2017 General Teacher Prep Programs 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 2017.
Minimum Standards of Performance: Michigan has set and made public minimum standards of performance for programs. Program performance is compared to these
standards in the annual Educator Preparation Institution (EPI) score reports.
Programs earn points based on three criteria: passage rates on the
Michigan Tests for Teacher Certification (MTTC); satisfaction and perception
data from surveys administered to teacher candidates and candidate supervisors,
twice annually; and evaluation ratings of program completers' effectiveness in
the classroom. Program performance on these three measures is assigned a point
value on a 100-point scale. Each measure is weighted, and the program receives
an overall score, which must be above 84.5.
Program Accountability: Michigan holds programs accountable for meeting minimum standards of performance. All programs, regardless of meeting the overall performance cut-score, are assigned a phase in the state's EPI corrective action system. The phase determines the EPI's reported performance category and thus the corrective action requirements expected for the next year. The state mandates that "a phase number of 0 or 1 results in a reported category of Satisfactory; a phase number of 2 or 3 results in a reported category of At Risk; and a phase number of 4 through 6 results in a reported category of Low Performing." Programs in the Low Performing category must take corrective action or they may be shut down.
State Report Cards: Michigan publishes annual report cards showing the data the state has collected on individual teacher preparation programs and the programs' performance against the state's standards.
Program Approval Process: Michigan does not maintain full authority over the teacher preparation program approval process. Instead, the state requires that programs are approved by the state's Office of Professional Preparation Services (OPPS) for initial approval and for reapproval when standards for individual endorsement programs are updated, regardless of the program's national accreditation status. Once full approval is granted, ongoing program approval is based on national accreditation through Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) and OPPS monitoring.
2016 Educator Preparation Institution (EPI) Score Report http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/2016_EPI_Overall_Score_536193_7.PDF Public Act 212 of 2008 Section 503 Teacher Certification Code R390.1151 https://dmbinternet.state.mi.us/DMB/ORRDocs/AdminCode/1643_2016-035ED_AdminCode.pdf
Maintain full authority over the process for approving teacher preparation programs.
While Michigan retains authority over initial program approval, the state should not cede its program renewal authority to another accrediting body; instead, the state should ensure that it is the entity that directly considers the evidence of program performance and makes the final determination of whether programs should continue to be authorized to prepare teachers.
Michigan provided NCTQ with facts that enhanced this analysis.
The state asserted that it does maintain full authority over the process for approving teacher preparation programs. While Michigan agreed that earning and maintaining national accreditation is a requirement for maintenance of ongoing institutional approval to operate as an educator preparation institution, the state noted that processes for approval for specific programs of study, as well as recommendations for closure, are governed entirely by the Michigan Department of Education's Office of Professional Preparation Services (OPPS). Michigan stated that as part of the site visit for CAEP accreditation, OPPS representatives review and update records of the educator preparation institution's (EPI) program approvals to ensure that all programs being offered have passed review under the current preparation standards for each field, as well as review individual programs' licensure test data with the EPI to ensure that candidates demonstrate comparable proficiency across all pathways within a given endorsement field.
Additional details on the program approval process can be found in the Teacher Certification Code.
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.