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: Missouri has set and made public minimum standards of performance for programs. Program performance is compared to these standards in the Annual Performance Reports for Educator Preparation Programs (APR-EPP) and in the accreditation process. Programs receive points based on their performance against these standards. In order for a program to be held accountable to these measures, it must cumulatively have 10 program completers over five years. Programs with fewer than that will have an APR-EPP published only for informational purposes, not for accountability decisions.
Program Accountability: Missouri holds programs accountable for meeting minimum standards of performance. Programs are categorized into tiers based on their overall performance. Programs that do not score well must develop improvement plans. If programs remain in lower tiers, they will be unable to recommend candidates for certification.
State Report Cards: Missouri publishes annual report cards showing the data the state has collected on individual teacher preparation programs and the institution's performance against the state's standards.
Program Approval Process: Missouri maintains full authority over teacher preparation program approval.
Annual Performance Reports https://apps.dese.mo.gov/MCDS/home.aspx/?categoryid=9&view=2 Comprehensive Guide to the Annual Performance Report for Educator Preparation Programs https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/2019APRCompGuideFinal.pdf Missouri Standards for the Preparation of Educators https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/MoSPEStandards.pdf 5 CSR 20-400.300
As a result of Missouri's strong policies on reporting teacher preparation accountability data and holding preparation programs to meaningful standards based on data, no recommendations are provided.
Missouri recognized the factual accuracy of 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.