General Teacher Preparation Policy
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: Idaho does not collect or publicly report data that connect student growth to teacher preparation programs.
Additional Program Data: Idaho does not collect other objective, meaningful data to measure the performance of teacher preparation programs.
Idaho Administrative Code 08.02.02.100 Idaho CAEP Agreement http://caepnet.org/~/media/Files/caep/state-partners/idaho-caep-state-agreement-2016nov-unsig.pdf?la=en
Specify data that must be collected to connect student growth to teacher preparation programs, when those programs are large enough for the data to be meaningful and reliable.
Idaho should consider putting into state law, rather than just the CAEP agreement, the requirement to collect the academic achievement gains of students taught by programs' graduates, averaged over the first three years of teaching, when the programs produce enough graduates for those data to be meaningful and reliable. Idaho should also specify that student achievement gains must be measured by standardized, objective data. Data that are aggregated at the institution level (e.g., combining elementary and secondary programs), rather than disaggregated by the specific preparation program, have less utility for accountability and continuous improvement purposes than more specific data because institution-level data aggregation can mask significant differences in performance among programs.
Specify data to be collected that reflect program performance.
While programs must meet certain requirements due to Idaho's agreement with CAEP, the state should specify what specific metrics programs must collect and report. Some possibilities include:
Idaho stated that this goal pertains specifically to CAEP Standard 4: Program Impact, and that since Idaho requires CAEP accreditation, this would be a requirement for educator preparation programs in Idaho. The state added that the data NCTQ suggests is the type of data that is reviewed during accreditation reviews and would need to be met.
This analysis was updated subsequent to the state's review.
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.