Teacher Preparation Program Accountability:
Ohio

Analysis of Ohio's policies

Although Ohio is doing more than most states when it comes to holding programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce, the state's approval process for its traditional and alternate route teacher preparation programs leaves room for improvement.

Ohio collects some objective data that reflect program performance, including value-added data on the achievement gains of program graduates' students. The state reports these data for institutions of higher education on the state's website to inform the public with meaningful, readily understandable indicators of how well programs are doing. These data are disaggregated by certification area but not for alternate route programs. The state also collects the number of completers who, while teaching, have earned each evaluation rating, aggregated by program and year graduated.

Ohio has not established minimum performance standards for each category of data it collects that can be used for accountability purposes. Further, in the past three years, just one program in the state has been identified as low performing—an additional indicator that programs lack accountability.

Report cards of teacher preparation programs include the following: licensure test scores, value-added data (EVAAS), candidate academic measures, field/clinical experiences, preservice teacher candidate survey results, national accreditation, resident educator persistence data, teacher alumni survey data and excellence and innovation initiatives.

In Ohio, the state maintains full authority over teacher preparation program approval.

Citation

Ohio Administrative Code 3301-24-03 Ohio Revised Code 3319.111 Educator Accountability https://www.ohiohighered.org/educator-accountability Title II State Reports https://title2.ed.gov

Recommendations for Ohio

Establish the minimum standard of performance for each category of data. 
Ohio should establish precise minimum standards for teacher preparation program performance for each category of data. Programs should then be held accountable for meeting these standards, and there should be consequences for failing to do so, including loss of program approval.

State response to our analysis

Ohio was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that enhanced this analysis.

The state also asserted that the statement about identifying one Educator Preparation Program (EPP) as low-performing is misleading, as there is no summative rating at this time for Ohio’s EPP Performance Reports. The "low performing” status of one Ohio EPP is in strict compliance with Title II USDOE Requirements for designating educator preparation programs as “Effective,” “At Risk of Low Performing,” or “Low Performing” based solely on licensure pass rates over a period of time. If the proposed USDOE requirements for rating EPPs move forward as drafted, the Chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents will develop a summative rating calculated on a formula inclusive of all the reported metrics in the annual Ohio EPP Performance Reports.

The state also commented that it has not established baseline performance levels for each metric outlined in the Performance Report; the metric results inform the Ohio's cyclic review of programs for purposes of continuing approval.