Teacher Licensure Pass Rates

To better understand the field's views, NCTQ conducted surveys and focus groups with leaders from state education agencies (SEAs) and teacher preparation programs. Surveys were developed by the National Council on Teacher Quality with input from the Content Matters Campaign Advisory Committee, which includes state leaders, educator prep faculty, and representatives from national advocacy organizations, among others. Surveys were sent to 52 leaders from state education agencies¹ and were completed by 37 respondents representing 36 states. Surveys were sent to leaders of 986 teacher preparation programs and were completed by respondents from 202 different programs.

Focus groups were conducted with SEA and TPP leaders virtually in early December 2020. Two focus groups were conducted with each group, comprising 13 SEA leaders and 15 prep program participants, from a total of 24 different states. NCTQ and the Advisory Committee developed the focus group protocol and NCTQ conducted the focus groups.

Nearly everyone agrees that teachers cannot teach what they do not know. In total, 83% of teacher prep leaders (TPPs) and 95% of state education agency (SEA) leaders agreed with that statement.

The field shared a broad consensus that teachers should demonstrate content knowledge before they go into the classroom. Only a small minority of respondents assert that teachers can learn their content as they teach it (14% of prep program leaders and 5% of state education agency leaders). In some cases, those that assert that teachers can learn as they go recognize that doing so requires a well-developed curriculum, or that this process places an additional burden on teachers.

"Content knowledge does not predict the ability of effective instruction, it is a prerequisite for effective instruction." - SEA leader

"Robust instructional planning is required for effective instruction in any content area. Content knowledge plays such an important role in instructional planning--in making connections, in helping student delve deeply into content, in writing clear targets/objectives." - EPP leader

The field has more varied views on who is responsible for either teaching content or for verifying that candidates know core content before they earn licenses. Ideally, aspiring teachers would have learned much of the content by the time they received their high school diploma. However, the field agrees that a high school diploma does not always guarantee a firm grasp of content knowledge.¹ In instances where completing high school has not ensured content knowledge, respondents think that aspiring teachers should learn core content while in college, either through their general education coursework (about 85% of respondents from both groups) or through their preparation program (57% of prep program leaders and 85% of state education leaders).

As for verifying that teachers know core content before they earn a teaching license, the plurality of respondents thought that either the preparation program or the state should be responsible (about a third of respondents from each group in each case).

Teachers agree on the importance of content knowledge.
An E4E survey² found that nearly all (98%) of teachers said that prospective teachers should be able to demonstrate that they have the knowledge and skills necessary to teach in order to be licensed.

Licensure tests are favored by leaders from state education agencies more than by leaders from teacher prep programs. While states currently employ several means of assessing teachers' content knowledge, the most common is licensure tests. Forty-three states require elementary teacher candidates to pass a test of their content knowledge.¹ The remaining eight states offer candidates an alternative to passing a licensure test, including having a degree or major in the content area or completing a content-based portfolio.

The plurality of state education agency (SEA) leaders believe that state licensure tests are very accurate (46%) and are the best tool to measure teacher candidates' content knowledge (45%). Teacher prep program (TPP) leaders tend to believe that completion of an accredited, approved preparation program is very accurate (45%, compared with 31% for state licensure tests) and are split on whether completion of a prep program (27%) or a state licensure test (25%) is the best measure.

It should not be a single assessment but multiple assessments to measure content knowledge. One element should not determine content knowledge. - EPP leader

For straight content knowledge, I think an assessment is best to ensure breadth and depth appropriate for teaching students at that level. Pedagogy would be a different measure and instruction would be different, but if it's about whether they know the content to teach students I would still go with an assessment of some kind. - SEA leader

In an ideal world, the core curriculum from any accredited college or university should suffice; however, there is great variability in the quality of educational institutions in our state so this is not necessarily viable. - EPP leader

On the whole, the field views licensing tests as an accurate, scalable means of measuring teacher candidates' content knowledge, albeit an imperfect one. The majority of respondents, 58% of prep program leaders and 79% of state education agency leaders, believe that states should require teachers to pass a valid licensure test.

However, the field also holds some skepticism toward exams. While more respondents believe that systemic inequities in education drive the higher rates of failure among candidates of color, some identify bias in the tests themselves as a core cause of different passing rates. Leaders of teacher prep programs are also more likely to think that many people who have a strong foundation in core content areas still fail licensure tests.

