Policy scan: Approaches to evaluating teacher preparation programs
in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia
July 2015
In this document, REL Appalachia provides a summary of a policy scan conducted in spring 2015
in partnership with the Appalachia Higher Education Consortium (AHEC; a research alliance
comprising staff of state education agencies and teacher preparation programs in Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia). The project was designed with substantial input from
AHEC members and sought to review and describe the states’ approaches to evaluating teacher
preparation programs (TPPs).
This document is organized into five sections: (1) project overview, (2) description of data
sources, (3) findings, (4) limitations, and (5) conclusions. Three appendixes provide the list of
websites and documents reviewed in the policy scan; the interview protocol used with key
informants; and a summary of each state’s current evaluation approach.
Project overview
TPPs face growing demand to improve their quality, with a particular focus on clinical
preparation and ensuring that completers are prepared to teach to rigorous standards for
college and career readiness (CCSSO, 2012; NCTQ, 2014). Concerns have been raised that TPPs
are not producing teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to improve student outcomes
(CAEP, 2013; Walsh, 2001). And the growing discussion around teacher effectiveness has led to
calls for increasing accountability and improving TPPs by many stakeholders, including teacher
accreditation organizations and teachers themselves (Coggshall, Bivona, & Reschly, 2012;
Meyer, Brodersen, & Linick, 2014; Worrell et al., 2014).
The federal government has also increased its attention to and support for development of
systems to assess TPPs, as illustrated for example by the new proposed regulations concerning
reporting requirements for TPPs in Title II of the Higher Education Act (U.S. Department of
Education, 2014; The White House, 2014). Specifically, the Title II regulations would ask states
to develop a TPP ratings system that includes outcome measures such as job placement rates,
job retention rates, alumni satisfaction, and graduates’ teaching skills as measured by their
students’ achievement.
An increasing number of states (led largely by those that received Race to the Top funding) are
changing their accountability structures for TPPs (Crowe, 2011). These states are moving
toward a much more outcomes-based assessment of program performance. At the same time,
the national accrediting body in teacher preparation, the Council for the Accreditation of
Educator Preparation (CAEP), also is calling on all education program providers (EPPs) it
www.relappalachia.org
Page 1
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
accredits to collect and annually report data on a number of largely outcomes-based indicators
(CAEP, 2013). This all motivates states and institutions in those states that prepare teachers to
meld two approaches to program accountability: traditional multi-year state program
approval/accreditation for providers and annual reporting for programs (Allen, Coble, & Crowe,
2014).
The processes for evaluating TPPs are varied among states, and it is important to systematically
review these processes and changes to them to help state education agencies, institutes of
higher education (IHEs) and other program providers, and the individual preparation programs
understand the impact new policies will have on their work. Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and
West Virginia all are at different stages in their responses to the call for changing program
accountability systems. This document examines efforts in the four states to evaluate TPPs.
Box 1. Key terms
Annual program performance report. A yearly report of data on individual teacher preparation programs (TPPs)
(i.e., courses of study leading to licensure for a specific teaching field and level) that meets specifications
established by the appropriate state agency or agencies. This report typically includes data on various kinds of
program outcomes and/or program candidate/graduate outcomes. In some, but not all states, the annual
program performance report can be a basis for corrective action by state agencies that review and approve
preparation programs.
Educator preparation program. A program or state-approved course of study that leads to an initial credential
to serve as a teacher, school administrator, librarian, or counselor (Meyer, Brodersen, & Linick, 2014).
Education program provider (EPP). A specific institution (college, university, or independent agency) or division
of such an institution (e.g., College of Education) that offers one or more specific courses of study leading to
licensure as a teacher or other school personnel.
High-need local educational agency. A local educational agency that serves an elementary school or secondary
school located in an area in which there is a high percentage of students from families with incomes below the
poverty line; a high percentage of secondary school teachers not teaching in the content area in which the
teachers were trained to teach; or a high teacher turnover rate (HEA Title II Sec 201 (b)(2)).
New teacher. A recent graduate of a traditional or alternative route teacher preparation program who has
received a level of certification or licensure that allows him or her to serve in the state as a teacher of record
for K–12 students and, at a state’s discretion, preschool students. A recent graduate is an individual whom a
TPP has documented as having met all the requirements of the program within the last three Title II reporting
years (U.S. Department of Education, 2014).
Program graduate [also called “program completer”]. A person who has met all the requirements of a state-
approved TPP. Program graduates include all those who are documented as having met such requirements.
Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate, program credential, transcript, or other
written proof of having met the program’s requirements. In applying this definition, that an individual has or
has not been recommended to the state for initial certification or licensure is not a criterion for determining
who is a program graduate (U.S. Department of Education, 2015.).
Teacher preparation program (TPP). A state-approved course of study, the completion of which signifies that an
enrollee has met all of the state’s requirements for initial certification or licensure to teach in the state’s
elementary or secondary schools (Meyer, Brodersen, & Linick, 2014).
Alternative route teacher preparation program primarily serves candidates who have subject-matter
knowledge and who are the teachers of record in a classroom while participating in their TPP.
Alternative route TPPs may be based in an IHE or not (U.S. Department of Education, 2013).
www.relappalachia.org
Page 2
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Traditional teacher preparation program generally serves undergraduate students who have no prior
teaching or work experience, and leads to at least a bachelor’s degree. Some traditional TPPs may
lead to a teaching credential but not to a degree (U.S. Department of Education, 2013).
