Search nctq.org

Or search by choosing a tag
Training and Recruitment

Teacher Prep, Licensure, Student Teaching

Staffing

Hiring and Assignment, Supply and Demand, Teacher Diversity, Work Day

Evaluation and Support

Evaluation, Professional Development, Retention and Tenure

Compensation

Pay, Benefits

Program Reporting Requirements

General Teacher Preparation Policy

Program Reporting Requirements

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.

Best practices

Delaware, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas all hold programs accountable for their performance and publish report cards with completer data by program. Delaware sets minimum standards of performance and state targets for each data category it collects, and it publishes reports clearly indicating how programs measure up in relation to those standards. Florida, Missouri, and North Carolina have teacher preparation program approval processes with specific cut scores on measures such as placement and retention rates, completer and supervisor satisfaction, and evaluation of completers. Tennessee and Texas both have processes that stand out for their ability to hold programs accountable. Tennessee, in addition to publishing a wealth of data, denies accreditation to programs that fail to meet even one its standards; Texas requires that programs continue to increase performance on its standards over the next few years as part of its approval process.

Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2017). Program Reporting Requirements National Results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/national/Program-Reporting-Requirements-81
Best practice 6

States

Meets goal 2

States

Nearly meets goal 5

States

Meets goal in part 8

States

Meets a small part of goal 25

States

Does not meet goal 5

States

Do states set objective and meaningful minimum standards for teacher preparation program performance?

2017
Figure details

Yes: DE, FL, LA, MI, MO, NC, NV, RI, SC, TN, TX, WA

No: AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD, ME, MN, MS, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, UT, VA, VT, WI, WV, WY

Footnotes
IN: Setting minimum performance standards is a requirement of state law, but the state has not yet implemented this requirement.
LA: The state's effort is in progress.
WA: The state's effort is in progress.

Do states hold teacher preparation programs accountable for meeting set minimum standards?

2017
Figure details

Yes: AZ, DE, FL, GA, LA, MA, MI, MO, NC, NV, NY, OK, RI, TN, TX, VA, WA

No: AK, AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DC, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MD, ME, MN, MS, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, UT, VT, WI, WV, WY

Footnotes
IN: Holding programs accountable to set minimum standards is a requirement of state law, but the state has not yet implemented this requirement.
LA: The state's effort is in progress.
NY: The state's effort is in progress.
WA: The state's effort is in progress.

Do states publish data on teacher preparation program performance on its website?

2017
Figure details

Yes: AR, CT, DE, FL, IN, KY, LA, MA, MI, MO, NC, NJ, OH, OK, RI, TN, TX, WI

No: AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, KS, MD, ME, MN, MS, MT, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, OR, PA, SC, SD, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY

Footnotes
AZ: The state does not publish a report card, but programs' biennial reports are public.
CO: State law requires the state to publish report cards with all collected data on program performance, but report cards currently include only limited data.
GA: State report card data are not yet available.
IL: Programs, not the state, report only limited data.
NM: State report card data are not yet available.
OH: Ohio publishes data only for programs housed in institutions of higher education.
PA: The state publishes only limited data in its report cards.

What role do states allow a program’s accreditation status to play when deciding if a program should receive approval?

2017
2015
Figure details

State allows national accreditation to substitute for its own approval process.: AL, AR, CA, CT, DC, HI, ME, MI, NY, OH

State maintains full authority over the approval process.: AK, AZ, CO, FL, GA, IA, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WI, WY

State makes the final approval decision but requires accreditation to qualify for state approval. : DE, ID, IN, MS, NC, NJ, OK, SC, VA, WV

Footnotes
AL: Programs can substitute national accreditation for certain state standards.
DC: District of Columbia maintains full authority over the approval of only non-traditional teacher preparation programs.
ME: Programs can substitute national accreditation for certain state standards.

Updated: December 2017

Student Teaching/Clinical Practice
Select another topic
General Teacher Preparation
Elementary Teacher Preparation
Secondary Teacher Preparation
Special Education Teacher Preparation
Alternate Routes
Hiring
Teacher and Principal Evaluation
Teacher Compensation
Retaining Effective Teachers
Early Childhood Preparation
How we graded

1D: Program Reporting Requirements 

  • Minimum Standards: The state should establish a minimum standard of performance for each category of data that is collected.
  • Articulated Consequences for Failure to Meet Minimum Standards: The state should hold teacher preparation programs accountable for meeting minimum standards of performance. As such, the state should have articulated consequences for programs failing to meet these standards and should require specific steps to develop a remediation plan. This may include on-site program inspection by qualified external bodies that may lead to loss of program approval.
  • Annual Reporting: The state should produce and publish an annual report card that provides all of the collected data for each individual teacher preparation program.
  • Approval Authority: The state should retain full authority over its process approving teacher preparation programs and should not grant any approval authority to accrediting bodies.
Minimum Standards
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if minimum standards of performance are set for each category of data the teacher preparation programs are required to report.
Articulated Consequences for Failure to Meet Minimum Standards
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it holds teacher preparation programs accountable for meeting the minimum standards of performance, and if it clearly articulates the consequences for failing to meet the minimum standards, which may include loss of program approval.
Annual Reporting
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it publishes all collected data on individual teacher preparation programs on an annual basis. 
Approval Authority
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it retains full authority over the process for approving teacher preparation programs.

Research rationale

The state should examine a number of factors when measuring the performance of and approving teacher preparation programs.[1] 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.[2]

States have made great strides in building data systems with the capacity to provide evidence of teacher performance.[3] 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.[4]

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.[5] Clear state policy would eliminate this uncertainty and send an unequivocal message to programs about the state's expectations.[6]

[1] For general information about teacher preparation program approval see Rotherham, A. J., & Mead, S. (2004). Back to the future: The history and politics of state teacher licensure and certification. In F. Hess, A. J. Rotherham, & K. Walsh (Eds.), A qualified teacher in every classroom (11-47). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/nctq/research/1109818629821.pdf
[2] For additional discussion and research of how teacher education programs can add value to their teachers, see National Council on Teacher Quality. (2017). Teacher Prep Review. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/teacherPrep/2016/home.do
[3] Walsh, K., & Jacobs, S. (2007). Alternative certification isn't alternative. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498382.pdf
[4] For additional research on the status of teacher quality and the strengths and weaknesses of accreditation programs and policies in the U.S., see: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2010). The secretary's seventh annual report on teacher quality: A highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/t2r7.pdf
[5] For a discussion of the lack of evidence that national accreditation status enhances teacher preparation programs' effectiveness, see: Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1999, July). Teacher training and licensure: A layman's guide. Marci Kanstoroom and Chester E. Finn., Jr. (eds.), In Better teachers, better schools (pp. 45-47). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/btrtchrs_10.pdf; Greenberg, J., & Walsh, K. (2008, June). No common denominator: The preparation of elementary teachers in mathematics by America's education schools. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/No_Common_Denominator_NCTQ_Report; Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D. (2006, May). What education schools aren't teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren't learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/What_Ed_Schools_Arent_Teaching_About_Reading_NCTQ_Report
[6] See Walsh, K., Joseph, N., & Lewis, A. (2016, November). Within our grasp: Achieving higher admissions standards in teacher prep. 2016 State Teacher Policy Yearbook Report Series. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Admissions_Yearbook_Report

We use cookies

We use cookies to recognize your repeat visits and preferences, as well as to measure the effectiveness of campaigns and analyze traffic. To learn more about cookies, including how to disable them, view our Privacy and Cookie Policy. By clicking "Accept" or by continuing in the site you consent to the use of cookies unless you have disabled them.

Dismiss Accept