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: Tennessee requires programs to produce Annual Reports describing program performance in five domains (candidate recruitment and selection; employment and retention; candidate assessment; completer partner and employer satisfaction; and completer effectiveness and impact). Minimum standards of performance (expectations) are established for each domain and programs are rated on each domain. Examples of minimum standards of performance include:
Tennessee Code 49-5-108(f) and 49-5-5607 Report Cards http://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/ 2019 Comprehensive Review Handbook https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/licensure/ed-prep/202021TNCRHandbook107220.pdf 2019 Annual Reports for Tennessee Educator Preparation Providers Technical Guide https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/licensure/ed-prep/2019AnnualReportsTechnicalGuide.pdf Tennessee State Board of Education Policy 5.504 https://www.tn.gov/sbe/rules--policies-and-guidance/policies.html Rules of the State Board of Education 0520-02-04 https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/rules/0520/0520-02/0520-02-04.20200702.pdf
Maintain full authority over the process for approving teacher preparation programs.
Tennessee should not cede any of its approval authority to another accrediting body; instead, the state should ensure that it is the entity that directly considers all the evidence of program performance and makes the final determination of whether programs should continue to be authorized to prepare teachers.
Tennessee was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that necessary for 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.