TPP approval and reauthorization. TPP approval is the process by which a state governmental agency reviews a
TPP to determine whether it meets the state’s standards for the preparation of teachers generally and in a
specific certification field. Programs must receive initial approval before beginning operation, and are required
to successfully complete a periodic reauthorization. In most states, that reauthorization coincides with provider
accreditation (see TPP accreditation below), but some states require more frequent reauthorization (Meyer,
Brodersen, & Linick, 2014).
TPP accreditation. Program provider accreditation is a process for assessing and improving academic and
education quality through voluntary peer review of EPPs and the specific preparation programs they offer.
Some states use the term accreditation to denote the state approval process, but accreditation generally
refers to review by the national accrediting body, which is now the Council for the Accreditation of Educator
Preparation (CAEP).
TPP evaluation. These are activities designed to gather information and make judgments about the quality or
outcomes of a TPP (Meyer, Brodersen, & Linick, 2014).
Data sources
What are the current policies or plans of the four states in the REL Appalachia region to
assess the performance of teacher preparation programs in their respective states?
For this guiding question, REL Appalachia reviewed publicly available documents containing
information about evaluation of TPPs in the four REL Appalachia states. We also conducted
semi-structured phone interviews with state education agency representatives with primary
responsibility for oversight and approval of TPPs to supplement and clarify information
gathered through the document review. Document reviews and key informant interviews took
place between April and June 2015 and the list of websites and documents reviewed is shown
in appendix A.
Document reviews. The REL Appalachia team used keyword search terms such as “teacher
preparation evaluation,” “teacher preparation program approval,” “teacher preparation
program accreditation,” ”teacher preparation program accountability,” “teacher certification,”
and “teacher licensure” to search websites associated with state education agencies, state
departments of higher education, and other relevant national organizations (appendix A lists
the documents reviewed).
Key informant interviews. Interviews were conducted by telephone with key informants in
each state, using the semi-structured interview protocol in appendix B. The interview questions
reflect the discussion and suggestions from the November 2014 AHEC meeting and incorporate
feedback from select AHEC members. The protocol is adapted from those used for a REL Central
report on a related topic (Meyer et al., 2014) and in Allen et al. (2014). The interview protocol
was sent to participants prior to interviews so they could be better prepared to answer the
questions. The main goal of the interview was to supplement and clarify information gathered
through document reviews. A total of 7 state education agency representatives from all four
www.relappalachia.org
Page 3
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
states with primary responsibility for oversight and approval of TPPs participated in the phone
interviews.
Findings
This section provides an overview of TPPs located in the four REL Appalachia states. It also
describes two key components of TPP evaluation: (1) state approval/reauthorization and
national accreditation processes for TPPs and EPPs, and (2) annual TPP performance reporting.
Profiles of each state are included in appendix C.
Teacher preparation programs in the REL Appalachia states serve more than
36,000 teacher candidates through 182 education program providers
The state Title II reports, submitted annually by states to the U.S. Department of Education,
include descriptive information about TPPs. These show that 182 providers offered courses of
study in teacher preparation during the 2012/13 academic year in the four REL Appalachia
states. Nearly 13,000 enrollees completed the programs during the 2012/13 academic year
(table 1). More than 122 of the EPPs were identified as providing traditional TPPs, which
typically serve undergraduate students with no teaching experience and lead to a bachelor’s
degree.
Table 1. Participation in teacher preparation programs in 2012/13, by state
State
Number of
enrollees
Kentucky
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
11,208
8,993
12,939
3,551
36,691
Number of
completers
Number of preparation
program providers
3,222
4,453
4,013
1,192
12,880
48
70
41
23
182
Number of preparation program
providers by type
•
29 traditional
•
17 alternative, IHE based
•
2 alternative, non-IHE based
•
37 traditional
•
29 alternative, IHE based
•
4 alternative, non-IHE based
•
36 traditional
•
4 alternative, IHE based
•
1 alternative, non-IHE based
•
20 traditional
•
3 alternative, IHE based
•
0 alternative, non-IHE based
•
122 traditional
•
53 alternative, IHE based
•
7 alternative, non-IHE based
IHE is institute of higher education.
Source: Authors’ analysis of data from U.S. Department of Education (2014).
www.relappalachia.org
Page 4
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
State oversight of teacher preparation programs varies
In three states, the Board of Education, through the state’s Department of Education, has the
authority to review, approve, and conduct annual program performance assessments of TPPs
(table 2). Kentucky is the only state in the REL Appalachia region that has an independent
Professional Standards Board to administer these functions.
Table 2. State entities that review, approve, oversee, and annually evaluate TPPs, by state 1
State
Entity that approves and oversees TPPs
Entity that annually evaluates TPPs
Kentucky
Kentucky Education Professional Standards
Board
Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board
Tennessee
Tennessee State Board of Education
(through the Tennessee Department of
Education)
Tennessee Higher Education Commission and
Tennessee Department of Education
Virginia
Virginia State Board of Education
(through the Virginia Department of Education)
Virginia Department of Education
West Virginia
West Virginia Board of Education
(through the West Virginia Department of
Education)
West Virginia Department of Education
TPP is teacher preparation program.
Source: Authors’ analysis of publicly available documents and interviews with state education agency staff.
States review teacher preparation programs every two to seven years
for reauthorization
The processes of state approval are used primarily to ensure that TPPs meet legislative
requirements and state standards (Meyer et al., 2014). States can deny approval or
reauthorization of programs that fail to meet standards. In the REL Appalachia states, TPPs are
reviewed for initial approval, and then for reauthorization every two to seven years. Most
states in the REL Appalachia region recognize CAEP accreditation as a path for state program
approval (table 3).
1
Adapted from Meyer et al., 2014.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 5
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Table 3. Teacher preparation program approval process, by state 2
State
Frequency
(after initial approval)
National accreditation
Kentucky
Every seven years (for continuing
accreditation)
Considering a partnership agreement with CAEP.
