In keeping with NCTQ's "open door" policy about the Teacher Prep Review, we've created a public forum on which we're posting institutions' appeals of their scores on our standards. The goal is simple: we want to be absolutely sure that the scores for each and every teacher preparation program are accurate. The best way to do that, beyond the quality control measures we take in-house, is to have program leaders themselves provide evidence in the event that they believe a mistake has been made.
Before the Review was published in June, we let program leaders know how to provide us with their appeals and any relevant documents. With the release of the Review, we also publicly provided our scoring methodologies, which remain the best guidance for how we arrived at our scores and the kinds of evidence used in our analysis.
On June 18th, the portal to accept appeals was opened to all 1130 institutions in the first edition of the Review; institutions can submit responses through August 12th. So far, we've received finalized appeals from 23 institutions. Every week we'll publish a share of appeals alongside our responses until we've posted all of them. We'll also do our best to respond to specific claims about scores that are published elsewhere. Later this year, any score changes resulting from this forum process will be made public on our website, or -- if score changes are for "key standards" that are included in program ratings -- on both our website and on the U.S News website.
Today we're posting materials for seven institutions:
· Three of the institutions in this round submitted appeals through the NCTQ Forum: Florida State College at Jacksonville, Nevada State College, Texas Southern University.
· Three institutions submitted claims to a public website created by the American Association of the Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE): Columbia University (NY), St. Petersburg College (FL), Wheaton College (IL).
One professor publicly noted a scoring mistake
about her institution: Stanford University (CA).
Of the 10 separate scoring issues addressed in this first posting, we've found one mistake in our analysis that requires one score correction.