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: Ohio does not set minimum standards of performance for the categories of data that programs must report. The state does require a summary pass rate on state licensure examinations of 80%. This 80% pass-rate standard, while common among states, sets the bar quite low and is not a meaningful measure of program performance.
Program Accountability: Ohio articulates consequences for programs that fail to meet specific criteria, although the 80% pass rate is not a meaningful minimum standard. An educator preparation provider is "effective" if the overall institutional summary pass rate of completers on all required exams is at least 80%. "At risk of low-performing" is the pass rate that is less than 80%, and "low performing" is the pass rate that is less than 80% for more than three consecutive years. The state may designate a program as "not approved;" however, the criteria for designating a program "not approved" is not clear.
State Report Cards: Ohio publishes annual report cards showing the data the state has collected on individual teacher preparation programs.
Program Approval Process: Ohio maintains full authority over teacher preparation program approval. Ohio requires that all preparation programs obtain CAEP accreditation, but CAEP accreditation is one requirement as part of a larger program approval process.
Ohio Administrative Code 3333-1-05 Ohio Revised Code 3333.048 Educator Performance Reports https://www.ohiohighered.org/educator-accountability/2019-performance-reports#univ Educator Preparation Institutions https://www.ohiohighered.org/educator-preparation/institutions Ohio CAEP Partnership Agreement http://caepnet.org/working-together/ Guidelines and Procedures for Academic Program Review (2016) https://www.ohiohighered.org/sites/ohiohighered.org/files/uploads/program-approval/Academic-Program-Review-Guidelines_070516.pdf
Establish a meaningful standard of performance for each category of data.
Ohio should establish precise minimum standards for teacher preparation program performance for each category of data it collects to help clarify expectations regarding program quality. The 80 percent pass rate standard is too low a bar to be meaningful.
Ensure program accountability decisions are based on minimum standards of performance.
While Ohio has the structure of a program accountability system, including follow-up actions for programs failing to meet standards, it has not set minimum standards it can use to determine when a program is "not approved." As Ohio further develops its accountability system, it should ensure that the system is sufficient to differentiate performance among programs, including alternate route programs, and that it is clear at what point a program's approval will be revoked. For programs exceeding minimum standards, Ohio should consider finding effective ways to disseminate best practices.
Ohio 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.