Tennessee
Every seven years
CAEP accreditation is allowed in lieu of state review and approval.
Virginia
Every two years
National accreditation or accreditation through the process
approved by the state Board of Education is required for program
approval.
West Virginia
Every seven years
CAEP accreditation or being in the CAEP candidacy process is
required for program approval.
CAEP is Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation.
Source: Authors’ analysis of publicly available documents and interviews with state education agency staff.
Availability and use of program performance data and measures vary
All four states collect information annually from EPPs about the performance of their
preparation programs (table 4). While all four states expressed interest and intentions to use
the program performance measures for TPP improvement purposes, a range of data and
measures on program performances are found among the four states; and not all states are
using them as part of their program approval process. Two states (Kentucky and Tennessee)
have recently implemented annual “report cards” or “data dashboards” that enable key
stakeholders, including the public, to review and compare the performance of TPPs. Virginia
requires education program providers to collect annual data; however, the state currently
issues reports on its preparation programs only biannually. The state is in the process of
enacting regulations calling for an annual program reports.
Table 4. Measures adopted for use in annual evaluations of TPPs, by data/measure and state
State policy on use of data/measures in TPP evaluation
Data/measure
Kentucky
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
Characteristics of program candidates
Academic competencies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Nonacademic competencies
No
No
No
No
Outcome measures
2
Completion rate of program candidates
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Program completers’ scores on all assessments
required for licensure and/or program completion
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Placement rate of program completers into schools
No
Yes
No
Yes
Adapted from Meyer et al., 2014.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 6
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
State policy on use of data/measures in TPP evaluation
Data/measure
Kentucky
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
Placement rate of completers in hard-to-staff
subjects or high-need schools
No
No
No
No
Persistence rate of program completers once
engaged in full-time teaching
No
Yes
No
Yes
Persistence rate in hard-to-staff subjects or highneed schools
No
No
No
No
Observation-based performance assessment of
licensed program completers as P–12 classroom
teachers
No
No
No
Yes
Evaluation of program completers as full-time
teachers, including student achievement or growth
No
Yes
No
Yes
Program completers’ scores on state or district
annual teacher performance assessments
No
No
No
Yes
Feedback/satisfaction survey
Survey responses of program candidates or
completers on preparation program quality
No
No
No
Yes
Survey responses of principals or supervisors on
completers’ preparation for teaching
No
No
No
Yes
Survey responses from P–12 students on program
completers’ effectiveness
No
No
No
No
TPP is teacher preparation program.
Source: Authors’ analysis of publicly available documents and interviews with state education agency staff.
Policy scan limitations
This document offers a snapshot of state-level perspectives on TPP evaluations in Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia to inform and support stakeholders in the REL
Appalachia region. It is based on interviews with a small number of key informants and a review
of publicly available documents in all four states. The availability of documentation varied
across states, and data were collected at a single point in time. With continually evolving state
plans, policies, and procedures, policy changes or updates may have occurred since the
completion of data collection in June 2015. In addition, the policy scan did not examine the
implementation status of state evaluation requirements and the extent to which TPPs report on
these requirements.
Despite the limitations, this policy scan is one way to gauge state efforts and plans related to
TPP evaluation at a time when state approaches are changing nationwide.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 7
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Conclusions
This policy scan shows that the four states are in different stages with regard to developing and
implementing TPP performance measures. Consistent with other states in the nation, they are
moving toward more frequent and more outcome-focused approaches to evaluating TPPs. And
they are moving toward increasingly detailed annual reports on program performance that are
intended to serve the goals of program improvement, state accountability, and providing public
information.
These states are grappling with the relationship of annual program performance reports to the
longer-term approval/accreditation processes. Attention to and interest in the outcomes of
TPPs as measured by student academic achievement in the classrooms taught by program
graduates are growing. The states are in need of gathering meaningful data from all levels—
TPPs, their graduates, students taught by their graduates, and others—that can be used to
improve the performance of TPPs.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 8
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Appendix A. List of websites and documents reviewed3
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2015, January). CAEP evidence guide.
Retrieved June 10, 2015, from
https://wvde.state.wv.us/certification/educatorprep/documents/CAEP_Evidence_Guide.pd
f.
National Council on Teacher Quality. (n.d.). NCTQ state policy [website]. Retrieved June 8, 2015,
from http://www.nctq.org/statePolicy/2014/statePolicyHome.do.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Title II: Tips for reporting: Frequently asked questions.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 1, 2015, from
https://title2.ed.gov/Public/TA/FAQ.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). 2014 Title II reports [website]. Retrieved June 12, 2015,
from https://title2.ed.gov/Public/Home.aspx.
Kentucky
16 Ky. Admin. Regs. 5:010. (2009). Standards for accreditation of educator preparation units
and approval programs. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/016/005/010.htm.
16 Ky. Admin. Regs. 5:020. (2009). Standards for admission to educator preparation. Retrieved
June 10, 2015, from http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/016/005/020.htm.
Hibpshman, T. (2013). Design of an Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB) preparation
and accountability system for teacher training programs. Retrieved June 8, 2015, from
http://www.epsb.ky.gov/documents/BoardInfo/Presentations/EPSB_Accountability_Design
_final_september_2013.docx.
Interim Joint Committee on Education. (2012, September 10). Minutes of the 4th meeting of the
2012 Interim. Retrieved June 8, 2015, from
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/minutes/educat/120910OK.HTM.
Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board. (2015, April). EPSB monthly memo. Retrieved
June 13, 2015, from
http://www.epsb.ky.gov/documents/BoardInfo/newsletters/2015/April_2015_Monthly_Me
mo.doc.
Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board. (n.d.). Educator preparation [website].
Retrieved June 1, 2015, from http://www.epsb.ky.gov/teacherprep/index.asp.
3
States may not post all relevant documents on their websites, especially states that are piloting or developing
policies. And because this policy area is undergoing changes, documents may have been posted or removed from
websites between when the websites were searched and this document was prepared.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 9
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board. (n.d.). Educator preparation: Kentucky
Program Guidelines – Initial and advanced programs [website]. Retrieved June 12, 2015,
from http://www.kyepsb.net/teacherprep/programguidelines.asp.
Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board. (n.d.). Teacher preparation dashboards
[website]. Retrieved June 12, 2015, from
https://wd.kyepsb.net/EPSB.WebApps/Dashboard/DashbrdWeb/TeacherEducatorDashbrd1
.aspx?sID=1.
Kentucky General Assembly. (2012, October). Legislative Record. Vol. 25, no. 6. Retrieved June
12, 2015, from http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/Interim_oct12.pdf.
Tennessee
State Collaborative on Education Reform. (2011). Taking note: Education 101. An overview of
recent education reform in Tennessee. Retrieved June 13, 2015, from
http://www.joomag.com/magazine/education-101-an-overview-of-recent-educationreforms-in-tennessee/0599045001389652438?short.
Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0520-02-04. (2010, July). Educator preparation rules. Retrieved on June
10, 2015, from http://www.state.tn.us/education/teaching/docs/epp_sbe_0520-02-04.pdf.
Tennessee Department of Education. (n.d.). Educator licensing [website]. Retrieved May 28,
2015. from http://www.state.tn.us/education/licensing/index.shtml.
Tennessee Department of Education. (n.d.). Educator preparation (EPP) approval [website].
Retrieved May 28, 2015, from
http://www.state.tn.us/education/teaching/epp_approval.shtml.
Tennessee Higher Education Commission. (n.d.). 2014 Tennessee report card on the
effectiveness of teacher training programs [website]. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from
http://www.tn.gov/thec/Divisions/AcademicAffairs/rttt/report_card/2014/report_card/14r
eport_card.shtml.
Tennessee Higher Education Commission, Tennessee Department of Education, & Tennessee
State Board of Education. (2014, October). 2014 report card on the effectiveness of teacher
training programs. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from
http://tn.gov/thec/Divisions/AcademicAffairs/rttt/report_card/2014/report_card/A%20Exe
cutive%20Summary%202014.pdf.
Tennessee State Board of Education. (2014, October). Policy 5.502. Educator licensure.
Retrieved on June 10, 2015, from http://www.state.tn.us/sbe/Policies/5502_EducatorLicensurePolicy_10-31-14.pdf.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 10
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Tennessee State Board of Education. (2014, October). Policy 5.504. Tennessee educator
preparation policy. Retrieved on June 10, 2015, from http://www.state.tn.us/sbe/Policies/5504_EducatorPreparationPolicy_10-31-14.pdf.
Virginia
Code § 22.1-298.2 (2006). Regulations governing education preparation programs.
http://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc2201000/22.1-298.2.html.
8 Va. Admin. Code 20-542-10. (2007). Definitions. Retrieved May 30, 2015, from
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter542/section10/.
8 Va. Admin. Code 20-542-20. (2007). Administering the regulations. Retrieved May 30, 2015,
from http://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter542/section20/.
8 Va. Admin. Code 20-542-30. (2007). Options for accreditation of a process approved by the
Board of Education. Retrieved May 30, 2015, from
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter542/section30/.
8 Va. Admin. Code 20-542-40. (2007). Standards for biennial approval of education programs.
Retrieved May 30, 2015, from
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter542/section40/.
8 Va. Admin. Code 20-542-50. (2007). Application of the standards. Retrieved May 30, 2015,
from http://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter542/section50/.
8 Va. Admin. Code 20-542-60. (2007). Standards for Board of Education approved accreditation
process. Retrieved May 30, 2015, from
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter542/section60/.
Virginia Board of Education. (2013, June). Agenda item H: Final review of recommendations of
the Advisory Board on Teacher Education and Licensure (ABTEL) to revise the regulations
governing the review and approval of education programs in Virginia (8VAC20-542-10 et
seq.). Retrieved June 10, 2015 from
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/meetings/2013/06_jun/agenda_items/item_h.pdf.
Virginia Board of Education. (2013, June 27). Summary of the Board of Education business
meeting. Retrieved June 1, 2015, from
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/meetings/2013/06_jun/summary.pdf.
Virginia Department of Education. (2007, September 21). Implementation manual for the
regulations governing review and approval of education programs in Virginia. Richmond,
VA: Author.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 11
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Virginia Department of Education. (2013, June 27). Proposed revisions to the regulations
governing the review and approval of education programs in Virginia. Richmond, VA:
Author.
Virginia Department of Education. (2014, December). Assessment Requirements for Virginia
Licensure. Richmond, VA: Author. Retrieved June 10, 2015 from
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching/licensure/prof_teacher_assessment.pdf.
Virginia Department of Education. (n.d.). Teacher and administrator preparation [website].
Retrieved May 26, 2015, from
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching/educator_preparation/.
West Virginia
Beane, M. (2015). Updates and review for educator preparation providers [PowerPoint slides].
Retrieved June 3, 2014, from
https://wvde.state.wv.us/certification/educatorprep/documents/IHEWebinarPresentation_
3-10-15.pptx.