Teachers' views of licensure tests are mixed but trend positive. An Educators for Excellence survey² found that while only 32% said that their licensing test assessed knowledge and skills "very well," another 47% said the test did this "somewhat well." Only 4% said the test did not do this "well at all." A 2014 UFT (NYC Teachers Union) survey asked whether various reforms would be effective for improving educational outcomes for NYC students, and 73% of teachers said that licensing exams would be somewhat or highly effective.³

Views toward licensure tests were more positive among respondents who considered themselves more familiar with the licensing test in their state. Two thirds of teacher prep leaders considered themselves "mostly" or "very" familiar with their state's licensing test. This group was more likely to think that their state's test reflected the core content elementary teachers need to know (45%, compared with only 18% among those who were "only a little" or "not at all" familiar with their state's test). This group was also more likely to believe the state should require a valid licensing test (62%, compared with only 50% of those with little familiarity with the state's test).

Leaders of minority-serving institutions (MSIs) shared similar views with other prep program leaders on the importance of teachers demonstrating content knowledge but were more skeptical of licensing tests than non-MSI respondents.¹

Data from licensure tests may offer a powerful tool to identify systemic inequities in the educational system and to spotlight institutions that are helping their candidates succeed. Seventy percent of SEA leaders believe that pass rates should be published. In contrast, only 47% of prep program leaders believe that this data should be published, and this group is less likely to believe in the utility of this data.

Both groups share some concern that publishing pass rate data could penalize programs that serve more students from disadvantaged backgrounds, suggesting that contextual information should accompany pass rate data. During focus groups, many participants supported the idea of providing pass rate data with additional context. They asserted that providing pass rate data alongside information about students' socioeconomic background or racial demographics may provide a picture that is more "nuanced" or that gives "another layer" of information.

Participants from both the teacher prep program and state education agencies found the information about institutions that "broke the trend" in pass rates to be compelling.

"The publication of pass rates is fine, but only if the contexts are clear. Open institutions versus selective institutions, institutions that serve high numbers of ESL learners versus those that do not, etc." - EPP leader

"The review and analysis of pass rate data at the EPP and even state level could be a very valuable process - if it were done to better understand inequities and identify ways to support the preparation of teaching candidates. However, publishing this data holds strong potential for misunderstanding and misuse of the data." - EPP leader

Pass rate data as a metric for teacher prep program accountability. About half of EPP leaders (48%) and 68% of state education agency leaders agreed that the licensure test pass rates should be considered as part of a state's teacher preparation program approval process.

Pass rates as a source of consumer protection. Aspiring teachers may be better served by enrolling in preparation programs that have higher rates of success with teacher licensure tests, and so may benefit from access to this information. However, the field was somewhat skeptical about this idea: Only 44% of EPP leaders and 64% of SEA leaders agreed that it would be useful.

Pass rate data can highlight systemic inequities in the educational system, helping to prompt change. Support for this use of licensure tests was on par with using licensure test data for program accountability and consumer protection, with 48% of EPP leaders and 67% of SEA leaders in agreement.

In general, respondents seemed concerned that publishing data could penalize programs that serve students from disadvantaged backgrounds. This concern was greater among EPP leaders than SEA leaders.

"It is important to hold programs accountable at the state level (since that is how the current system works, rather than using national data) and even more important to use these results as a measure of program improvement, including Equity." - EPP leader

Six states offer elementary candidates alternative ways to demonstrate content knowledge, although it is not always clear whether states reviewed evidence on the validity of these proxy measures:

Licensure tests are one of several ways to demonstrate content knowledge. When compared with many alternative measures, they are arguably more comparable, scaleable, efficient, reliable, and comprehensive than most. Currently, five states offer alternatives to licensure tests as a means to demonstrate content knowledge. However, it is not clear that these alternatives produce the same benefits as licensure tests.

When considering alternative measures, states should answer the following questions:

Forty-three states require elementary teacher candidates to pass a test of their content knowledge.¹ The remaining eight states offer candidates an alternative to passing a licensure test, including having a degree or major in the content area or completing a content-based portfolio.

In nearly every state, candidates must pass a licensure test before they can earn a teaching license. (For more on states' requirements on licensure tests, see the State Teacher Policy Database.) Beyond that basic restriction, there is a great deal of leeway as to when candidates must take or pass a licensure test, often decided by the preparation program.

