Delivering Well Prepared Teachers Policy
The state's approval process for teacher preparation programs should hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.
Virginia's approval process for its traditional and alternate route teacher preparation programs does not hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.
Virginia requires "evidence of contributions to preK-12 student achievement by candidates completing the program." However, the state then articulates that one required indicator of the achievement of this standard is evidence of the ability to affect student learning, "through the use of multiple sources of data such as a culminating experience, portfolios, interviews, videotaped and observed performance in schools, standardized tests, and course grades." Regrettably, this does not ensure that objective evidence of student achievement will be used to connect student achievement gains to preparation programs.
The state relies on some other objective, meaningful data to measure the performance of traditional teacher preparation programs but not its alternate route programs. It requires evidence of employer job satisfaction with program completers of traditional programs. "The indicator of the achievement of this standard shall include documentation that the education program has two years of evidence regarding candidate performance based on employer surveys."
In addition, Virginia collects programs' annual summary licensure test pass rates and requires that 80 percent of program completers and exiters pass their licensure exams. However, the 80 percent pass-rate standard sets the bar quite low and is not a meaningful measure of program performance.
Further, there is no evidence that the state's standards for program approval are resulting in greater accountability. In the past three years, no programs in Virginia have been identified in required federal reporting as low performing.
The state's website does not include a report card that allows the public to review and compare program performance.
In Virginia, national accreditation is required for program approval.
8 VAC 20-542-40, 8 VAC 20-22-90 Title II State Reports https://title2.ed.gov www.caepnet.org
Collect data that connect student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs.
As one way to measure whether programs are producing effective classroom teachers, Virginia should consider the academic achievement gains of students taught by programs' graduates, averaged over the first three years of teaching. Data that are aggregated to the institution (e.g., combining elementary and secondary programs) rather than disaggregated to the specific preparation program are not useful for accountability purposes. Such aggregation can mask significant differences in performance among programs.
Gather other meaningful data that reflect program performance.
Although measures of student growth are an important indicator of program effectiveness, they cannot be the sole measure of program quality for several reasons, including the fact that many programs may have graduates whose students do not take standardized tests. The accountability system must therefore include other objective measures that show how well all programs are preparing teachers for the classroom. Virginia should expand its current requirements to its alternate routes and also include such measures as:
1. Evaluation results from the first and/or second year of teaching
2. Average raw scores of teacher candidates on licensing tests, including academic proficiency, subject matter and professional knowledge tests
3. Number of times, on average, it takes teacher candidates to pass licensing tests
4. Five-year retention rates of graduates in the teaching profession.
Establish the minimum standard of performance for each category of data.
Merely collecting the types of data described above is insufficient for accountability purposes. The next and perhaps more critical step is for the state to establish precise minimum standards for teacher preparation program performance for each category of data. Virginia should be mindful of setting rigorous standards for program performance, as its current requirement that 80 percent of program completers must pass their licensing exams is too low a bar. Programs should be held accountable for meeting rigorous standards, and there should be consequences for failing to do so, including loss of program approval.
Publish an annual report card on the state's website.
Virginia should produce an annual report card that shows all the data the state collects on individual teacher preparation programs, which should be published on the state's website at the program level for the sake of public transparency. Data should be presented in a manner that clearly conveys whether programs have met performance standards.
Maintain full authority over the process for approving teacher preparation programs.
Virginia should not cede its authority and must ensure that it is the state that considers the evidence of program performance and makes the decision about whether programs should continue to be authorized to prepare teachers.
Virginia recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.
The state also commented that proposed regulations call for a report card for teacher preparation programs. The regulations propose increased accountability measures (such as adding an indicator of employer satisfaction documentation that must address teachers' performance). The proposed regulations also require institutions to become CAEP accredited.
In addition, the state noted that Virginia colleges and universities are required to have 100 percent of program completers passing assessments. The 80 percent pass rate is for program completers and program exiters.
States need to hold
programs accountable for the quality of their graduates.
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 can be used to provide objective evidence of the performance of teacher preparation programs. States should make such data, as well as other objective measures that go beyond licensure pass rates, a central component of their teacher preparation program approval processes, and they should establish precise standards for performance that are more useful for accountability purposes.
Teacher Preparation Program Accountability: Supporting Research
For discussion of teacher preparation program approval see Andrew Rotherham and S. Mead's chapter "Back to the Future: The History and Politics of State Teacher Licensure and Certification." in A Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom. (Harvard Education Press, 2004).
For evidence of how weak state efforts to hold teacher preparation programs accountable are, see data on programs identified as low-performing in the U.S. Department of Education,The Secretary's Seventh Annual Report on Teacher Quality 2010 at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/t2r7.pdf.
For additional discussion and research of how teacher education programs can add value to their teachers, see NCTQ's, Teacher Prep Review, available at http://www.nctq.org/p/edschools.
For a discussion of the lack of evidence that national accreditation status enhances teacher preparation programs' effectiveness, see D. Ballou and M. Podgursky, "Teacher Training and Licensure: A Layman's Guide," in Better Teachers, Better Schools, eds. Marci Kanstoroom and Chester E. Finn., Jr., (Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1999), pp. 45-47. See also No Common Denominator: The Preparation of Elementary Teachers in Mathematics by America's Education Schools(NCTQ, 2008) and What Education Schools Aren't Teaching About Reading and What Elementary Teachers Aren't Learning (NCTQ, 2006).
See NCTQ, Alternative Certification Isn't Alternative (2007) regarding the dearth of accountability data states require of alternate route programs.