Driven by Data: Using Licensure Tests to Build a Strong, Diverse Teacher Workforce

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The nation needs a strong, diverse teacher workforce to fulfill its promise of equal opportunities for all.

The quality of the teacher workforce is especially important in the early grades, when teachers bear an extraordinary responsibility, building a solid foundation for students in both the knowledge and skills they will need to succeed in later grades, as well as in their future lives.

The past year and a half has laid bare the tremendous challenges teachers face and the essential role they play in supporting students. As the pandemic abates and we reckon with the damage it wrought, we must acknowledge that recovery places unprecedented demands on our education system and its teachers.

Bringing in new teachers who are up to the task requires an understanding of the points along the pathway when we are most likely to lose teaching talent, especially those points at which aspiring teachers of color are lost to the profession.

With the release of data never before published, NCTQ focuses on a uniquely challenging point: licensure tests. An outsized number of elementary teacher candidates struggle to pass their state licensing tests, especially in the content knowledge (English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies), defined by states as minimally necessary for the job. In many states, less than half of all test takers pass on their first try, with even lower pass rates reported for candidates of color.

When faced with persistent evidence of low pass rates, some state leaders have lowered or even eliminated tests of content knowledge, despite the broad—and obvious—agreement that teachers cannot teach what they do not know. These actions are band-aid solutions that eliminate our ability to identify and fix a problem and instead shift the burden of inadequate content knowledge onto classrooms.

The data collected over the last several years and presented here documents the pass rates achieved by institutions preparing teachers. Not only has much of it never been made public, but also, test publishers have not made many pieces readily available to the state agencies overseeing these tests or to their educator preparation programs. In fairness, publishers were not often asked to do so. The reporting requirements for pass rates under Title II of the Higher Education Act has effectively encouraged states and programs to limit their consideration of pass rates only to the “best-attempt” pass rates, that is, how many candidates pass their test regardless of how many attempts were necessary. Neither states nor programs have made public “first-attempt” pass rates (except in rare instances), even though it is common practice in other professions and serves to motivate all programs to take the tests seriously. First-time pass rates speak to the efficiency and thoroughness of programs’ course of study.

The most important revelation emerging from this new data may not be the remarkable variation among institutional pass rates in the same state (there’s an average 56 percentage point gap between the highest and lowest institutions in a state on candidates’ first attempt). Instead, it is the fact that neither the backgrounds of the candidates nor institutional characteristics fully explain the variances. For that reason, the data presented here provides a means of identifying higher-performing institutions among those with lower admissions selectivity or with more Pell grant recipients. A more likely explanation for these stronger performing programs is the quality of preparation, including both the support provided and the degree to which coursework is aligned with the content.

There are startling differences in pass rates among institutions within the same state. On average, there is a 56 percentage point gap between the highest and lowest performing institutions.

Even with the advancements this data represents, there are significant problems to be solved. The data reported here presents the pass rates for the institution, not specific programs within the institution, which would be a more meaningful and actionable indicator. Another problem is the use of licensing tests by some states that make it possible for candidates’ strength in one subject to compensate for weakness in another. Further is the practice by some states to set the cut score below what has been formally recommended. Not surprisingly, states that use relatively easy tests or set lower passing scores report higher pass rates. The underlying problem—a less well-prepared workforce—is not skirted but is shifted to the elementary classroom where teachers struggle to teach what they do not adequately know.

Standout States

Standout Institutions

The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of any funders, project advisors, or other entities.