Teacher Preparation Policy
The state's approval process for teacher preparation programs should hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce. This goal was reorganized in 2021.
Minimum Standards of Performance: The Illinois Educator Preparation Profiles (IEPP) contain the following domains: Candidate Selection and Completion; Knowledge and Skills for Teaching; Performance as Classroom Teachers; Contribution to State Needs.
The state has established minimum standards of performance for each indicator within a domain. For example, in the "Performance as Classroom Teachers" domain, in order to meet the indicator for this domain, 80% of program graduates must receive a score of "proficient" or "excellent" on their overall performance evaluation.
Program Accountability: Beginning in 2021, continuing approval will be based on whether programs meet established standards in the IEPP domains. Depending on a program's IEPP designation (Exemplary, Commendable, Developing, or Needs Improvement) will determine whether that program is reauthorized (receives continuing approval). Accountability ratings range from "Reauthorized with Distinction" to "Reauthorized on Probation." A program may be discontinued if it has received an IEPP rating of "Needs Improvement" three consecutive times.
State Report Cards: The state publishes Illinois Preparation Profiles (IEPP). These program-level data include performance on indicators within each domain including:
Illinois Administrative Code Title 23, Section 25.115; .120; .127 Partnership for Educator Preparation (PEP) https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Partnership-for-Educator-Preparation.aspx Illinois Educator Preparation Profiles https://apps.isbe.net/epp/public#/ Illinois Educator Preparation Profile Continuous Improvement and Accountability System 2020 Reauthorization Guide https://www.isbe.net/Documents/IEPP-Reauthorization-Guide.pdf
As a result of Illinois's strong policies on reporting teacher preparation accountability data and holding preparation programs to meaningful standards based on data, no recommendations are provided.
Illinois was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts necessary for this analysis.
1D: Program Reporting Requirements
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.