Teacher Shortages vs. Teacher Quality: What Massachusetts’s Experiment Tells Us
A recent study on Massachusetts’s COVID-era emergency teacher licenses offers compelling evidence that reducing licensure barriers can maintain—or even expand—the pool of effective educators without sacrificing student outcomes. The study, from Boston University researchers, found that emergency-licensed teachers (who only needed a bachelor’s degree) performed similarly to their traditionally licensed peers in boosting student test scores. But–and this is a big one–those teachers with no prior investment in teaching struggled more in English Language Arts (ELA) growth for their students and were likelier to leave the profession altogether.
This certainly reminds us of the values of both flexibility and merit, especially over rigid credentialing. Rather than mandating expensive, time-consuming certifications, perhaps states should empower schools to hire capable candidates—particularly those who are already invested in teaching (for instance, through substitute experience or alternative pathways). The findings of the study align with core American principles of local control and demonstrated competence over bureaucratic checkboxes.
During the pandemic, many states relaxed licensure rules in order to address teacher shortages. Massachusetts allowed emergency hires with just a bachelor’s degree, a practice that mirrored trends nationwide. Critics warned of lower quality, while proponents argued that excessive requirements deter talented candidates. This study provides the data to inform that debate, suggesting that strategic deregulation can work, but not without safeguards.
Licensure changes directly impact job security, so this is a delicate question. If emergency hires underperform or simply leave, schools face instability. Diluting requirements could also have larger impacts—perhaps of devaluing the teaching profession or, conversely, opening doors for overlooked talent. The BU study shows that some emergency hires succeed, but preparation matters.
If a teacher with only a bachelor’s degree can achieve the same student growth as a traditionally licensed peer, does that suggest that credentialing is overrated, or that we need better ways to measure true teaching effectiveness?
For a bit more context: the research examined Massachusetts teachers who were hired under the 2020-2021 emergency licenses. The researchers highlighted a few key takeaways. Emergency-licensed teachers, for instance, produced similar math and ELA growth as traditionally licensed peers in the following 2021 academic year. But in terms of retention, as we mentioned, the teachers with no prior teaching investment had lower ELA performance and higher attrition. This, according to the study, has major policy implications. Flexibility benefits the candidates who are already engaged in education (like career-changers with relevant experience), but blanket deregulation does risk creating higher turnover.
The researchers ultimately recommend targeted licensure reforms: keeping standards high while reducing barriers for committed candidates. For many of us in teaching, this is a win: less red tape, more focus on results.
What do you think? Should states permanently loosen licensure—or do the risks outweigh the rewards?