Delivering Well Prepared Teachers Policy
The state's approval process for teacher preparation programs should hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.
New Hampshire's approval process for its traditional and alternate route teacher preparation programs does not hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.
Most importantly, New Hampshire does not collect value-added data that connect student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs.
The state also fails to collect other objective, meaningful data to measure the performance of teacher preparation programs, and it does not apply any transparent, measurable criteria for conferring program approval.
Further, in the past three years, no programs in New Hampshire have been identified as low performing—an additional indicator that programs lack accountability.
Finally, New Hampshire's website does not include a report card that allows the public to review and compare program performance.
Administrative Rules for Education 602 Title II State Reports https://title2.ed.gov
Collect data that connect student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs.
To ensure that programs are producing effective classroom teachers, New Hampshire should consider academic achievement gains of students taught by the programs' graduates, averaged over the first three years of teaching.
Gather other meaningful data that reflect program performance.
In addition to knowing whether programs are producing effective teachers, other objective, meaningful data can also indicate whether programs are appropriately screening applicants and if they are delivering essential academic and professional knowledge. New Hampshire should gather data such as the following: average raw scores of graduates on licensing tests, including basic skills, subject matter and professional knowledge tests; satisfaction ratings by school principals and teacher supervisors of programs' student teachers, using a standardized form to permit program comparison; evaluation results from the first and/or second year of teaching; and five-year retention rates of graduates in the teaching profession.
Establish the minimum standard of performance for each category of data.
Programs should be held accountable for meeting these standards, with articulated consequences for failing to do so, including loss of program approval after appropriate due process.
Publish an annual report card on the state's website.
To inform the public with meaningful, readily understandable indicators of how well programs are doing, New Hampshire should present all the data it collects on individual teacher preparation programs.
New Hampshire recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis. The state added that it is in the rule-making process with increased rigor based on the InTASC standards. Rules regarding program approval will include the collection of ongoing program and candidate data.
New Hampshire also asserted that the new Title II Institutional and State Report Cards include annual goals and objectives for continuous improvement, and that the federal reports are providing more empirical evidence of program quality and improvement.