Teacher Licensure Pass Rates

Twenty-eight states require elementary teacher candidates to pass a test of their content knowledge.¹ Twenty of the remaining offer candidates an alternative to passing a licensure test, including having a degree or major in the content area or completing a content-based portfolio, and one (Iowa) dropped a requirement to demonstrate content knowledge altogether. North Carolina only requires passage of an elementary subtest in mathematics, and teachers have three years to pass this subtest. New Mexico will soon switch to a portfolio-based system, using licensure tests only for out of state applicants and "unique circumstances."²

Some states also require basic skills tests (e.g., the Praxis CORE) and/or performance assessments (e.g., the edTPA). This analysis focuses only on content tests required for elementary teachers, and so does not consider basic skills or performance assessments.

REFERENCES

1. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2020). Content knowledge national results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set]. Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/national/Content-Knowledge-90. Not reflected in the State Teacher Policy Database, Montana now offers candidates the choice of taking the licensure test or submitting a portfolio to demonstrate their content knowledge, and New Mexico will soon end its licensure test requirement and replacing it with a portfolio requirement in 2024, and West Virginia now waives licensure tests for candidates with a Master's degree and five years of work experience in their area. In addition to these states, Delaware and Missouri allow a subset of candidates to substitute other evidence in lieu of passing a content licensure test, and Utah allows some exemptions although teachers must still pass the content test within three years to earn a professional license. Swisher, A. (2022, July 28). Setting sights lower: States back away from elementary teacher licensure tests. Teacher Quality Bulletin. National Council on Teacher Quality. https://www.nctq.org/blog/Setting-sights-lower:-States-back-away-from-elementary-teacher-licensure-tests.

2. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2020). Content knowledge national results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set]. Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/national/Content-Knowledge-90; Swisher, A. (2022, July 28). Setting sights lower: States back away from elementary teacher licensure tests. Teacher Quality Bulletin. National Council on Teacher Quality. https://www.nctq.org/blog/Setting-sights-lower:-States-back-away-from-elementary-teacher-licensure-tests. Additional states have made changes since these two publications were released; for additional information, contact NCTQ.Warniment, G. (2022). Memorandum re. updated requirements for teacher licensure. State of New Mexico Public Education Department. Retrieved September 27, 2023 from https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Updates_to_Praxis_Requirements_2022_1_.pdf

In nearly every state, candidates must pass a content licensure test before they can earn a teaching license. For elementary candidates, this test typically addresses mathematics, English language arts, science, and social studies, although these tests will sometimes include other topics like art, health, or physical education. (For more on states' requirements on licensure tests, see the State Teacher Policy Database, and for more on the topics see page 6 of Examining states' testing systems.) Beyond that basic requirement of passing the test in order to earn a license, there is a great deal of leeway as to when candidates must take or pass a licensure test, and the timing is often decided by the preparation program.

Most often, programs report requiring candidates to take (though not necessarily pass) the content licensure test before they are allowed to do their clinical placement (or "student teaching"). Many programs require passing the content test as a condition of completing the teacher preparation program.

In some rare cases in traditional-route programs at the graduate and undergraduate levels, candidates may have to take a content test at the point of admission into the program. NCTQ reviewed admissions materials for 894 undergraduate elementary education programs and 324 elementary graduate programs, finding only 3% that require candidates to take a content test as part of the admission process (and not all require candidates to pass it).

Alternative route programs have similar variation as to when they require licensure tests, although state policy plays a larger role in when these programs require content licensure tests. As of 2020, in 13 states, all alternative route candidates must pass a content licensure test prior to admission into a program (see figure below).

Timing of the licensure test is important. If candidates take it too late in the program, they have little time to close any gaps in their content knowledge, making it harder for them to earn a teaching license. This is especially true for undergraduate candidates, who take many relevant content courses as part of their general education course requirements. However, programs may not want candidates to bear the costs of licensure tests too early; in this case, a diagnostic exam would be a useful tool to identify candidates' content strengths and shortfalls to address needed supports.

In most states,¹ candidates must pass a licensure test before they can earn a teaching license. (For more on states' requirements on licensure tests, see the State Teacher Policy Database.) Most often, programs report requiring candidates to take (though not necessarily pass) reading licensure tests before they are allowed to do their clinical placement (or student teaching). Many programs require passing the reading licensure tests as a condition of completing the teacher preparation program.

