#11

Subject: State and Institutional Reports on the Quality of Teacher Preparation

Prepared: March 2000

Summary

Section 207 of Title II was adopted with the 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and requires three annual reports on teacher preparation and licensing: one from institutions to states, a second from states to the Secretary of Education, and a third from the Secretary to Congress and the public.

States must provide a report on procedures for implementation by October 7, 2000. Institutions must report data to states by April 2001. The first reports from states on teacher exam pass rates are due to the U.S. Department of Education by October 7, 2001.

Current Status

The final guidelines are expected March 2000. The Secretary of Education released The Initial Report of the Secretary on the Quality of Teacher Preparation December 8, 1999, for which 20 states voluntarily provided pass-rate data for individual institutions.

Overview

All higher education institutions that conduct teacher education programs enrolling students who receive federal assistance under Title IV of the HEA must provide reports to their states.

Three annual reports must be prepared: from institutions to states, from states to the Secretary of Education, and from the Secretary to Congress and the public. The required reports provide pass rates on teacher licensing or certification assessments, and basic information on teacher preparation that affect the quality of new teachers. Testing companies are also involved in providing information.

By October 7, 2000, states must describe their reporting procedures in a report to the federal government; the procedures must be developed in consultation with higher education institutions.

Institutions must also publish the information required in the report through such publications as catalogs and promotional materials sent to potential applicants, secondary school guidance counselors, and graduates’ prospective employers.

The U. S. Department of Education (Department) published draft guidelines outlining the reporting process. The draft guidelines are at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/News/teacherprep/guide1132000.doc.

The Department is developing electronic reporting methods for states. States may also develop electronic methods for institutions to use in reporting to their state offices.

Key Definitions and Reporting Methods

• Institutions and states will report pass rates on assessments required for teacher preparation program completers. These do not include people enrolled in education schools who are preparing to become non-teaching professionals (e.g., a guidance counselor).
• The first annual state reports on the first cohort (the 1999-00 academic year completers) are due to the Department on October 7, 2001.
• Pass rates, based on cohorts, must be calculated for all initial teacher certification or licensure tests the state uses.
• Tests and cut scores for determining reported pass rates must be valid for an individual at the time of the test closure date for his or her cohort. This allows for changes in tests, cut scores, and phasing in of completers who tested with different cohorts than their own.
• Pass rates are reported when 10 or more program completers in the cohort take a test within the completers’ area of specialization. Use the highest score when someone takes the test more than once.
• There are three kinds of pass rates: 1) single assessment pass rates; 2) aggregate pass rates for each of six major teacher skills or knowledge assessment areas; and 3) a summary pass rate based on the proportion of completers who passed all tests they took for their area of specialization among those who took one or more tests in their specialized areas. If a completer fails one or more of the tests in a series, he or she is counted as a fail for purposes of calculating institutional pass rates.
• Portfolios or other methods used by states must be reported in the "performance assessments" category of the report.
• If a state does not require any tests for initial certification, institutions and states do not need to report pass-rate data.

States must:

• Develop procedures to ensure that institutions obtain test score and pass-rate information for institutions to verify and report pass-rate calculations. These procedures should include ways the institutions can get data from the testing companies for their program completers. States must report these procedures to the Department by October 7, 2000.
• Identify the subject areas in which completers must obtain certification or licensure and the cut scores applicable for each cohort.
• Determine the academic year and test closure date for each cohort and the schedules for transmission of information between institutions, states, and testing companies for processing the reports. For a complete list of what must be included in the report see pages 19 – 20 of the proposed guidelines located at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/News/teacherprep/guide1132000.doc.
• Develop a process for identifying alternative routes to certification or other programs not administered by institutions of higher education, and obtain pass-rate information from the program completers.
• Determine who will calculate the data the state needs to report pass rates.
• Rank the institutions in the state according to their completers’ pass rates on the tests.
• Calculate a state average pass rate and communicate this to institutions.
• Report on the proportion of individuals who pass all of the required assessments but who received their preparation in another state. States are not required to report pass rates of individuals who received their preparation outside the state.
• Report the number of teachers who are working in public schools without meeting the state requirements for licensure or certification. This does not include people who have met the requirements of another state but who are not yet licensed to teach in the reporting state. Nor does it include persons who receive a provisional certificate and who must teach a specified number of years before being fully certified. The items listed above are referred in the draft guidelines under the definition of "waivers."
• States must report on specific types of waiver data, including 1) their number and the proportion of the total number of teachers; 2) number disaggregated by subject area; 3) for secondary teachers the number who have met subject area requirements but not pedagogy requirements; and 4) the number and proportion of waivers disaggregated by poverty level of school districts.
• States must report waivers by October 1 of each year beginning with the 2000-2001 school year.
• These waiver reports do not affect higher education institutions.
• Identify institutions that the state determines as "low performing," and institutions at risk of being so designated. See Sec. 208 for the specific language.