West Virginia Board of Education. (2012, October). Revisions to WVBE-approved professional
preparation program submission form. Retrieved June 12, 2015, from
https://wvde.state.wv.us/certification/educatorprep/documents/current_proposedchanges
toprogram_2012.docx.
West Virginia Board of Education. (2014). Approval of educational personnel preparation
programs (5100). Legislative Rule 126CSR114. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from
https://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/policy.php?p=5100.
West Virginia Board of Education. (2014). Licensure of professional/paraprofessional personnel
programs (5102). Legislative Rule 126CSR136. Retrieved June 12, 2015, from
https://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/policy.php?p=5202.
West Virginia Department of Education. (n.d.). Educator certification [website]. Retrieved June
10, 2015, from https://wvde.state.wv.us/certification/.
West Virginia Department of Education. (n.d.). Educator quality reports and data [website].
Retrieved June 12, 2015, from https://wvde.state.wv.us/certification/data/index.php.
West Virginia Board of Education. (n.d.). State board policies [website]. Retrieved June 10, 2015,
from https://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/.
West Virginia Higher Education High Quality Educator Stakeholder Committee. (2014,
November 5). Preliminary report. West Virginia Higher Education High Quality Educator
Stakeholder Committee (draft). Charleston, WV: West Virginia Department of Education.
Retrieved February 4, 2015, from
http://wvde.state.wv.us/certification/educatorprep/documents/WHITEPAPER.pdf.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 12
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Appendix B. Interview protocol
This appendix includes the telephone interview protocol used to collect primary information
from state department of education and other relevant staff members regarding measures of
and data systems for evaluating teacher preparation programs in their state.
----------Purpose
To support the design and implementation of teacher preparation program (TPP) evaluations in
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, REL Appalachia is completing a policy scan to
systematically collect information on how these four states are defining and measuring the
quality and impact of those programs. Your responses will help us understand how REL AP
states define these measures and describe the specific data elements being used in these
evaluations. Your participation is voluntary. You can stop the interview at any time. You will not
be individually identified by name or job title in resulting reports. The interview will last no
more than 60 minutes.
Introduction
•
Please describe your primary job responsibilities.
o What is your role with respect to your state’s evaluation of teacher
preparation programs?
Goals of and approaches to TPP evaluation
•
•
•
•
What are the primary objectives of your state’s current efforts or plans to assess
teacher preparation programs?
o Preparation program improvement?
o State accountability?
o Public accountability and information?
o Other? If so, what?
What objectives are of the highest priority to your state when assessing teacher
preparation programs?
Are all teacher preparation programs in the state assessed, or only selected
programs?
o If only selected programs are assessed, how are these programs selected?
In your state, do teacher preparation programs need to be approved at the state
level?
o If so, could you briefly describe this approval or accreditation process?
Specifically, we’d like the following information:
 What data or information do programs need to submit as part of the
process?
 Does the process involve site visits; if so, what information is
gathered and reported during these site visits?
www.relappalachia.org
Page 13
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
•
•
•
•
Does your state require all college- or university-based teacher preparation
programs to be nationally accredited?
o Has your state signed a partnership agreement with the Council for the
Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP)?
 If so, when?
 If not, are you considering an agreement with CAEP?
o If your state has such an agreement with CAEP, how is your state and the
teacher preparation programs within it responding to CAEP’s new
accreditation requirements?
How often are teacher preparation programs evaluated through reapproval,
reaccreditation, or other means at either the state or national level?
In addition to state approval or national accreditation, are there any other processes
or evaluation standards your state employs to assess the teacher preparation
programs within it?
o Could you please direct us where we can find more information about those
processes or standards?
Are there changes under way or planned by your state related to teacher
preparation program evaluation?
o If so, could you please direct us where we can find more information about
those changes?
Data and measures used for TPP evaluation
•
•
Does your state use the Title II data that it reports annually to the U.S. Department
of Education as a source of data for evaluating teacher preparation programs?
Is your state using or committed in policy to using any of the following types of
measures in order to evaluate teacher preparation programs? (Yes/No):
o Academic strength of program candidates.
o Program candidates’ nonacademic competencies or “dispositions” or
“teaching aptitude.”
o Completion rate of program candidates.
o Program candidates’ scores on all assessments required for licensure and/or
program completion.
o Survey responses of program candidates or completers on preparation
program quality.
o Observation-based performance assessment of licensed program completers
as P–12 classroom teachers.
o Value-added or other scores of program completers’ impact on P–12 student
learning.
o Survey responses of principals or supervisors on completers’ preparation for
teaching.
o Survey responses of program completers’ P–12 students on their teachers’
effectiveness.
o Percentage of program completers who are placed in P–12 teaching positions.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 14
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
•
•
•
o Persistence of program completers in teaching.
o Percentage of program completers who are placed in high-need schools or
teaching subjects.
o Persistence of program completers in high-need schools or teaching subjects.
o Program completers’ state or district annual teacher performance
assessments.
o Teacher evaluation data of program completers, including student
achievement or growth.
Are there other sources of data that your state uses in evaluating teacher
preparation programs?
What data systems does your state have in place to gather evidence on the
measures you have identified?
o Has your state identified other outcomes that you are using or would like to
use to measure quality of teacher preparation programs (or are currently
measuring)?
What data systems does your state have in place to gather evidence on the
measures and outcomes you have identified?
Use of TPP evaluation measures
•
•
How do you use program evaluation measures to evaluate the effectiveness of
teacher preparation programs?
o How are individual measures weighted in the evaluation?
Do you share these measures with key stakeholders?
o If so, with whom? How frequently? For what purpose?
Wrap-Up
•
•
Is there anything else you’d like to add to help us understand how your state is
evaluating teacher preparation programs, or about the data system that supports
such evaluation?
