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: Michigan requires educator preparation programs to collect and report data on the effectiveness of program graduates, as measured by student growth data. The state collects data from the Registry of Educational Personnel on the effectiveness of graduates from several factors, including student academic growth on statewide assessments. Given that n-sizes for the effectiveness data for completers vary widely by program, the state applies different weights to the student growth component of a state's rating on the performance system depending on the proportion of teachers that have effectiveness data.
Additional Program Data: Michigan collects other objective, meaningful data to measure the performance of teacher preparation programs. From traditional programs, the state collects content test pass rates and surveys of candidates and supervisors. Michigan does not collect these data for alternate route programs.
Gather other meaningful data that reflect program performance.
Although measures of student growth are an important indicator of program effectiveness, the strongest state systems ensure that data are collected on multiple, objective program measures. While Michigan collects some objective, meaningful data to measure the performance of teacher preparation programs, the state should expand its current requirements for traditional teacher preparation programs to apply to alternate route programs.
Michigan was helpful in providing NCTQ with the facts necessary for this analysis. The state added that development of an Educator Preparation Institution Performance Score for alternate route programs is ongoing, but not yet implemented or publicly shareable.
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.