Most often, programs report requiring candidates to take (though not necessarily pass) the licensure test before they can student teach. Many programs require passing the licensure test as a condition of completing the teacher preparation program.

In traditional-route programs, some may require a test at the point of admission into the program, although this is rare, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. NCTQ reviewed admissions materials for 894 undergraduate elementary education programs and 324 elementary graduate programs, finding only 3% that require candidates to take a test as part of the admission process (and not all require candidates to pass it).

Alternative route programs have a similar variation for when they require content licensure tests, although state policy plays a larger role with these programs. In 12 states, all alternative route candidates must pass a content licensure test prior to admission into a program.

Timing of the licensure test is important. If candidates take it too late in the program, they have little time to close any gaps in their knowledge, making it harder for them to earn a teaching license. However, programs may not want candidates to bear the costs of licensure tests too early; in this case, a diagnostic exam would be a useful tool to identify candidates' content strengths and shortfalls to address needed supports.

States vary in their rules around who can take a licensure test. Most states allow anyone (in the state or elsewhere) to take teacher licensure tests. They support this open-door policy with a robust data system that allows them to distinguish between test takers who are enrolled in teacher prep programs and those who are not. In a few states, such as Georgia, test takers must meet certain criteria, such as having approval from their preparation program to take the test or being a certified teacher who is seeking an additional certification.

The challenge when states have open-door policies is that their pass rate data may include both test takers who are enrolled in teacher preparation programs and those who are not, making it more difficult to draw conclusions from the data.

To learn more about this issue, NCTQ sent a survey to leaders from all 50 state education agencies and D.C. and received responses from 43 SEAs.

Of these, 38 states (88%) allow anyone to take a test regardless of whether they're in a preparation program. The remaining five states (12%) set some requirements. Common requirements include being enrolled in a teacher preparation program, being approved by a program to take the test, being a licensed teacher seeking an additional certification or seeking to move from another state to the state in question, and applying for an alternative certification program.

Of those who allow anyone to take the test, almost half (19 states) can distinguish pass rate data between who is enrolled in a prep program and who is not. Eight states (19%) cannot distinguish between the two groups, two states said that they could get this data from their testing provider, and the remainder were not sure or said that it depended on the information the test taker supplied when registering for the test.

Further discussions with states revealed that in most cases, state education agencies should be able to get this data from their testing company. For Title II data, the testing companies work with programs to validate pass rate data by having programs "claim" test takers as being enrolled in or having completed their program. States could use this list of "claimed" test takers to remove those who are not enrolled in teacher preparation programs.

Standardized tests, including licensure tests, generally go through a "standard setting process," which uses aggregated judgments from experts to determine a recommended passing score. In light of that expert recommendation, states can then choose where to set their own passing score. As described by ETS, one of the two large testing companies:

"Standard-setting studies serve two purposes. First, they are designed to identify the level of knowledge for a test taker to be considered minimally qualified for independent, beginning practice. The level of knowledge is represented by a minimum test score that test takers need to achieve. Second, the studies are designed to reconfirm the relevance (validity) of the test content for teachers in the adopting state."¹

On tests developed by ETS, nearly all states follow the recommended passing score.² On tests developed by Pearson, technical reports and test websites publish the passing score in use by the state, but there is often less transparency around what the recommended passing score is because Pearson does not release any information (including recommended cut scores) public unless requested by the state education agency,³ and therefore it is less clear whether states are setting an appropriate passing score or not.

Programs report two sets of pass rates data through Title II. For "single assessment pass rates," programs report best-attempt pass rates for all candidates enrolled in or completing their program. Most elementary content licensure tests have multiple subtests, in which case these pass rates are reported on the subtest level, rather than on the composite test.

The other set of data is the "summary pass rate," which is the proportion of test takers who passed all their licensure tests. These summary pass rates have limited utility. They are reported in aggregate at the institution level and are only reported for "program completers." Also, the reporting requirements allow programs to exclude candidates who were unable to pass, resulting in average program completer pass rates of 95-96%.¹ This paints a far rosier picture than the reality for aspiring elementary teachers.

