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: For all programs, New Jersey collects and reports data on the performance and effectiveness of program graduates, as measured by student growth data. The state collects the results of evaluations of program graduates broken down by the teachers' student growth percentiles or student growth objectives.
Additional Program Data: New Jersey collects other objective, meaningful data to measure the performance of teacher preparation programs. The state collects and reports data on the number of educator candidates prepared in critical shortage areas and from diverse backgrounds, placement and retention rates, data on candidates' performance at the end of the provisional period, Praxis scores and pass rates, and follow-up surveys of graduates and employers.
New Jersey Administrative Code 6A:9A-3.1 Educator Preparation Provider Annual Reports http://www.nj.gov/education/educators/rpr/preparation/providers/2016/ Program Approval http://www.state.nj.us/education/educators/rpr/preparation/program/
As a result of New Jersey's strong data collection policy for its teacher preparation programs, no recommendations are provided.
New Jersey provided NCTQ with facts that enhanced this analysis.
The state added that it is planning to report on candidate performance on the statewide teacher performance assessment once it is consequential.
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.