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: Utah does not require programs to collect meaningful data, and therefore does not set minimum standards of performance for these data.
Program Accountability: Although Utah does not set minimum standards of performance, Utah does delineate consequences for programs that fail to meet program requirements established in Board rules. Programs can be placed on probation and the Board can revoke approval of probationary programs if they fail to meet probationary requirements within one year. However, the standards on
which accountability outcomes are based are not necessarily performance-based criteria with clearly stated minimum thresholds.
State Report Cards: Utah does not produce and publish an annual report card that shows all the data the state collects on individual teacher preparation programs.
Program Approval Process: Utah maintains full authority over teacher preparation program approval. Utah no longer requires national Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) accreditation for program approval.
Utah Board Rule R277-303-3; 304
Establish the minimum standards of performance for each category of data.
Utah 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 program accountability decisions are based on minimum standards of performance.
While Utah 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 implement this accountability process. As Utah 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, Utah should consider finding effective ways to disseminate best practices.
Publish an annual report card on the state's website.
Utah should produce an annual report card that clearly displays program-level data the state collects on individual teacher preparation programs. This report card should be publicly available on the state's website, at a minimum. Data should be presented in a manner that transparently conveys whether programs have met performance standards.
Utah provided NCTQ with updated citations effective July 2020. This analysis was updated subsequent to the state's review.
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.