May we contact you if we have any clarifying questions?
www.relappalachia.org
Page 15
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Appendix C. Summary of REL Appalachia state approaches to evaluation of
teacher preparation programs, by state4
Kentucky
Teacher preparation program approval/accreditation
All teacher preparation programs require accreditation by Kentucky’s Education Professional
Standards Board (EPSB). The process for receiving accreditation includes a letter of intent to
establish a preparation program, a site visit from the EPSB’s board of examiners, and a review
by the EPSB of all evidence collected/submitted. First reauthorization of TPPs is five years after
the initial accreditation and every seven years thereafter. Accreditation by CAEP is not required
for TPP approval. However, TPPs must meet CAEP standards, and Kentucky is considering a
partnership agreement with CAEP.
TPPs are required to provide EPSB with data annually for the state’s Teacher Preparation
Dashboard that “provides information regarding institutional selectivity of candidates, the
performance of candidates on required new teacher assessments, the percent of candidates
who achieve full certification in Kentucky, and the results of surveys of candidates and their
supervisors regarding the effectiveness of the candidate’s preparation.” 5
Table C1. Kentucky data and measures used for annual TPP performance assessment
Data/measure
Required for TPP
annual
assessment
Notes
Characteristics of program candidates
Academic competencies
Nonacademic competencies
Yes
No
•
GPA: 2.75+ GPA or 3.0+ on last 30 credit hours of
coursework.
•
Praxis I: Reading: 156+; Writing: 162+;
Mathematics: 150+.
•
Required for reporting on the annual Teacher
Preparation Dashboard.
TPPs must implement it as a part of CAEP standards,
but measures of nonacademic competencies are
defined at the individual TPP level.
Outcome measures
Completion rate of program candidates
No
Required for reporting on the annual Teacher
Preparation Dashboard, but metric defined at the
individual TPP level.
4
“Yes” indicates that either data are currently required or the state has committed in policy to require them for
TPP performance assessment.
5
http://www.epsb.ky.gov/teacherprep/index.asp
www.relappalachia.org
Page 16
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Data/measure
Required for TPP
annual
assessment
Program completers’ scores on all
assessments required for licensure and/or
program completion
Yes
Placement rate of program completers into
schools
No
Placement rate of completers in hard-tostaff subjects or high-need schools
No
Persistence rate of program completers
once engaged in full-time teaching
No
Persistence rate in hard-to-staff subjects or
high-need schools
No
Notes
Appropriate Praxis II subject assessment tests
Individual programs must have an 80-percent pass
rate on state licensure exams to avoid sanctions, and
all programs from a single provider must maintain an
average 80-percent pass rate.
Observation-based performance
assessment of licensed program
completers as P–12 classroom teachers
No
Not currently.
Evaluation of program completers as fulltime teachers, including student
achievement or growth
No
Program completers’ scores on state or
district annual teacher performance
assessments
No
State is incorporating the Professional Growth and
Effectiveness System (PGES) into the internship
program for first-year teachers. PGES is the state’s
teacher and administrator evaluation system and
includes observations.
Feedback/satisfaction survey
Survey responses of program candidates
or completers on preparation program
quality
No
Survey responses of principals or
supervisors on completers’ preparation for
teaching
No
Survey responses from P–12 students on
program completers’ effectiveness
No
Feedback from teachers is obtained through:
•
Internship survey during the first year of teaching
•
Kentucky’s Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and
Learning (TELL) survey in alternating years
TPP is teacher preparation program. GPA is grade point average. CAEP is Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation.
Source: Authors’ analysis of publicly available documents and interviews with state education agency staff.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 17
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Tennessee
Teacher preparation program approval
All teacher preparation programs located in Tennessee are required to seek first initial program
approval and then reauthorization every seven years from the Tennessee State Board of
Education (SBE) either from the state or through national accreditation. In October 2014, the
SBE adopted new policies regarding educator preparation programs, and the state recognizes
accreditation by CAEP as an avenue for state program approval. In addition, all TPPs must
submit evidence of meeting each CAEP standard, regardless of program review method.
Tennessee is expanding its existing annual program performance report card for TPPs so that it
can be more effectively used for program improvement and integrated with the state’s TPP
approval process. A new data system that integrates teacher licensure data and program
evaluation data is under development.
The Tennessee Department of Education is defining the annual reporting requirements and
processes for program reviews stipulated in SBE’s new policies through a working group with
stakeholders representing all levels of the education system. The working group will convene
through June 2016 and make recommendations to the SBE for criteria and benchmarks that
implement the new reviews.
Table C2. Tennessee data and measures used for annual TPP performance assessment
Data/measure
Required for
TPP annual
assessment
Notes
Characteristics of program candidates
Academic competencies
Nonacademic competencies
www.relappalachia.org
Yes
No
But can be used
as evidence in
state program
approval
process.
•
GPA: 2.75+, and at least one qualifying score on
any of the following exams:
o ACT: 21+.
o SAT: 1020+.
o Praxis I: 162+ Writing; 156+ Reading; 150+
Math.
Programs must demonstrate alignment between
program standards for nonacademic competencies
and applicable InTASC Standards.
Page 18
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Data/measure
Required for
TPP annual
assessment
Notes
Outcome measures
Completion rate of program candidates
Yes
•
Program completers include all those who are
documented as having met all the requirements of
a state-approved teacher preparation program.
•
In applying this definition, whether an individual
has or has not been recommended to the state for
initial certification or licensure may not be used as
a criterion for determining who is a program
completer.