While NCTQ did not track when programs require tests in early reading, it is unlikely that these would come before admission into the program, as learning how to teach reading is generally an essential part of elementary teacher preparation. Indeed, it would be surprising if candidates were required to take and pass early reading licensure tests before candidates complete the coursework in teaching early reading.

For alternative route programs, 20 states require that all elementary alternate route candidates take a test, while seven require only some alternate route elementary candidates to take a reading licensure test.² Only two states (Mississippi and Texas) require that all alternate route candidates pass a test that fully measures the science of reading before becoming a teacher of record.

REFERENCES

1. Forty-three states require all candidates to take a reading licensure test prior to earning a teaching license, while eight states allow some candidates to bypass or postpone the test. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2021). Teaching reading national results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set]. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/national/Teaching-Reading-90

2. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2020). Program entry national results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set]. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/national/Program-Entry-93

States vary in their rules around who can take a licensure test. Most states allow anyone (in the state or elsewhere) to take teacher licensure tests. In a few states, such as Georgia, test takers must meet certain criteria, such as having approval from their preparation program to take the test or being a certified teacher who is seeking an additional certification.

The challenge when states allow anyone to take the tests, regardless of whether (or not) they have enrolled in teacher prep programs, is that their pass rate data may include both test takers who are enrolled in teacher preparation programs and those who are not, making it more difficult to draw conclusions from the data.

To learn more about states' policies on who can take licensure tests, NCTQ sent a survey to leaders from all 50 state and D.C. education agencies asking about their requirements for who can take an elementary content licensure test. We received responses from 43 SEAs.

Of these, 38 states (88%) allow anyone to take a test regardless of whether they're enrolled in a preparation program. The remaining five states (12%) set some requirements. Common requirements include being enrolled in a teacher preparation program, being approved by a program to take the test, being a licensed teacher seeking an additional certification or seeking to move from another state to the state in question, and applying for an alternative certification program.

Of the 38 states that responded to the survey and that allow anyone to take the test, half (19 states) can distinguish pass rate data between who is enrolled in a prep program and who is not. Eight states (19%) cannot distinguish between the two groups, two states said that they could get this data from their testing provider, and the remainder were not sure or said that it depended on the information the test taker supplied when registering for the test. This is important because it means that when states review the results of the licensure test data, they have limited insight into the quality of the preparation program, which is one of the key ways that this data can be used to strengthen the quality of the teacher workforce.

Further discussions with states revealed that in most cases state education agencies should be able work with their testing company to get data limited to test takers who are enrolled in teacher prep programs. For Title II data, the testing companies typically work with preparation programs to validate pass rate data by having programs "claim" test takers as being enrolled in or having completed their program. States could use this list of claimed test takers to remove those who are not enrolled in teacher preparation programs, or they can request that their testing companies do so.

For the data provided by states on elementary content licensure tests, nearly every state provided data on all test takers, rather than only on teacher candidates. For the early reading licensure pass rates data request, NCTQ has explored pathways for testing companies to develop a procedure to limit the data only to teacher candidates. States can decide whether to request data on all test takers or only on teacher candidates when submitting the pass rates data request to their testing company. If the testing company also provides analyses of pass rates for Title II federal reporting requirements, the testing company should be able to comply with either option. The early reading dashboards indicate which set of test takers are included in the analysis.

A "cut score" is the minimum score on the test used by the state to determine whether a test taker has passed the test and can be awarded a license. Standardized tests, including licensure tests, generally go through a standard setting process, which uses aggregated judgments from experts, typically including teachers, to determine a recommended passing score. In light of that expert recommendation, states can then choose where to set their own passing score. As described by ETS, one of the two large testing companies:

"Standard-setting studies serve two purposes. First, they are designed to identify the level of knowledge for a test taker to be considered minimally qualified for independent, beginning practice. The level of knowledge is represented by a minimum test score that test takers need to achieve. Second, the studies are designed to reconfirm the relevance (validity) of the test content for teachers in the adopting state."¹

On tests developed by ETS, nearly all states follow the recommended passing score.² On tests developed by Pearson, technical reports and test websites publish the passing score in use by the state, but there is often less transparency around what the recommended passing score is because Pearson does not release any information (including recommended cut scores) to the public unless requested by the state education agency,³ and therefore it is less clear whether states are setting an appropriate passing score or not.

