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: Texas has set and made public minimum standards of performance for programs. These standards include:
19 Texas Administrative Code 7.228.10; 229.4 through .6; and 230.37 Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 229 https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/229p0820.pdf Fiscal Years 2013-2018, First Attempt https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files Texas Education code 21.0452 Educator Preparation Data Dashboards https://tea4avcastro.tea.state.tx.us/ELQ/educatorprepdatadashboard/Dashboards.html 2017-2018 Accountability System for Educator Preparation (ASEP) Annual Reports https://tea.texas.gov/2018asep
As a result of Texas's strong policies on reporting teacher preparation accountability data and holding preparation programs to meaningful standards based on data, no recommendations are provided
Texas 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.