The state should collect and publicly report key data on the quality of teacher preparation programs. This goal was reorganized in 2017.
Student Growth Data: Connecticut requires educator preparation programs to collect and report data on the performance and effectiveness of program graduates, as measured by student growth data. Currently, the state is working to incorporate student growth measures as an indicator for the effectiveness of its educator preparation programs. The Connecticut Department of Education will prepare an annual report on the quality of teacher preparation programs that includes data linking the graduates of teacher preparation programs with the academic growth of their students.
Additional Program Data: Connecticut collects other objective, meaningful data to measure the performance of traditional preparation programs. The state's annual reports provide data on teacher preparation programs that include: measures of the classroom teacher performance of graduates, completer retention rates, surveys of graduates and employers, employment data, and first-time and best attempt pass rates on subject area assessments and certification exams.
Public Act No. 15-243 (2015) https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/ACT/PA/2015PA-00243-R00HB-07021-PA.htm Approval of Educator Preparation Advisory Council (EPAC) Recommendations http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/board/boardmaterials120716/approval_of_educator_preparation_advisory_council_epac_recommendations.pdf
Continue building systems to collect and report data that connect student growth to teacher preparation programs, when those programs are large enough for the data to be meaningful and reliable.
Connecticut is to be commended for making strides in linking student growth data to educator preparation programs and should continue to make progress toward this goal.
Connecticut provided NCTQ with the facts necessary for this analysis.
Connecticut also noted that it will be rolling out a public Educator Preparation Data Dashboard in the fall of 2017 to provide data on performance indicators for each preparation program.
NCTQ looks forward to reviewing the state's progress in future editions of the Yearbook.
1C: Program Performance Measures
The state should examine a number of factors when measuring the performance of and approving teacher preparation programs. 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.
States have made great strides in building data systems with the capacity to provide evidence of teacher performance. 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.
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. Clear state policy would eliminate this uncertainty and send an unequivocal message to programs about the state's expectations.