The Department of Education's report explains the shortcoming in Title II data:

Neither the single assessment pass rates nor the summary pass rates shed light on the extent to which elementary teacher candidates require multiple attempts to pass.³ This data also does not include first-attempt pass rates, nor does it include pass rates disaggregated by race/ethnicity. Finally, reporting single assessment pass rates at the subtest level, but not the composite, obscures whether the same candidates are struggling across all subtests.

Additional detailed and inclusive data would be more actionable for teacher prep programs and state education agencies.

1. Alignment with the content that elementary teachers are expected to teach with adequate breadth and depth. Teachers need to know the content they will teach their students — and at least a bit more¹ — so that they can build background knowledge and prepare their students for the next grade level. Elementary teachers are often certified for a range of grades (e.g., kindergarten through sixth grade) and therefore need to be familiar with core content across that entire range.
2. Separately scored core subject areas. In most cases, elementary teachers need to be prepared to teach all four core subject areas (and, in fact, elementary teachers are often less effective when they specialize in one or two subjects²). A strong licensure test should separately test and score each subject area (e.g., through a separate subtest devoted to each subject), and teachers should be required to pass each subject area's test. In the absence of these separate scores, it may be possible for a teacher's strength in one area to overshadow a severe weakness in another.³ Currently, only half of states require all elementary teachers to pass a test that meets this criterion.
   
   
3. The minimum score to pass is aligned with expert recommendations. Standardized tests, including licensure tests, generally go through a "standard setting process," which uses aggregated judgements from experts to determine a recommended passing score. States can then choose where to set their own passing score, in light of that expert recommendation. As described by ETS, one of the two large testing companies,
   "Standard-setting studies serve two purposes. First, they are designed to identify the level of knowledge for a test taker to be considered minimally qualified for independent, beginning practice. The level of knowledge is represented by a minimum test score that test takers need to achieve. Second, the studies are designed to reconfirm the relevance (validity) of the test content for teachers in the adopting state."⁴

On tests developed by ETS, nearly all states follow the recommended passing score. On tests developed by Pearson, there is often less transparency around what the recommended passing score is because Pearson does not release any information (including recommended cut scores) public unless requested by the state education agency,⁵ and therefore it is less clear whether states are setting an appropriate passing score or not.

Licensure tests of content knowledge are meant as a guardrail, ensuring that those who enter the classroom have an adequate level of knowledge about the topics they will be teaching. However, this knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for teachers to be effective; content knowledge is only one strand of the tapestry of effective teaching. Because these tests do not capture the complete picture of what makes an effective teacher, one would not expect these tests to be fully predictive of teachers' effectiveness, nor is that their role. However, it would be alarming if ample evidence indicated a negative relationship between passing licensing tests and teacher effectiveness, perhaps suggesting that these tests were blocking large numbers of effective would-be teachers from earning licenses.

To explore the full breadth of research on licensure tests, NCTQ identified thousands of potentially relevant studies published over the last three decades.¹ Of these, only 15 were directly relevant to the question of whether licensure tests predict teacher effectiveness as measured by student outcomes. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant positive relationship between a teacher's test scores (or a binary measure of whether or not they passed the content licensure test) and that teacher's effectiveness in the classroom.² The most recent study, examining MTEL tests in Massachusetts, found that not only did teachers' licensure test scores predict both teachers' value added scores and their evaluation ratings (and the latter was even more strongly predictive for teachers of color), but also that a one standard deviation increase in teachers' MTEL scores corresponded with an increase teacher performance ratings equivalent to about two thirds of the improvement between a first- and second-year teacher.³

Among the four remaining studies, one reported finding no statistically significant relationship between licensing test performance and effectiveness,⁴ although few in the study sample reported failing the licensure test on their first attempt, while four found a mixed effect.⁵ Hanushek's 1997 meta-analysis of research, asserted that about a third of the 41 included studies found a positive relationship between teacher test scores (though not necessarily content licensure test scores) and student achievement.⁶ The second found a positive correlation between passing the licensure test and teacher effectiveness in math, but warned that this relationship existed for white teachers but not Black teachers teaching Black students.⁷ The third found no relationship in most models, and a negative relationship between California's CSET exam and students' reading achievement.⁸

Interestingly, one recent study found that when cooperating teachers, the mentors who host teacher candidates for their student teaching placement, earned higher scores on their licensure tests, their student teachers went on to be higher-rated early career teachers.⁹

Of course, what is true of one licensing test may not hold for all tests or all contexts. For this reason, states should consider conducting an analysis of the predictive validity of their licensing tests, which could both strengthen the tests themselves and inform policy decisions around how to use them. Massachusetts commissioned such an analysis, finding a positive relationship between licensure test scores and several measures of teacher effectiveness (value-added and summative teacher performance ratings) and determining that the relationship held for both white teachers and teachers of color.¹⁰

A frequent concern about licensure tests is that they are disproportionately keeping candidates of color from earning licenses, and that this disproportionate impact may result from bias in the tests.