Program completers’ scores on all
assessments required for licensure and/or
program completion
Yes
Praxis II, including Principles of Learning and Teaching
and appropriate subject assessment tests
Placement rate of program completers into
schools
Yes
Percentage of program completers teaching in a
Tennessee public school within three years of
program completion.
State is in the process of developing different
measures for calculating placement rates.
Placement rate of completers in hard-tostaff subjects or high-need schools
No
Persistence rate of program completers
once engaged in full-time teaching
Yes
•
Still teaching in a Tennessee public school after
three and five years.
•
This will be information available through the
state’s tiered licensure system that indicates
whether teachers have attained licensure beyond
the initial stage.
•
Finally, retention for three out of four years is
included, which captures those who may have
taken a year sabbatical from teaching in
Tennessee’s public schools.
State is in the process of developing different
measures for calculating persistence rates.
Persistence rate in hard-to-staff subjects or
high-need schools
No
Observation-based performance
assessment of licensed program
completers as P–12 classroom teachers
No
Evaluation of program completers as fulltime teachers, including student
achievement or growth
Yes
Program completers’ scores on state or
district annual teacher performance
assessments
No
www.relappalachia.org
Page 19
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Data/measure
Required for
TPP annual
assessment
Notes
Feedback/satisfaction survey
Survey responses of program candidates or
completers on preparation program quality
No
But can be used
as evidence in
state program
approval
process.
State is developing a standardized survey of program
completers to be used by all education program
providers.
Survey responses of principals or
supervisors on completers’ preparation for
teaching
No
But can be used
as evidence in
state program
approval
process.
State is developing a standardized survey of program
completers to be used by all education program
providers.
Survey responses from P–12 students on
program completers’ effectiveness
No
But can be used
as evidence in
state program
approval
process.
TPP is teacher preparation program. GPA is grade point average. InTASC is Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium.
Source: Authors’ analysis of publicly available documents and interviews with state education agency staff.
Virginia
Teacher preparation program approval
The Virginia Board of Education (BOE) has statutory authority for the review and approval of
educator preparation programs in the state. TPPs should obtain national accreditation from the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the Teacher Education
Accreditation Council (TEAC), or a process approved by the Board of Education. Approved TPPs
also should report evidence of candidate progress and performance for BOE review biennially.
Based on recommendations from an advisory group of stakeholders, in 2013 the Virginia BOE
approved a number of revisions to the 2007 set of regulations that govern review and approval
of TPPs in the state. At the time of this policy scan, however, the changes had not yet been
implemented.
Key revisions to the regulations included these: 6,7
6
8 VAC 20-542-10 et seq.
Virginia Board of Education Agenda Item H, June 27, 2013 (see
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/meetings/2013/06_jun/agenda_items/item_h.pdf).
7
www.relappalachia.org
Page 20
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
•
•
•
Adoption of an annual program performance report card on all EPPs in the state of
Virginia that will be administered by the Virginia Department of Education.
Requirement that all professional education programs in Virginia (the units offering
programs leading to endorsements and licensure in specific subjects and grade
levels) be accredited by CAEP. Accreditation will not require individual programs to
be approved (or recognized) by Specialty Program associations. A current option for
accreditation by the state BOE in lieu of national accreditation would be
discontinued.
Revision of the standards and reporting requirements for the required Biennial
Report on the individual endorsement area programs in Virginia.
Table C3. Virginia data and measures used for annual TPP performance assessment
Data/measure
Required for TPP
annual
assessment
Notes
Characteristics of program candidates
Academic competencies
Nonacademic competencies
Yes
No
•
For annual report card and Biennial Report:
Results on basic skills assessment as required for
program entry by Board of Education.
•
For annual report card: Number of candidates
admitted by each endorsement program and
number who are in the top quartile of the college
or university population.
Programs must demonstrate alignment between
program standards for nonacademic competencies
and applicable InTASC Standards.
Outcome measures
Completion rate of program candidates
Yes
For annual report card: Number of program
completers and non-completers, including number of
completers in shortage teaching subjects.
Program completers’ scores on all
assessments required for licensure
and/or program completion
Yes
Virginia Communication and Literacy Assessment and
appropriate Praxis II subject assessment
For annual report card and Biennial Report: Pass rate
biannually on state licensure exams must not fall
below 80 percent in a program.
Placement rate of program completers
into schools
No
Placement rate of completers in hard-tostaff subjects or high-need schools
No
Persistence rate of program completers
once engaged in full-time teaching
No
Persistence rate in hard-to-staff subjects
or high-need schools
No
www.relappalachia.org
The state only recently became able to collect
employment data on program completers, but those
data have not yet been used in reports on preparation
programs.
Page 21
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Data/measure
Required for TPP
annual
assessment
Observation-based performance
assessment of licensed program
completers as P–12 classroom teachers
No
Evaluation of program completers as fulltime teachers, including student
achievement or growth
No
Program completers’ scores on state or
district annual teacher performance
assessments
No
Notes
Feedback/satisfaction survey
Survey responses of program candidates
or completers on preparation program
quality
No
State is in the process of providing EPPS with
Employment Data/Location of graduates to support
the completion of such graduate/alumni surveys
created by the EPPS to track and survey graduates..
Survey responses of principals or
supervisors on completers’ preparation for
teaching
No
For Biennial Report: Two years of documentation is
required from employers of satisfactory performance
of program completers and academic progress of
their P–12 students for two years in the classroom.
However, this appears to refer to preservice
experience of program candidates, not full-time
teaching experience of program completers.
Survey responses from P–12 students on
program completers’ effectiveness
No
TPP is teacher preparation program. InTASC is Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium.
Source: Authors’ analysis of publicly available documents and interviews with state education agency staff.
