certified in the exact same way as teachers in traditional public schools, but charter schools already have the autonomy to set their own salary schedules and would not be beholden to district step-and-lane salary schedules regardless of this change in the master's degree requirement. (Read more about how charters will work in Kentucky here).

The bottom line is that this policy change simply gives teachers the opportunity to decide whether a master's degree is the right pathway for them individually. Most will do so, and will continue to be compensated accordingly. As I argued recently, these kinds of changes ultimately create more autonomy for individual educators and local schools to innovate and improve, and are deserving of support from people across the entire political spectrum.

Usual disclaimer: All views expressed on this website are mine alone and do not reflect the collective opinions of the Kentucky Board of Education (where I serve as a member) or Western Kentucky University (where I serve as professor of educational administration, leadership, and research).

Related posts:

• Urgency and humility: A conservative philosophy of education reform
• Kentucky charter schools basics
• Is education in Kentucky "under attack?"

Comments

[Lawrence Phillips]

Do you feel that EPSB will consider lessening the requirements for administrators, as well? If these arguments hold true for teachers should KY do away with the post-masters mentality for principals and superintendents?

[Gary Houchens]

One of the recommendations the committee is expected to make to EPSB is to remove the Master's requirement for admission to principal certification programs (a return to the same policy we had before 2013). I support that change also. Many outstanding administrators earned their principal licensure at the master's level, and that sets them up to continue toward additional certifications at the Rank I or doctoral level. I believe that change will broaden the pool of potential principal candidates, which will be beneficial to districts.

[Taylor Thompson]

The information that advanced degrees have little impact on teacher performance raises a lot of questions. I will submit these cautions and considerations when following that kind of research: (1) Find out how teacher performance was defined and measured; (2) Check how long the time span was over which the measurement occurred; (3) Consider what types of improved performance were expected from the advanced degree,if these types were measured AND if these performances were even possible or allowed by the teaching situation; (4) Consider the flexibility and long term usefulness of the skills and knowledge learned in the degree.

[Kare Schroader]

Would enjoy reading more on whether EPSB is going to change the masters requirement for administration degrees. Can you share a link?

[Corey Turpin]

Do you see a change to non-education majors in relation to OPTION 6 certification? Will non-education majors still be required to get a masters degree in teaching? Or will there be an altered route for certification that doesn't require the masters degree?

[Gary Houchens]

The same EPSB task force that recommended waiving the Rank 2 requirement has also recommended removing the requirement that one must have a master's degree for admission to a principal certification program. I'm hopeful that will be approved in coming months. This will allow universities to offer principal certification as either a Rank 2 or Rank 1 option (or cert only).

[Gary Houchens]

I don't believe the task force has considered Option 6 at this point. I don't believe the state requires a master's for Option 6. Rather, I think that's just the way universities typically package such programs. With the change in the Rank 2 requirement I wouldn't be surprised if universities rethink that approach.

[Gary Houchens]

All good points. Every research study and methodology has its limitations. My own review of this research leads me to the conclusion that we just can't say with confidence that the Master's degree does, in fact, have a measurable impact on student learning. And therefore it shouldn't be a mandated requirement, no matter what other positive benefits advanced degrees may bring.

[tom willis]

Could it be that universities are dropping the ball???? Shouldn't we expect universities to be providing programs that cause teachers to improve? A masters degree program should be some of the best professional development that teachers receive...then again, maybe professional development might not be necessary...after all the state has essentially eliminated funding for pd.

[Judy Stice]

I am so proud of my degrees. My daughter saw my enthusiasm for seeking knowledge. She is now a principal. Her daughter saw her enthusiasm. She became a teacher who is now working on her Master’s degree. Knowledge seeking. That is what we pass to students and family members. Unfortunately, those who have decided that teachers do not need high expectations have dropped the ball for future generations and have devalued the past generations...those who have promoted high expectations. It is a sad day for true educators. Judy Stice, retired teacher.

[Gary Houchens]

Thanks, Judy. I am proud of my degrees also, and of all those who earn them. By state mandate, districts will continue to reward teachers who advance their education with graduate degrees, and graduate degrees will continue to be required for additional certifications like administration. The only change is that teachers will no longer be forced to earn them if doing so does not make sense for them or fit with their career plans.