Teacher Preparation Program Accountability:
District of Columbia

Analysis of District of Columbia's policies

The District of Columbia'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.

Most importantly, the District does not collect or report data that connect student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs.

The District also fails to collect other objective, meaningful data to measure the performance of teacher preparation programs, and it does not apply any transparent, measurable criteria for conferring program approval. The District collects programs' annual summary licensure test pass rates (80 percent of program completers must pass their licensure exams). However, the 80 percent pass-rate standard, while common among many states, sets the bar quite low and is not a meaningful measure of program performance.

Further, in the past three years, no programs in the District have been identified as low performing—an additional indicator that programs lack accountability.

Beginning in 2015, District started to post publicly accessible teacher prep program scorecards that showcase program information, including the conditions for program entry and exit and the pass rates of program graduates on state licensure assessments.

In the District of Columbia, national accreditation is required for program approval.

Citation

http://osse.dc.gov/service/educator-preparation-program-approval-and-accreditation Race to the Top http://osse.dc.gov/service/great-teachers-and-leaders District of Columbia Educator Preparation Profiles http://osse.dc.gov/page/district-columbia-educator-preparation-profiles www.caepnet.org

Recommendations for District of Columbia

Collect data that connect student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs. 
As one way to measure whether programs are producing effective classroom teachers, the District 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. Although the District has outlined its intentions to ensure that preparation programs are held accountable as part of Race to the Top, it is urged to codify these requirements and specify that they apply to alternate route programs as well as to traditional teacher preparation 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 programs are preparing teachers for the classroom, such as: 
1.    Evaluation results from the first and/or second year of teaching
2.    Satisfaction ratings by school principals and teacher supervisors of programs' student teachers, using a standardized form to permit program comparison
3.    Average raw scores of teacher candidates on licensing tests, including academic proficiency, subject matter and professional knowledge tests
4.    Number of times, on average, it takes teacher candidates to pass licensing tests
5.    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 District of Columbia to establish precise minimum standards for teacher preparation program performance for each category of data. The District should be mindful of setting rigorous standards for program performance, as its current requirement that 80 percent of program graduates pass licensing tests 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.

Maintain full authority over the process for approving teacher preparation programs. 
The District should not cede its authority and must ensure that it is the state office that considers the evidence of program performance and makes the decision about whether programs should continue to be authorized to prepare teachers.

State response to our analysis

The District of Columbia was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that enhanced this analysis.