REFERENCES

1. ETS. (2021). Standard-setting studies. ETS Praxis. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/praxis/site/states-agencies/test-adoption/standard-setting-studies.html

2. Recommended minimum passing scores are available here: https://www.ets.org/praxis/states_agencies/adoption_process/standard_setting_studies/multistate. States' minimum passing scores on ETS tests are available here: https://www.ets.org/praxis/institutions/scores/passing

3. L. Wilson, personal communication, April 22, 2021.

Programs report two sets of pass rates data through Title II. For "single assessment pass rates," programs report best-attempt pass rates for all candidates enrolled in or completing their program. The best-attempt pass rate represents pass rates after test takers have had multiple opportunities to retake the test, and counts their highest score from any of those attempts. Most elementary content licensure tests have multiple subtests, in which case these pass rates are reported on the subtest level rather than on the composite test.

The other set of data is the "summary pass rate," which is the proportion of test takers who passed all of their licensure tests. These summary pass rates have limited utility. They are reported in aggregate at the institution level and are only reported for "program completers." Because programs can require passing the licensure test as a condition of completing the program, the Title II federal reporting requirements allow programs to exclude candidates who took the test but were unable to pass, resulting in average program completer pass rates of 95-96%.² This paints a far rosier picture than the reality for aspiring elementary teachers.

The Department of Education's report explains the shortcoming in Title II data:

"Some institutions require individuals enrolled in teacher education programs to pass the state licensure assessment in order to complete the program; other institutions do not. Consequently, institutions that require students to pass state assessments for program completion will report 100 percent pass rates, but many institutions without such a requirement will not have 100 percent pass rates. Thus, in comparing pass rates across institutions, one does not gain a clear understanding of which ones may better prepare candidates."³

Neither the single assessment pass rates nor the summary pass rates shed light on the extent to which elementary teacher candidates require multiple attempts to pass. This data also does not include first-attempt pass rates, nor does it include pass rates disaggregated by race/ethnicity. Finally, reporting single assessment pass rates at the subtest level, but not the composite, obscures whether the same candidates are struggling across all subtests.

Additional detailed and inclusive data would be more actionable for teacher prep programs and state education agencies.

REFERENCES

1. Programs, often in line with state requirements, can determine that passing the licensure test is one of the requirements to complete the program. Consequently, anyone who does not pass a licensure test is not a program completer and therefore is excluded from the summary pass rate data.

2. Programs report summary pass rate data for "program completers" but can determine what candidates must do to complete the program. Many programs require passing licensure tests as a condition of completing the program and therefore report 100% pass rates because they do not report pass rates for those who failed the test and by definition did not complete the program. This is a well-documented problem. See, for example, p. 92 of U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2016). Preparing and credentialing the nation's teachers: The Secretary's 10th report on teacher quality. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://title2.ed.gov/Public/TitleIIReport16.pdf

3. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2016). Preparing and credentialing the nation's teachers: The Secretary's 10th report on teacher quality, p. 92. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://title2.ed.gov/Public/TitleIIReport16.pdf

Most data reported on licensure tests only considers "best-attempt" pass rates, or the pass rates after test takers have had multiple opportunities to retake the test. While best-attempt pass rates are informative, the education field should also consider what candidates' first-attempt pass rates can reveal about preparation, persistence, and completion rates for aspiring teachers.

First, when aspiring teachers fail the licensure test, they can regroup, study more, seek out additional support, and take the test again. But faced with this decision point, some aspiring teachers do not make another attempt. Identifying what proportion of candidates struggle to pass the test on their first attempt, paired with information about what proportion of candidates who fail do not retake the test, can spotlight a significant loss of aspiring teachers.

Second, first-attempt pass rates may offer one indication of how well candidates' institutions and preparation programs have prepared them in core content knowledge before expecting them to take their licensure tests. Elementary candidates learn core content knowledge from their K-12 education, as well as from general education requirements and any additional courses their preparation program requires. First-attempt pass rates may, in aggregate, offer insight into whether candidates' institutions and preparation programs proactively ensure that the candidates learn core content prior to taking the test. Low pass rates may suggest that programs and their institutions need to collaborate to offer more and earlier support for their candidates.