Institutions of Higher Education Reporting Requirements

Institutions must:

• Prepare an official list of teacher preparation program completers and their specialization areas. The institution sends this list to the state and/or the testing company to match with test files to compute pass rates.
• Verify the accuracy of pass-rate calculations received from the state or the testing company. The report on the cohort of 1999-2000 is due to states by April 7, 2001. The next two cohorts will be reported to states in April of 2002 and 2003; every April thereafter, institutions must report on a new cohort of completers.
• If the institution cannot get the data in a timely manner, then it must inform the state and the Department of the problem and propose a schedule for reporting.
• Update the initial 1999-2000 cohort pass-rate data beginning in April 2004; in every subsequent year updates will be included for the cohort of the previous three years.
• Report their pass rates, and compare these to statewide averages in their promotion publications.
• Report additional required information to states, such as number of students in teacher preparation programs, number of students in supervised teaching, number of faculty in various aspects of the teacher preparation program, and the program’s accreditation.

Testing Company Reporting Responsibilities

Testing companies may be asked to match lists of completers from institutions with their scores and compute the pass rates. Testing companies then transmit the pass rates for verification by the institution. Institutions will work with the testing companies to resolve any discrepancies.

Implications for Institutions

Institutions will want to begin planning for the new reporting and disclosure requirements. Because the guidelines are not final, institutions need to be alert to possible changes in the proposed guidelines.

For institutions where such a reporting mechanism is not already in place, this represents additional reporting that may not be standardized. Some institutions will have to ensure their teacher preparation programs can adequately track program completers and ensure they know what tests they are taking for licensure. New communication mechanisms must be arranged to ensure the teacher preparation program can gather and process the data. Institutional research offices may be able to help. Alternatively, institutional research offices may have to obtain information about the teacher licensing process for their campus and their state.

Institutions will have to develop mechanisms to track information about their teacher preparation students after graduation because institutions will have to report on subsequent pass-rate information for up to three years following program completion.

There are requirements that states rank institutions within their states. The ranking procedure may create some difficulties. States with few institutions may have trouble placing them into quartiles, and quartile divisions may mask greater similarities among institutions. Also, individual scores in small programs may have great influence on the institution’s pass rate (a program with just 10 completers with one fail has a 90% pass rate, while a program with 100 completers and one fail has a 99% pass rate).

Institutions that have a significant proportion of their program graduates who seek licensure or certification in other states will have an incomplete picture of their program completers.

Some states have specific requirements, such as prohibitions regarding sharing individual-specific information, and these matters must be resolved.

The Department states that it "…does not intend to alter the historic relations between states and institutions of higher education…" nonetheless, the new process does alter it in states where there are different entities that handle teacher licensure than that deal with institutional governance or coordination. These relationships must be delineated by the states.

If the state withdraws its approval or terminates financial support because of low performance of a teacher preparation program, the institution cannot enroll any student who receives Title IV HEA aid in the teacher preparation program.

Timeline

October 7, 1998 - Higher Education Amendments of 1998 signed into law

January 1999 – June 1999 – Consultative process to develop proposed guidelines

January 21, 2000 – 30-day notice published in Federal Register inviting public comment for the proposed Reference and Reporting Guide for Preparing State and Institutional Reports on the Quality of Teacher Preparation.

March 2000 - Final guidelines are expected to be published for implementation of Title II.

October 7, 2000: States must submit their reporting procedures to the Department.

April 7, 2001: Institutions must report to their states required information about teacher preparation program completers for 1999-2000.

October 7, 2001: States must report the pass rates and other required information on program completers for 1999-2000 to the Department.

October 2002: States report on program completers for 2000-2001 to the Department.

October 2003: States report on program completers for 2001-2002 to the Department.

April 2004: Institutions provide updated information on completers from 1999-2000 to the states.

October 2004: States report on program completers for 2003-2004, and updates for completers from 1999-2000 to the Department.

Additional Resources:

Proposed Reference and Reporting Guide for Preparing State and Institutional Reports on the Quality of Teacher Preparation http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/News/teacherprep/guide1132000.doc.

U.S. Department of Education’s page regarding the Higher Education Act:

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/PPI/Reauthor/index.html

Specific information about the quality of teacher preparation from the U.S. Department of Education’s HEA page "Improving Teacher Quality, Recruitment and Preparation": http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/PPI/Reauthor/tch1016.html

Developing a Data System to Assess Teacher Preparation Program Quality (NCES Office of Postsecondary Education): http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/teacherprep/index.htm

Title II Reports on the Quality of Teacher Preparation: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/News/teacherprep/index.html

Initial Report on the Quality of Teacher Preparation:

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/News/teacherprep/initialreport2.pdf

Initial State Report Card on Teacher Preparation Programs and Candidates Initial Report Questionnaire: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/teacherprep/initquest.htm

Authors: Jan W. Lyddon and William D. Berg

Coordinated by the Higher Education Data Policy and Publications Committees. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Association for Institutional Research. Readers are urged to review the regulations carefully to ensure they fully understand reporting requirements.