By JC Bowman
Public policy debates sometimes reveal something deeper than regulatory language or bureaucratic procedure. The proposed revisions to teacher licensure policy in Tennessee are one such moment. Beneath the technical language of assessments, endorsements, and remediation pathways lies a more urgent question: Does Tennessee still want teaching to remain a viable profession for talented people?
The warning signs are becoming increasingly evident. In Metro Nashville Public Schools, 659 teachers are seeking new assignments. While only a small percentage of these teachers have been deemed ineligible for rehire, the broader situation is concerning. Most alarmingly, of the 519 employees eligible for rehire, 427 are permit teachers who are still pursuing their certification, as there are not enough fully licensed professionals to fill classroom positions. Education writer TC Weber has raised similar concerns.
These displaced teachers and statistics should raise serious concerns among policymakers. School systems are experiencing declining enrollment, budgets are tightening, and teachers feel overwhelmed by unrealistic expectations alongside diminishing support. Some may point to vouchers as the cause of these issues, but their impact is minimal at best. The root problems are more likely related to licensure, state mandates, and funding challenges.
For years, Americans have spoken of teachers with reverence while simultaneously constructing systems that exhaust them. Teachers are expected to serve as instructors, counselors, social workers, behavioral specialists, and public moral referees. They are scrutinized politically from every direction yet often receive little institutional stability in return.
Then, after all of that, many aspiring educators are asked to stake their futures on a single high-stakes exam score. That model no longer reflects reality.
The revisions to Tennessee State Board of Education Policy 5.105 do not abandon standards. They modernize how competency is demonstrated. At a time when classrooms across Tennessee are struggling to recruit and retain qualified professionals, modernization is not a weakness but a necessity.
Critics will inevitably claim that Tennessee is “lowering the bar.” But that argument misunderstands both the proposal and the profession. There is a profound difference between lowering standards and broadening pathways to demonstrate mastery.
The policy, which could take effect in July, maintains rigorous expectations while recognizing what is obvious to anyone who has spent meaningful time in schools: a single standardized test score is not always the best measure of whether someone will become an effective educator.
Some candidates demonstrate mastery through portfolio work. Others excel through applied instruction, incremental assessment, or targeted remediation after narrowly missing the passing threshold. None of these approaches removes accountability. They acknowledge that human ability is more complex than a single day’s test performance.
Other professions have already embraced this reality. Lawyers gain practical experience through supervised practice. Physicians complete residencies. Skilled trades rely on competency demonstrations and apprenticeships.
Yet education — ironically, the profession charged with understanding human development — has too often remained trapped in rigid credentialing systems that mistake uniformity for excellence. The Tennessee proposal moves in a wiser direction.
Component-based assessments allow candidates to demonstrate competency step by step, rather than forcing them to retake entire exams because of a single weak subsection. Targeted remediation focuses on growth rather than punishment. Portfolio pathways better reflect the daily realities of teaching, where communication, preparation, and instructional judgment matter enormously.
The proposal also recognizes the value of academic preparation and professional expertise by expanding degree-based qualification options in areas such as Visual and Performing Arts and Career and Technical Education. That matters in a state that is trying to recruit qualified professionals for hard-to-fill positions.
None of this guarantees success. Teaching will remain difficult work. But these changes remove unnecessary barriers that discourage capable people from entering — or remaining in — the profession. And Tennessee desperately needs capable people to stay.
A school system cannot thrive amid instability. Students need experienced teachers. Young educators need mentors. Communities need continuity. When classrooms become revolving doors staffed increasingly by temporary or emergency-certified teachers, the long-term damage extends beyond staffing charts. Institutional trust erodes, academic consistency suffers, and school culture weakens. This hurts children.
This is why the debate over licensure matters far beyond administrative policy. It is ultimately about whether Tennessee understands the stakes of the current moment. The state faced a choice. It can cling to outdated systems designed for a different era, or it can preserve rigor while building more realistic pathways for talented educators to serve students.
The changes to Policy 5.105 recognize that maintaining excellence and expanding opportunity are not opposing goals. In fact, under current conditions, they may depend on one another. Good teachers demonstrate competency in different ways. Tennessee is finally beginning to recognize that reality. This is good policy, and we need always to be willing to revisit it until we get it right.
#####
JC Bowman is the Executive Director of Professional Educators of Tennessee, a non-partisan teacher association headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the association are properly cited. For more information on this subject or any education issue please contact Professional Educators of Tennessee. To schedule an interview please contact info@proedtn.org or 1-800-471-4867.
Legal Notice: This message and any attachments may contain confidential and legally privileged information. This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the named addressee(s). Please refrain from including sensitive data, such as social security numbers and passwords, in non-encrypted emails and non-password-protected email attachments when responding. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Suppose the reader of this message is not the intended recipient (or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipients). In that case, you are notified that you have confidential and privileged information and are officially notified that any unauthorized distribution or copying of this communication or the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you are not a named addressee, you should not copy, alter, post, forward, distribute, or disseminate the contents of the e-mail, either whole or partial, or attachments without the sender’s written permission. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake, and delete this e-mail from your system. Any views or opinions expressed may solely be those of the individual and may not necessarily represent those of Professional Educators of Tennessee (ProEdTN or PET). Please note That Emails sent from a government computer or a government-issued email account are not considered private.
You must be logged in to post a comment.