A frequent concern about licensure tests is that they disproportionately keep candidates of color from earning licenses and the disproportionate impact may result from bias in the tests. While it may not be possible to fully remove bias from any exam, test designers take steps to measure whether bias is present and to remove any questions that may lead to differences in outcomes based on anything other than one's understanding of the subject(s) being tested.

These steps may include:

1. Establishing guidelines for writing assessment questions that identify terms, topics, and formats to avoid
2. Inviting experts focused on equity and content to review test materials
3. Calculating statistical differences among groups on assessment items
4. Investigating score differences among racial groups, men and women, test takers with disabilities, and English language learners (when sample size allows)
5. Identifying test items that lead to large score differences among groups, and removing the items unless they can be justified to meet the content specifications for the assessment and the item has passed through an independent review.

Despite these approaches to mitigate bias, many remain concerned that bias still permeates licensing exams, given the lower pass rates for Black and Hispanic test takers compared with white test takers, at least on the most commonly required elementary content licensure test.¹ However, it becomes difficult to disentangle whether these pass rates differ due to problems with the test itself or to systemic inequities in the quality of education available to different groups.²

Qualitative analysis has explored the "affective dimension" of the experience of taking a licensure test, finding that for test takers of color, the experience of taking the test (e.g., negative and potentially racist interactions with a test proctor) can undermine the test takers' confidence and set off stereotype threats or "identity threats."³ However, several studies note that preparation and support from the test taker's preparation program can mitigate some of the nervousness that accompanies taking a licensure test and can generally support candidates in achieving greater success.⁴ When reviewing tests for bias, test publishers should consider not only the content of the test but also the affective experience. This review could highlight the need for other changes, such as additional training for test proctors, to make the testing experience more welcoming and calming for test takers.

Concerns about the tests themselves remain.⁵ One study argues that small amounts of bias at the test item level may accrue into larger test-level biases; this "accretionary bias" could occur even if individual test items are not identifiably problematic.⁶ Several studies assert that the test is biased against test takers whose first language is not English.⁷

Some have also raised concerns about omissions in the content of licensure tests. Elementary curricula, and the teacher licensure tests that intersect with them, may lack diverse perspectives and content. As curriculum designers work to diversify their materials, so too may testing designers need to expand the scope of their exams. If exams are missing some core content that is relevant but untested, candidates who have more knowledge of those areas may be at a disadvantage when taking the test.

Unfortunately, concerns around bias are not unique to licensure tests. Other measures of teacher quality and performance have raised concerns as well. For example, research on teacher observation scores suggests that performance assessments that include a video of the candidate teaching a class of students may result in lower scores depending on the background of the students (e.g., socioeconomic status and incoming achievement).⁸ Any alternative to licensure tests should be scrutinized for evidence of bias in the same way that licensure tests have been.

The solution often offered to address concerns of bias is to drop licensure tests altogether. However, doing so to solve one problem may create a greater one. If states lose a guardrail to ensure that teachers enter the classroom knowing the content they will teach, they risk perpetuating opportunity gaps for the very students who most need teachers who can build their foundational knowledge, and threaten the knowledge base for all students, including those who may seek to become teachers in the future.

REFERENCES

1. On the most commonly required elementary content licensure test, ETS data shows that while 75% of white test takers pass after one or more attempts, that rate drops to 57% for Hispanic test takers and to only 38% for Black test takers. Putman, H., & Walsh, K. (2019). A fair chance: Simple steps to strengthen and diversify the teacher workforce. National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/publications/A-Fair-Chance. Numerous other studies have pointed to disparities in pass rates for candidates of color: Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2010). Race, gender, and teacher testing: How informative a tool is teacher licensure testing? American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 218-251; Stedman, J. B., & Mangan, B. F. (2004). Pass rates as an accountability measure for teacher education programs. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress; Redmond, C., Clinedinst, M., & O'Brien, C. (2000). Educating the emerging majority: The role of minority-serving colleges & universities in confronting America's teacher crisis. A Report from the Alliance for Equity in Higher Education (this study argues that using test scores as gatekeeper keeps aspiring teachers of color from pursuing a teaching career); Gitomer, D. H., & Latham, A. S. (2000). Generalizations in teacher education: Seductive and misleading. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 215-220; Stedman & Mangan, 2004; Nettles, M. T., Scatton, L. H., Steinberg, J. H., & Tyler, L. L. (2011). Performance and passing rate differences of African American and white prospective teachers on PraxisTM examinations: A joint project of the National Education Association (NEA) and Educational Testing Service (ETS). ETS Research Report Series, 2011(1), i-82; Shuls, J. V. (2018). Raising the bar on teacher quality: Assessing the impact of increasing licensure exam cut-scores. Educational Policy, 32(7), 969-992. One study noted little difference in pass rates by race/ethnicity but found a larger disparity by test takers' sex: Pecheone, R. L., & Chung, R. R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The performance assessment for California teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22-36.

