Program Reporting Requirements

Teacher Preparation Policy

Program Reporting Requirements

The state's approval process for teacher preparation programs should hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce. This goal was reorganized in 2021.

Best practices

Delaware, Florida, and Missouri, all hold programs accountable to established minimum standards of performance and publish report cards with data collected as part of the accountability process. Delaware sets minimum standards of performance and state targets for each data category it collects, and it publishes reports clearly indicating how programs measure up in relation to those standards. Florida and Missouri have teacher preparation program approval processes with specific cut scores on specific measures.

Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2021). Program Reporting Requirements National Results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/national/Program-Reporting-Requirements-89
Best practice 3

States

Meets goal 5

States

Nearly meets goal 12

States

Meets goal in part 8

States

Meets a small part of goal 13

States

Does not meet goal 10

States

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

2021
2017
Add previous year
Figure details

Yes: AR, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, LA, MO, NC, NV, OK, RI, TN, TX, WA

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

Footnotes
LA: The Teacher Preparation Quality Rating System will be used for program renewal starting 2022-2023.

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

2021
2017
Figure details

Yes: AR, AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, IL, KY, LA, MA, MD, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, RI, SD, TN, TX, VA, WA, WI

No: AK, AL, CO, CT, DC, HI, IA, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MT, ND, NH, NJ, OR, PA, SC, UT, VT, WV, WY

Footnotes
AR: Program accountability is not based on established minimum standards of performance.
AZ: Program accountability is not based on established minimum standards of performance.
CA: Program accountability is not based on established minimum standards of performance.
LA: The Teacher Preparation Quality Rating System will be used for program renewal starting 2022-2023.
MA: Program accountability is not based on established minimum standards of performance.
MS: Program accountability is not based on minimum standards of performance.
NE: Program accountability is not based on minimum standards of performance.
NM: Program accountability is not based on established minimum standards of performance.
OH: The criteria for designating a program "not approved" is not clear.
SD: Program accountability is not based on minimum standards of performance.
WI: Program accountability is not based on established minimum standards of performance.

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

2021
2017
Add previous year
Figure details

Yes: AL, AR, CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, MO, NC, NE, NJ, OH, OK, RI, TN, TX, VA, WI

No: AK, AZ, CT, DC, HI, IA, ID, KS, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, MT, ND, NH, NM, NV, NY, OR, PA, SC, SD, UT, VT, WA, WV, WY

Footnotes
AZ: The state does not publish a report card, but programs' biennial reports are public.
CT: Connecticut's Educator Preparation Provider (EPP) Data Dashboard has yet to be launched.
NM: State report card data are not yet available.
NV: Data is not yet publicly available.

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

2021
2017
Figure details

State allows national accreditation to substitute for its own approval process.: AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DC, GA, HI, MD, ME, MI, MT, ND, NE, NH, OK, SD, TN, VT

State maintains full authority over the approval process.: CO, FL, IA, IL, KY, MA, MN, MO, NM, NV, PA, RI, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY

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

Footnotes
DC: District of Columbia maintains full authority over the approval of only non-traditional teacher preparation programs.
ME: Programs can substitute national accreditation for certain state standards.
OK: Oklahoma reviews reports from specialized professional association (SPA) review. For programs that opt for this review, this is the sole basis for continuing approval.

Updated: March 2021

How we graded

1D: Program Reporting Requirements 

  • Minimum Standards: The state should establish a minimum standard of performance for each category of data that is collected.
  • Articulated Consequences for Failure to Meet Minimum Standards: The state should have articulated consequences for programs failing to meet minimum standards of performance or other program review criteria and should require specific steps to develop a remediation plan. Program accountability should include the possibility of the loss of program approval.
  • Annual Reporting: The state should publish an annual report card that provides data collected for each individual teacher preparation program as part of the program approval process or the report card provides data that indicates the quality of preparation provided by an institution or program (e.g. licensure pass rates, teaching effectiveness of program graduates, employer satisfaction survey data).
  • Approval Authority: The state should retain full authority over its process approving teacher preparation programs and should not grant any approval authority to accrediting bodies.
Minimum Standards
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if minimum standards of performance are set for each category of data the teacher preparation programs are required to report.

Articulated Consequences for Failure to Meet Minimum Standards

One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it holds teacher preparation programs accountable, and clearly articulates the consequences for failing to meet the minimum standards, which may include loss of program approval.

Annual Reporting
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

  • One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it publishes data collected as part of the state's program approval process of individual teacher preparation programs on an annual basis or, the state will earn one-quarter of a point if it publishes data that indicates the quality of preparation provided by an institution or program (e.g. licensure pass rates, teaching effectiveness of program graduates, employer satisfaction survey data) on an annual basis.

Approval Authority

One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:

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

Research rationale

The state should examine a number of factors when measuring the performance of and approving teacher preparation programs.[1] Although the quality of both the subject-matter preparation and professional sequence is crucial, there are also additional measures that can provide the state and the public with meaningful, readily understandable indicators of how well programs are doing when it comes to preparing teachers to be successful in the classroom.[2]

States have made great strides in building data systems with the capacity to provide evidence of teacher performance.[3] These same data systems can be used to link teacher effectiveness to the teacher preparation programs from which they came. States should make such data, as well as other objective measures that go beyond licensure test pass rates, central components of their teacher preparation program approval processes, and they should establish precise standards for performance that are more useful for accountability purposes.[4]

National accrediting bodies, such as CAEP, are raising the bar, but are no substitute for states' own policy. A number of states now have somewhat more rigorous academic standards for admission by virtue of requiring that programs meet CAEP's accreditation standards. However, whether CAEP will uniformly uphold its standards (especially as they have already backtracked on the GPA requirement) and deny accreditation to programs that fall short of these admission requirements remains to be seen.[5] Clear state policy would eliminate this uncertainty and send an unequivocal message to programs about the state's expectations.[6]


[1] For general information about teacher preparation program approval see Rotherham, A. J., & Mead, S. (2004). Back to the future: The history and politics of state teacher licensure and certification. In F. Hess, A. J. Rotherham, & K. Walsh (Eds.), A qualified teacher in every classroom (11-47). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/nctq/research/1109818629821.pdf
[2] For additional discussion and research of how teacher education programs can add value to their teachers, see National Council on Teacher Quality. (2017). Teacher Prep Review. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/teacherPrep/2016/home.do
[3] Walsh, K., & Jacobs, S. (2007). Alternative certification isn't alternative. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498382.pdf

[4] For additional research on the status of teacher quality and the strengths and weaknesses of accreditation programs and policies in the U.S., see: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2010). The secretary's seventh annual report on teacher quality: A highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/t2r7.pdf
[5] For a discussion of the lack of evidence that national accreditation status enhances teacher preparation programs' effectiveness, see: Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1999, July). Teacher training and licensure: A layman's guide. Marci Kanstoroom and Chester E. Finn., Jr. (eds.), In Better teachers, better schools (pp. 45-47). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/btrtchrs_10.pdf; Greenberg, J., & Walsh, K. (2008, June). No common denominator: The preparation of elementary teachers in mathematics by America's education schools. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/No_Common_Denominator_NCTQ_Report; Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D. (2006, May). What education schools aren't teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren't learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/What_Ed_Schools_Arent_Teaching_About_Reading_NCTQ_Report
[6] See Walsh, K., Joseph, N., & Lewis, A. (2016, November). Within our grasp: Achieving higher admissions standards in teacher prep. 2016 State Teacher Policy Yearbook Report Series. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Admissions_Yearbook_Report