MTTC Constructed-Response Endorsements
State as of April 2026: OEE proposed building constructed-response tests for optional science and social studies endorsements. The committee advised against it and offered four cheaper alternatives. Not resolved.
What OEE proposed
Constructed-response item (CRI) test forms for optional disciplinary specialisation endorsements. A candidate must pass the science or social studies test before taking the additional endorsement test.
- Science endorsements: biology, chemistry, Earth and space science, physics, physical science
- Social studies endorsements: civics, economics, geography, history
Nine additional tests. OEE’s stated difficulty is the specificity CRIs require, and it wanted other options.
The standards themselves were developed from stakeholders, experienced educators, and educator associations and groups.
The committee’s answer
Don’t — Do not build constructed-response endorsement tests:
This creates a lot of work, will be hard to do, and will be expensive; suggest that this isn’t necessary.
Pearson’s question of how many CRIs per test went unanswered because the committee rejected the premise.
The four alternatives
- Consider transcript review to verify coursework — verify the candidate took coursework in the area
- Use higher conjunctive cut scores on the existing test — require a higher, conjunctive cut on the existing test’s sub-areas
- Build one open-ended prompt from a randomly selected standard — randomly select a standard as an open-ended prompt, scored against a rubric
- Give districts an interview guide instead of a test — give districts a guide to what to ask at interview
The third is the most developed. Pearson already has rubrics for other CRI items. The committee noted that social studies standards are not all written as questions, so the task would evaluate the skill of developing an argument — a skill that applies across all four social studies fields, which is what makes one instrument serve four endorsements. Cut scores would be set from the rubric. Scoring capacity was named as the obstacle.
A variant was raised and not pursued: performance items rather than constructed response — for example, develop a lesson plan.
The complication
Higher education institutions may design educator preparation programmes as they wish and are not aligned across programmes. That is what weakens transcript review, and it is also part of why an endorsement test exists.
OEE noted that Educator Preparation Programs are permitted to develop their own assessment and propose it to the superintendent — an existing route that already tolerates non-comparability.
The National Board Certification test was raised as an existing instrument but is not aligned to Michigan standards.
The question that governs all of it
Define the purpose of the endorsement assessment. What does having the endorsement on a certificate signify? The answer given in the room — that the holder knows the content in the standards — is a low bar, and it is a bar that a conjunctive cut on an existing test could clear at a fraction of the cost of nine new constructed-response instruments.
This is the same move the committee made in MTTC Meaningfully Different Forms: define the inference first, then choose the instrument that supports it.
History
| Meeting | What moved |
|---|---|
| Session 4 — Michigan Test for Teacher Certification | CRI endorsement tests proposed and advised against; four alternatives offered; purpose question raised |