2. A paper by ETS states, "…differences in test performance among groups are often regarded, in and of themselves, as an indication of test bias, ignoring performance on the external criterion that the test is designed to predict. Often, groups that perform poorly on tests also tend to perform poorly on measures of the criterion." In other words, differences in pass rates may be indicative of disparity in the test, or they may be measuring actual differences in candidates' knowledge. Beller, M. (2005). Test bias. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services. A study that considered processes to identify and remove bias in licensure tests noted that this process is "subjective." Rose, E. (1994). With the phasing out of the NTE, do either the Content Mastery Examinations for Educators (CMEE) or the "Praxis Series" meet the requirements of a competency-based assessment for beginning teachers in Montana? A Report to the Board of Public Education, State of Montana.

3. Petchauer, E. (2014). Slaying ghosts in the room: Identity contingencies, teacher licensure testing events, and African American preservice teachers. Teachers College Record, 116(7), 1-40; Bennett, C. I., McWhorter, L. M., & Kuykendall, J. A. (2006). Will I ever teach? Latino and African American students' perspectives on PRAXIS I. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 531-575; Flippo, R. F., & Canniff, J. G. (2000). Teacher competency whitewash: How one high stakes test eliminates diversity from the teaching force. Connection: New England's Journal of Higher Education and Economic Development, 15 (2), 28-31.

4. Barth, P. (2004). The real value of teachers: If good teachers matter, why don't we act like it? Thinking K-16, 6(1), Winter 2004. Washington, DC: Education Trust; Petchauer, E., Baker-Doyle, K. J., Mawhinney, L., & Ciarkowski, B. (2015). "Since feeling is first": Exploring the affective dimension of teacher licensure exams. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 5(2), 167-195; Bennett, McWhorter, and Kuykendall. (2006); Gitomer, D. H., Latham, A. S., & Ziomek, R. (1999). The academic quality of prospective teachers: The impact of admissions and licensure testing. (ETS Research Report No. RR-14-35.) Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; Nettles, M. T., Scatton, L. H., Steinberg, J. H., & Tyler, L. L. (2011). Performance and passing rate differences of African American and White prospective teachers on Praxis examinations. (Research report ETS RR-11-08.) Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED523733.pdf. One study argues that the diversity of the teacher prep program's faculty itself can also support candidates of color in passing licensure tests. Wenglinsky, H. (2000). Teaching the teachers: Different settings, different results. Policy Information Report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Center.

5. Smith argues that licensure tests are screening test takers for race rather than teacher quality. Smith, G. P. (2000). The minority teacher shortage and testing. Multicultural Perspectives, 2(3), 34-38. Tellez, K. (2003). Three themes on standards in teacher education: Legislative expediency, the role of external review, and test bias in the assessment of pedagogical knowledge. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(1), 9-18.

6. Bennett et al. share the experiences of focus group participants. Bennett, C. I., McWhorter, L. M., & Kuykendall, J. A. (2006). Will I ever teach? Latino and African American students' perspectives on PRAXIS I. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 531-575.

7. Flippo and Canniff assert that linguistic barriers may drive lower passing rates, though do not support this assertion. Flippo, R. F., & Canniff, J. G. (2000). Teacher competency whitewash: How one high stakes test eliminates diversity from the teaching force. Connection: New England's Journal of Higher Education and Economic Development, 15 (2), 28-31.

8. Gill, B., Shoji, M., Coen, T., & Place, K. (2016). The content, predictive power, and potential bias in five widely used teacher observation instruments. REL 2017-191. Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED569941.pdf; Steinberg, M. P., & Garrett, R. (2016). Classroom composition and measured teacher performance: What do teacher observation scores really measure? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(2), 293-317; Steinberg, M. P., & Sartain, L. (2020). What explains the race gap in teacher performance ratings? Evidence from Chicago Public Schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(1).