While it may not be possible to fully remove bias from any exam, test designers take steps to measure whether bias is present and to remove any questions that may lead to differences in outcomes based on anything other than one's understanding of the content.

These steps may include:

1. Establishing guidelines for writing assessment questions that identify terms, topics, and formats to avoid
2. Inviting panels focused on equity and content to review test materials
3. Calculating statistical differences among groups on assessment items
4. Investigating score differences among racial groups, men and women, test takers with disabilities, and English language learners (when sample size allows)
5. Identifying test items that lead to large score differences among groups, and removing them unless they can be justified to meet the content specifications for the assessment and the item has passed through an independent review.

Despite these steps, many remain concerned that bias still permeates licensing exams, given the lower pass rates for Black and Hispanic test takers compared with white test takers, at least on the most commonly required elementary content licensure test.¹ However, it becomes difficult to disentangle whether these pass rates differ due to problems with the test itself or to systemic inequities in the quality of education available to different groups.²

Qualitative analysis has explored the "affective dimension" of the experience of taking a licensure test, finding that for test takers of color, the experiences surrounding taking the test (e.g., negative and potentially racist interactions with a test proctor) can undermine test takers' confidence and set off stereotype threats or "identity threats."³ However, several studies note that preparation and support from the test takers' preparation program can mitigate some of the nervousness that accompanies taking a licensure test and can generally support candidates in achieving greater success.⁴ When reviewing tests for bias, test publishers should consider not only the content of the test, but also the affective experience. This review could highlight the need for other changes such as additional training for test proctors to make the testing experience more welcome and calming for test takers.

Concerns about the tests themselves remain.⁵ One study argues that small amounts of bias at the test item level may accrue into larger test-level biases; this "accretionary bias" could occur even if individual test items are not identifiably problematic.⁶ Several studies assert that the test is biased against test takers whose first language is not English.⁷

Some have also raised concerns about omissions in the content of licensure tests. Elementary curricula, and the teacher licensure tests that intersect with them, may lack diverse perspectives and content. As curriculum designers work to diversify their materials, so too may testing designers need to expand the scope of their exams. If exams are missing some core content that is relevant but untested, candidates who have more knowledge of those areas may be at a disadvantage when taking the test.

Unfortunately, concerns around bias are not unique to licensure tests. Other measures have raised concerns as well. For example, research on teacher observation scores suggests that performance assessments that include a video of the candidate teaching a class of students may result in lower scores depending on the background of the students (e.g., socioeconomic status and incoming achievement).⁸

The solution often proffered to address concerns of bias is to drop licensure tests altogether. However, doing so may solve one problem while creating a much greater one. If states lose a guardrail ensuring that teachers enter the classroom knowing the content they will teach, they risk perpetuating opportunity gaps for the very students who most need teachers who can build their foundational knowledge.

Licensure tests that meet the hallmarks of a strong assessment provide myriad benefits. First, they are an essential guardrail to ensure that new teachers enter the classroom with a firm grasp of the content they will teach. Second, they offer aggregate data that can shed light on systemic inequities in education, offering an opportunity to break the cycle. And third, data from these tests can spotlight institutions that are better supporting candidates in passing licensure tests for all test takers, and it can demonstrate that greater success is possible.

Most data reported on licensure tests only considers "best-attempt" pass rates, or the pass rates after test takers have had multiple opportunities to retake the test. While best-attempt pass rates are informative, the education field should also consider what candidates' first-attempt pass rates can reveal about preparation, persistence, and completion rates for aspiring teachers.

First, when aspiring teachers fail the licensure test, they can regroup, study more, seek out additional support, and take the test again. But faced with this decision point, some aspiring teachers do not make another attempt. Identifying what proportion of candidates struggle to pass the test on their first attempt, paired with information about what proportion of candidates who fail do not retake the test, can spotlight a significant loss of aspiring teachers.

