Program Reporting Requirements: Virginia

Teacher Preparation Policy

Goal

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.

Nearly meets goal
Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2021). Program Reporting Requirements: Virginia results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/state/VA-Program-Reporting-Requirements-89

Analysis of Virginia's policies

Minimum Standards of Performance: Virginia does not set meaningful 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% for candidates completing or exiting the program. This 80% pass-rate standard, while common among states, sets the bar quite low and is not a meaningful measure of program performance.

The state also requires evidence of "contributions to preK-12 student achievement by candidates completing the program" and "employer job satisfaction with graduates completing the program." However, indicators of student achievement are not based solely on objective evidence. Further, although indicators relating to job satisfaction include two years of evidence of graduate performance based on employer surveys and documented evidence of teacher effectiveness, including student academic progress, the state does not articulate explicit metrics (i.e., what is required to meet these standards).

Program Accountability: 
Virginia articulates consequences for programs that fail to meet specific criteria, although the 80% pass rate is not a meaningful minimum standard. Program approval is denied if programs 1) are not accredited either by a national accreditation body or by the Board of Education, and 2) do not meet the 80% pass-rate threshold. 

State Report Cards: Virginia state law requires institutions to provide data for Annual Education Preparation Program Profiles which include data on indicators including:

  • Institution's accreditation status,
  • Education endorsement program status
  • Number of program completers and noncompleters for each endorsement program,
  • Biennial accountability data results, and
  • Satisfaction ratings by employers of program graduates.
Program Approval Process: Virginia maintains full authority over the teacher preparation program approval process. While programs in Virginia must obtain and maintain CAEP accreditation, this alone does not guarantee program approval. CAEP accreditation is one requirement as part of a larger program approval process. The Board of Education requires program approval biennially. 

Citation

Recommendations for Virginia

Establish the higher minimum standards of performance for each category of data.
Virginia should be mindful of setting rigorous standards for program performance, as its current requirement that 80% of program completers must pass their licensing exams is too low a bar.

State response to our analysis

Virginia recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis, however this analysis was updated subsequent to the state's review.
The state indicated that the Annual Education Preparation Program Profile data was collected this summer. In addition to the data noted in the analysis, the following indicators will also be included:
1. Number of candidates admitted in education endorsement programs (by each endorsement area) Number of candidates enrolled in education endorsement programs (by each endorsement area)
2. Comparison of candidates admitted to education endorsement programs (all education endorsement programs, the EPP as a whole) to overall college or university population The number of non-underrepresented minority candidates compared to underrepresented minority candidates admitted to education endorsement programs in the educator preparation program compared to the overall institution at large. Underrepresented minority-Asian, Hispanic, Black, Multiple Races, Native Hawaiian, American Indian Non-underrepresented minority-White The number of candidates admitted to education endorsement programs in the educator preparation program compared to the overall institution at large: By gender, race, in-state, out-of-state, international status, part-time, full-time, median Grade Point Average (GPA)
3. Number of program completers for each endorsement program Program completers are individuals who have successfully completed all coursework, required licensure assessments, and supervised student teaching or required internship. 6. Number of program non-completers for each endorsement program Program noncompleters are those individuals who have been officially admitted into the education program and who have taken, regardless of whether the individual passed or failed, required licensure assessments, and have successfully completed all coursework, but who have not completed supervised student teaching or the required internship. Program noncompleters shall have been officially released (in writing) from an education endorsement program by an authorized administrator of the program.
4. Program ratings by school administrators and/or clinical experience supervisors of student teachers
5. Satisfaction ratings of program graduates within two years of employment Response format: Narrative 1,000 words or less Ratings: Indicators of quality as collected by each educator preparation program (examples include surveys, focus groups, sampling, interviews, and observation, etc.)
6. Recognition of other program achievements Response format: (Narrative 1,000 words or less)
7. Other data as required by the Board of Education

  • The number of underrepresented minority full-time education faculty members in the educator preparation program
  • Does the educator preparation program offer any specific underrepresented minority pipeline program working with prek-12 partners? (Narrative 1,000 words or less)
  • Describe efforts to market, recruit, and retain individuals in the educator preparation program. (Narrative 1,000 words or less)

Updated: March 2021

How we graded

1D: Program Reporting Requirements 

  • Minimum Standards: The state should establish a minimum standard of performance for each category of data that is collected.
  • Articulated Consequences for Failure to Meet Minimum Standards: The state should have articulated consequences for programs failing to meet minimum standards of performance or other program review criteria and should require specific steps to develop a remediation plan. Program accountability should include the possibility of the loss of program approval.
  • Annual Reporting: The state should publish an annual report card that provides data collected for each individual teacher preparation program as part of the program approval process or the report card provides data that indicates the quality of preparation provided by an institution or program (e.g. licensure pass rates, teaching effectiveness of program graduates, employer satisfaction survey data).
  • Approval Authority: The state should retain full authority over its process approving teacher preparation programs and should not grant any approval authority to accrediting bodies.
Minimum Standards
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if minimum standards of performance are set for each category of data the teacher preparation programs are required to report.

Articulated Consequences for Failure to Meet Minimum Standards

One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it holds teacher preparation programs accountable, and clearly articulates the consequences for failing to meet the minimum standards, which may include loss of program approval.

Annual Reporting
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it publishes data collected as part of the state's program approval process of individual teacher preparation programs on an annual basis or, the state will earn one-quarter of a point if it publishes data that indicates the quality of preparation provided by an institution or program (e.g. licensure pass rates, teaching effectiveness of program graduates, employer satisfaction survey data) on an annual basis.

Approval Authority

One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it retains full authority over the process for approving teacher preparation programs.

Research rationale

The state should examine a number of factors when measuring the performance of and approving teacher preparation programs.[1] 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.[2]

States have made great strides in building data systems with the capacity to provide evidence of teacher performance.[3] 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.[4]

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.[5] Clear state policy would eliminate this uncertainty and send an unequivocal message to programs about the state's expectations.[6]


[1] For general information about teacher preparation program approval see Rotherham, A. J., & Mead, S. (2004). Back to the future: The history and politics of state teacher licensure and certification. In F. Hess, A. J. Rotherham, & K. Walsh (Eds.), A qualified teacher in every classroom (11-47). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/nctq/research/1109818629821.pdf
[2] For additional discussion and research of how teacher education programs can add value to their teachers, see National Council on Teacher Quality. (2017). Teacher Prep Review. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/teacherPrep/2016/home.do
[3] Walsh, K., & Jacobs, S. (2007). Alternative certification isn't alternative. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498382.pdf

[4] For additional research on the status of teacher quality and the strengths and weaknesses of accreditation programs and policies in the U.S., see: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2010). The secretary's seventh annual report on teacher quality: A highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/t2r7.pdf
[5] For a discussion of the lack of evidence that national accreditation status enhances teacher preparation programs' effectiveness, see: Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1999, July). Teacher training and licensure: A layman's guide. Marci Kanstoroom and Chester E. Finn., Jr. (eds.), In Better teachers, better schools (pp. 45-47). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/btrtchrs_10.pdf; Greenberg, J., & Walsh, K. (2008, June). No common denominator: The preparation of elementary teachers in mathematics by America's education schools. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/No_Common_Denominator_NCTQ_Report; Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D. (2006, May). What education schools aren't teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren't learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/What_Ed_Schools_Arent_Teaching_About_Reading_NCTQ_Report
[6] See Walsh, K., Joseph, N., & Lewis, A. (2016, November). Within our grasp: Achieving higher admissions standards in teacher prep. 2016 State Teacher Policy Yearbook Report Series. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Admissions_Yearbook_Report