Licensure tests that meet the hallmarks of a strong assessment provide myriad benefits. First, they are essential to ensuring that new teachers enter the classroom with a firm grasp of what they will teach. Second, they offer aggregate data that can shed light on systemic inequities in education, offering an opportunity to break the cycle. Third, data from these tests can spotlight institutions that are better supporting all test takers in passing licensure tests, demonstrating that greater success is possible. And fourth, this data can indicate institutions where candidates struggle to build foundational knowledge in core skills and subjects, and consequently fail to pass the tests, and highlight how important it is for the institution to focus on better supporting candidates.

To draw meaning from pass rate data, it can be helpful to look within each institution but also among institutions. Comparing pass rates on the same exam among all institutions can help identify strong performers and promising practices from which others can learn and can point to instances where institutions may not be providing their candidates with enough support. However, there is no single metric that fully encapsulates the data from licensure test pass rates; numerous ways to compare pass rates among institutions exist. Depending on what state education agency and preparation program leaders value, they can determine what and how to measure and compare pass rates.

Some possibilities include:

• To explore where most candidates are passing, regardless of the number of attempts, examine institutions' best-attempt pass rates
• To discover where candidates save time and money by passing on their first attempt, examine institutions' first-attempt pass rates
• To identify and scale practices from institutions that successfully support all groups of candidates, sort pass rate data by categories such as admissions selectivity or proportion of Pell Grant recipients
• To identify institutions supporting teachers of color in entering the workforce, examine pass rate data for test takers of color
• To explore where candidates are more likely to succeed with the least amount of time and money spent on test taking, examine retake rates
• To examine where aspiring teachers get lost in the pipeline, examine the walk-away rate—the proportion of test takers who fail on their first attempt and do not retake the test.

Passing a content licensure test is, for many teachers, one of the final requirements in their pathway into the classroom. Pass rate data can help identify where programs are better supporting their candidates, where candidates are being lost before they earn a license, and where candidates of color are most likely to be successful. Having clear information about pass rates on licensure tests is one important piece of a broader system of data to identify obstacles and opportunities in building a stronger, more diverse teacher workforce.

Research unequivocally demonstrates the importance of having a diverse workforce, especially for Black students having the opportunity to learn from Black teachers. However, the current teacher workforce is far less diverse than the student body. Potential teachers of color are lost at many points along the pathway into the classroom,¹ and therefore identifying the scope of this loss at each point, including passing licensure tests, can help states and preparation programs identify where to target efforts and resources to support more aspiring teachers of color in reaching the classroom.

NCTQ rejects the notion that the field must lower standards for new teachers in order to increase teacher diversity. Ample evidence shows that teacher preparation programs can be both selective and diverse,² and data from licensure tests can point to programs that support candidates of color in passing their licensure tests at the same, or sometimes higher, rate as their white peers. If systemic inequities and gaps in education have created lower pass rates, especially for candidates of color, then it is incumbent upon our academic institutions to identify and rectify these inequities so that the teachers who reach our classrooms are ready to provide a content-rich, engaging curriculum. Better preparation is the way to halt this vicious cycle.

REFERENCES

1. Putman, H., Hansen, M., Walsh, K., & Quintero, D. (2016). High hopes and harsh realities: The real challenges to building a diverse workforce. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/publications/High-Hopes-and-Harsh-Realities:-The-real-challenges-to-building-a-diverse-workforce

2. Drake, G., Ellis, C., Moorer, A., & Walsh, K. (2021). Teacher Prep Review: Program diversity and admissions. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/publications/Teacher-Prep-Review:-Program-Diversity-and-Admissions-2021

Testing companies can support the work of states and prep programs in building better data systems in numerous ways. For example:

1. Give all state education agencies a report on first-attempt and best-attempt pass rates for all program test takers—and not only program completers—as a standard operating procedure. Include data disaggregated by the race/ethnicity of test takers.
2. Build user-friendly data systems that allow SEA and EPP leaders and staff to conduct their own analyses.
3. Use the process through which prep programs match test takers to their programs for Title II data reporting to similarly match test takers to programs for pass rate reports back to the states. This will address the problem of including both those enrolled in preparation programs and those who are not in pass rate data, and will support more meaningful action based on these pass rates.