Program Performance Measures

2017 General Teacher Preparation Policy

2017 Goals for Program Performance Measures

The state should collect and publicly report key data on the quality of teacher preparation programs. This goal was reorganized in 2017.

Best practices

In addition to collecting and reporting student growth data and other performance data by program, Florida and Alabama deserve recognition for meaningfully utilizing the program completer data they collect. These two states both require that teachers who do not achieve satisfactory evaluation ratings in their first two years must be provided remediation by their training program at no additional cost.

Best practice 2

States

Meets goal 9

States

Nearly meets goal 8

States

Meets goal in part 14

States

Meets a small part of goal 9

States

Does not meet goal 9

States

Do states collect and publicly report data that connect teachers’ student growth data to their preparation programs?

2017
2015
Add previous year
Figure details

Yes.: AL, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, IL, IN, LA, MA, MI, NC, NJ, NM, NV, OH, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA

No.: AK, AR, AZ, CA, GA, HI, IA, ID, KS, KY, MD, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NE, NH, NY, OK, OR, PA, SD, UT, VT, WI, WV, WY

Do states collect other relevant data regarding preparation program performance?

2017
Figure details

Yes.: AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, PA, RI, TN, TX, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV

No.: AK, HI, ID, ND, NY, OR, SC, SD, UT, WY

How we graded

1C: Program Performance Measures 

  • Student Growth Data: The state should collect and publicly report data connecting student growth to teacher preparation programs for all programs large enough for the data to be meaningful and reliable. Such data may include growth analyses specifically conducted for this purpose or evaluation ratings that include objective measures of student growth.
  • Supplemental Accountability Data: The state should collect and report meaningful data that inform a reasonable judgment of the performance of each approved teacher preparation program, including some or all of the following: 
    • Average scaled scores of teacher candidates on licensing tests, including tests of academic proficiency normed to the college-going population and subject-matter tests.
    • Number of times, on average, it takes teacher candidates to pass licensure tests.
    • Teacher candidate first-time scores and pass rates for licensure tests 
    • Supervisor satisfaction ratings of program graduates collected through a standardized form to allow for program comparison.
    • Three-year retention rates of graduates in the teaching profession.
    • For-profit provider candidate completion rates.
Student Growth Data
One-half of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-half credit: The state will earn one-half of a point if student growth data of program graduates are collected and reported for programs that are sufficiently large enough for these data to be meaningful and reliable. 
  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it has made significant progress toward collecting and reporting student growth data of program graduates. 
Supplemental Accountability Data
One-half of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-half credit: The state will earn one-half of a point if it collects more than one additional data point that provides meaningful insight into program performance.
  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it collects one additional data point that provides meaningful insight into program performance.

Research rationale

The state should examine a number of factors when measuring the performance of and approving teacher preparation programs.[1] Although the quality of both the subject-matter preparation and professional sequence is crucial, there are also additional measures that can provide the state and the public with meaningful, readily understandable indicators of how well programs are doing when it comes to preparing teachers to be successful in the classroom.[2]

States have made great strides in building data systems with the capacity to provide evidence of teacher performance.[3] These same data systems can be used to link teacher effectiveness to the teacher preparation programs from which they came. States should make such data, as well as other objective measures that go beyond licensure test pass rates, central components of their teacher preparation program approval processes, and they should establish precise standards for performance that are more useful for accountability purposes.[4]

National accrediting bodies, such as CAEP, are raising the bar, but are no substitute for states' own policy. A number of states now have somewhat more rigorous academic standards for admission by virtue of requiring that programs meet CAEP's accreditation standards. However, whether CAEP will uniformly uphold its standards (especially as they have already backtracked on the GPA requirement) and deny accreditation to programs that fall short of these admission requirements remains to be seen.[5] Clear state policy would eliminate this uncertainty and send an unequivocal message to programs about the state's expectations.[6]


[1] For general information about teacher preparation program approval see Rotherham, A. J., & Mead, S. (2004). Back to the future: The history and politics of state teacher licensure and certification. A qualified teacher in every classroom (pp. 11-47). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/nctq/research/1109818629821.pdf
[2] For additional discussion and research of how teacher education programs can add value to their teachers, see: National Council on Teacher Quality. (2016). Teacher Prep Review. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/teacherPrep/2016/home.do
[3] Walsh, K., & Jacobs, S. (2007). Alternative certification isn't alternative. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498382.pdf

[4] For additional research on the status of teacher quality and the strengths and weaknesses of accreditation programs and policies in the U.S., see: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2010). The secretary's seventh annual report on teacher quality: A highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/t2r7.pdf
[5] For a discussion of the lack of evidence that national accreditation status enhances teacher preparation programs' effectiveness, see: Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1999, July). Teacher training and licensure: A layman's guide. Marci Kanstoroom and Chester E. Finn., Jr. (eds.), Better teachers, better schools (pp. 45-47). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/btrtchrs_10.pdf; Greenberg, J., & Walsh, K. (2008, June). No common denominator: The preparation of elementary teachers in mathematics by America's education schools. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/No_Common_Denominator_NCTQ_Report; Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D. (2006, May). What education schools aren't teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren't learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/What_Ed_Schools_Arent_Teaching_About_Reading_NCTQ_Report
[6] See Walsh, K., Joseph, N., & Lewis, A. (2016, November). Within our grasp: Achieving higher admissions standards in teacher prep. 2016 State Teacher Policy Yearbook Report Series. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Admissions_Yearbook_Report