2017 General 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 2017.
Minimum Standards of Performance: New Mexico does not set minimum standards of performance for the categories of data that programs must report.
Program Accountability: As a result of the lack of minimum standards of performance, New Mexico does not articulate consequences for programs that fail to meet specific criteria.
State Report Cards: New Mexico requires annual reports to be produced and made public that include the data collected on individual teacher preparation programs, but these reports have not yet been made available.
Program Approval Process: New Mexico maintains full authority over teacher preparation program approval. The state also conducts its own program reviews.
Section 22-10A-19.2 NMSA http://www.abqjournal.com/413787/news/states-colleges-of-education-to-be-evaluated-next-year.html http://governor.state.nm.us/uploads/PressRelease/191a415014634aa89604e0b4790e4768/Governor_Susana_Martinez_Announces_Critical_Reforms_to_Support_Teacher_Preparation_in_New_Mexico.pdf New Mexico Administrative Code 6.65.2
Establish the minimum standards of performance for each category of data.
New Mexico should establish precise minimum standards for teacher preparation program performance for each category of data it collects to help clarify expectations regarding program quality.
Ensure that criteria for program approval result in greater accountability.
New Mexico should ensure that programs are held accountable for meeting minimum standards of performance, and that the state's accountability system is sufficient to differentiate performance among programs, including alternate route programs. The state should establish clear follow-up actions for programs failing to meet these standards, including remediation or loss of program approval as appropriate. For programs exceeding minimum standards, New Mexico should consider finding effective ways to disseminate best practices.
Publish an annual report card on the state's website.
The state is commended for taking steps toward producing an annual scorecard. New Mexico should ensure that its scorecard clearly displays all program-level data the state collects on individual teacher preparation programs and will be available on the state's website. Data should be presented in a manner that transparently conveys whether programs have met performance standards.
New Mexico recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.
The state added that the New Mexico Public Education Department recognizes the dearth of publicly available information with respect to the performance of its educator preparation programs. New Mexico also noted that it has recently solved and addressed several challenges to data sharing and aggregating of performance measures regarding program completer performance and as a result, is releasing inaugural scorecards in the fall of 2017. New Mexico also stated that these scorecards will enable the state to critically examine and set minimum performance standards by domain area. Finally, the state added that it will be including consequences for such performance in the rule currently being written.
NCTQ looks forward to reviewing the state's progress in future editions of the Yearbook.
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.