West Virginia
Teacher preparation program approval
The West Virginia Board of Education (WVBE) is the statutory body with the authority to
recognize educator preparation programs leading to the licensure of educators to serve in the
public schools of West Virginia. To maintain the approval status, teacher and other educator
preparation programs must undergo the CAEP accreditation review and receive approval every
seven years.
The Educator Preparation Program Review Board (EPPRB) is a seven-member board established
by the WVBE. The WVBE receives approval recommendations regarding initial and continuing
TPP approval from the EPPRB.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 22
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
In October 2014, WVDE adopted a new policy, 8 which requires all education providers hold
CAEP accreditation or be in the CAEP candidacy process. Beginning in fall 2016, all West Virginia
IHEs with TPPs will be reviewed and accredited under the new CAEP standards.
All WVBE-approved educator preparation programs are required to submit an annual report in
the CAEP Accreditation Information Management System, which includes measures of program
outcomes and impact on student learning. CAEP will then issue a report to the public on the
accreditation and other information about the status of TPPs and outcomes for programs and
program completers.
Table C4. West Virginia data and measures used for annual TPP performance assessment
Required for TPP
annual
assessment
Data/measure
Notes
Characteristics of program candidates
Academic competencies
Nonacademic competencies
Yes
No
In Fall 2016, educator preparation program cohorts
must have a minimum of:
•
3.0 GPA in core subjects.
•
Be in the top 50 percent of performance
distribution on assessments such as ACT, SAT, or
GRE.
The state is in discussion to develop a standardized
assessment to measure these.
Outcome measures
8
Completion rate of program candidates
Yes
Annual reporting measure of CAEP accreditation.
Program completers’ scores on all
assessments required for licensure
and/or program completion
Yes
Annual reporting measure of CAEP accreditation.
Praxis II, including Principles of Learning and Teaching
and appropriate subject assessment tests
Placement rate of program completers
into schools
Yes
Annual reporting measure of CAEP accreditation.
Placement rate of completers in hard-tostaff subjects or high-need schools
No
Persistence rate of program completers
once engaged in full-time teaching
Yes
Persistence rate in hard-to-staff subjects
or high-need schools
No
Observation-based performance
assessment of licensed program
completers as P–12 classroom teachers
Yes
Evaluation of program completers as fulltime teachers, including student
achievement or growth
Yes
Annual reporting measure of CAEP accreditation.
Annual reporting measure of CAEP accreditation
126 CSR 114. Approval of educator preparation programs (policy 5100) became effective as of November 10, 2014.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 23
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Program completers’ scores on state or
district annual teacher performance
assessments
Data/measure
Yes
Required for TPP
annual
assessment
Notes
Feedback/satisfaction survey
Survey responses of program candidates
or completers on preparation program
quality
Yes
Annual reporting measure of CAEP accreditation.
Survey responses of principals or
supervisors on completers’ preparation for
teaching
Yes
Annual reporting measure of CAEP accreditation.
Survey responses from P–12 students on
program completers’ effectiveness
Yes
TPP is teacher preparation program. GPA is grade point average. GRE is Graduate Record Exam. CAEP is Council for the Accreditation of
Educator Preparation.
Source: Authors’ analysis of publicly available documents and interviews with state education agency staff.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 24
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
References
Allen, M., Coble, C., & Crowe, E. (2014). Building an evidence-based system for teacher
preparation. Washington, DC: Teacher Preparation Analytics.
Coggshall, J., Bivona, L., & Reschly, D. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of teacher
preparation programs for support and accountability. Washington, DC: National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED543773
Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation [CAEP]. (2013). CAEP accreditation standards.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from
http://www.caepnet.org/knowledge-center?page=2.
Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO]. (2012). Our responsibility, our promise:
Transforming educator preparation and entry into the profession. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved June 10, 2015, from
http://ccsso.org/Documents/2012/Our%20Responsibility%20Our%20Promise_2012.pdf.
Crowe, E. (2011, March). Race to the Top and teacher preparation. Washington, DC: Center for
American Progress.
Federal Register 34 CFR Parts 612 and 686. (2014, December). Teacher preparation issues:
Proposed rules. Retrieved May 5, 2015, from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-1203/pdf/2014-28218.pdf
Meyer, S. J., Brodersen, R. M., & Linick, M. A. (2014, December). Approaches to evaluating
teacher preparation programs in seven states (REL 2015–044). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Central. Online at
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?projectID=351
National Council on Teacher Quality [NCTQ]. (2014). The 2014 teacher prep review. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved January 15, 2015, from
http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher_Prep_Review_2014_Report.
U.S. Department of Education. (2013, April). Preparing and credentialing the nation’s teachers:
The secretary’s ninth report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 1,
2014, from https://title2.ed.gov/TitleIIReport13.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education (2014). Title II: Higher Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved May 25, 2015, from https://title2.ed.gov/Public/Home.aspx
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Title II: Tips for reporting: Frequently asked questions.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 1, 2015, from
https://title2.ed.gov/Public/TA/FAQ.pdf.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 25
Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation Policy Scan
Walsh, K. (2001). Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling for quality. Baltimore, MD: The
Abell Foundation. Retrieved January 29, 2015, from
http://www.abell.org/pubsitems/ed_cert_1101.pdf .
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2014, April 25). Fact sheet: Taking action to
improve teacher preparation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 4, 2015, from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/25/fact-sheet-taking-actionimprove-teacher-preparation.
Worrell, F. C., et al. (2014). Assessing and evaluating teacher preparation programs.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from
http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse/teacher-preparation-programs.pdf.
www.relappalachia.org
Page 26