Second, first-attempt pass rates may offer an indication of how well candidates' institutions and preparation programs have prepared them in core content knowledge before expecting them to take their licensure tests. Elementary candidates learn core content knowledge from their K-12 education, as well as from general education requirements and through any additional courses their preparation program requires. First-attempt pass rates may, in aggregate, offer insight into whether candidates' institutions and preparation programs proactively ensure that they learn core content prior to taking the test. Low pass rates may suggest that programs and their institutions need to collaborate to offer more and earlier support to their candidates.

To draw meaning from pass rate data, it can be helpful to look within each institution but also among institutions. Comparing pass rates among institutions on the same exam can help identify strong performers and promising practices from which others can learn and can point to instances where institutions may not be providing their candidates with enough support. However, numerous ways to compare pass rates among institutions exist. Depending on what state education agency and preparation program leaders value, they can determine what and how to measure and compare pass rates. Some possibilities include:

• To explore where most candidates are passing, regardless of the number of attempts, examine institutions' best-attempt pass rates.
• To examine where candidates save time and money by passing on their first attempt, examine institutions' first-attempt pass rates.
• To identify and scale practices from institutions that successfully support all groups of candidates, sort pass rate data by categories such as admissions selectivity or proportion of Pell Grant recipients.
• To identify institutions supporting teachers of color in entering the workforce, examine pass rate data for test takers of color.
• To explore where candidates are more likely to succeed with the least amount of time and money spent on test taking, examine retake rates.
• To examine where aspiring teachers get lost in the pipeline, examine the walk-away rate--the proportion of test takers who fail on their first attempt and do not retake the test.

Passing a content licensure test is, for many teachers, one of the final requirements in their pathway into the classroom. Pass rate data can help identify where programs are better supporting their candidates, where candidates are being lost before they earn a license, and where candidates of color are most likely to be successful. Having clear information about pass rates on licensure tests is one important piece of a broader system of data to identify obstacles and opportunities in building a stronger, more diverse teacher workforce.

Research unequivocally demonstrates the importance of having a diverse workforce, especially of Black students having the opportunity to learn from Black teachers. However, the current teacher workforce is far less diverse than the student body. Potential teachers of color are lost at many points along the pathway into the classroom,¹ and therefore identifying the scope of this loss at each point, including passing licensure tests, can help states and preparation programs identify where to target efforts and resources to support more aspiring teachers of color in reaching the classroom.

NCTQ rejects the notion that the field must lower standards for new teachers in order to increase teacher diversity. Ample evidence shows that teacher preparation programs can be both selective and diverse,² and data from licensure tests can point to programs that support candidates of color in passing their licensure tests at the same, or sometimes even higher, rate as their white peers. If systemic inequities and gaps in education have created lower pass rates, especially for candidates of color, then it is incumbent upon our academic institutions to identify and rectify these inequities so that the teachers who reach our classrooms are ready to provide a rich, engaging curriculum. Better preparation is the way to halt this vicious cycle in its tracks.

Most states require an elementary content test that comprises several subtests, and aspiring teachers have to pass each subtest in order to pass the overall test and earn a license. While reporting data on each subtest is useful, especially in identifying the subjects that may require additional instruction, composite pass rate data, or the proportion of test takers who pass all subtests, is also critical.

Consider this scenario: A test has four subtests, and on each subtest, 80% of test takers pass. This could mean the composite pass rate is anywhere from 20% (if different test takers fail each subtest) to 80% (if the same test takers fail all four subtests). Knowing whether a state is losing 20% or 80% of its aspiring teachers (or some proportion in between) is very important for understanding the licensure test's role in the state's supply of teachers.

Testing companies can support the work of states and prep programs in numerous ways. For example:

1. Give all state education agencies a report on first-attempt and best-attempt pass rates for all program test takers--and not only program completers--as a standard operating procedure. Include data broken out by the race/ethnicity of test takers.
2. Build user-friendly data systems that allow SEA and EPP leaders and staff to conduct their own analyses.
3. Use the process through which prep programs match test takers to their programs for Title II data reporting to similarly match test takers to programs for pass rate reports back to the states. This will address the problem of pass rate data, including both those enrolled in preparation programs and those who are not, and will support more meaningful action based on these pass rates.