Teacher Preparation Program Accountability:
Connecticut

Analysis of Connecticut's policies

Connecticut's approval process for its traditional and alternate route teacher preparation programs does not hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.

Most importantly, Connecticut does not collect or report data that connect student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs.

The state also fails to collect other objective, meaningful data to measure the performance of teacher preparation programs, and it does not apply any transparent, measurable criteria for conferring program approval. Regrettably, Connecticut sets a low bar in its definition of a low-performing institution, only requiring teacher preparation programs to show a Praxis II pass rate of at least 70 percent.

Further, there is no evidence that the state's standards for program approval are resulting in greater accountability. In the past three years, only one program in the state has been identified in required federal reporting as low performing.

On its website, Connecticut only makes available pass rates for the Foundations of Reading test by institution. 

In Connecticut, there is some overlap of accreditation and state approval. Members of NCATE/CAEP and the state make up the review team and decisions are made jointly; state members must complete NCATE/CAEP training. Connecticut delegates its subject-matter program review process to NCATE/CAEP. Programs must align with NCATE/CAEP standards. 

Citation

Pass Rates http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2613&Q=333728 Program Approval http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2613&q=321812 www.ncate.org

Recommendations for Connecticut

Collect data that connect student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs. 

As one way to measure whether programs are producing effective classroom teachers, Connecticut should consider the academic achievement gains of students taught by programs' graduates, averaged over the first three years of teaching. Data that are aggregated to the institution (e.g., combining elementary and secondary programs) rather than disaggregated to the specific preparation program are not useful for accountability purposes. Such aggregation can mask significant differences in performance among programs.

Gather other meaningful data that reflect program performance. 

Although measures of student growth are an important indicator of program effectiveness, they cannot be the sole measure of program quality for several reasons, including the fact that many programs may have graduates whose students do not take standardized tests. The accountability system must therefore include other objective measures that show how well programs are preparing teachers for the classroom, such as: 

1.    Evaluation results from the first and/or second year of teaching;

2.    Satisfaction ratings by school principals and teacher supervisors of programs' student teachers, using a standardized form to permit program comparison;

3.    Average raw scores of teacher candidates on licensing tests, including academic proficiency, subject matter and professional knowledge tests;

4.    Number of times, on average, it takes teacher candidates to pass licensing tests; and

5.    Five-year retention rates of graduates in the teaching profession.

Establish the minimum standard of performance for each category of data. 

Merely collecting the types of data described above is insufficient for accountability purposes. The next and perhaps more critical step is for the state to establish precise minimum standards for teacher preparation program performance for each category of data. Connecticut should be mindful of setting rigorous standards for program performance, as its current requirement that 70 percent of program graduates pass the state's licensing test is too low a bar. Programs should be held accountable for meeting rigorous standards, and there should be consequences for failing to do so, including loss of program approval.

Publish an annual report card on the state's website. 

Connecticut should produce an annual report card that shows all the data the state collects on individual teacher preparation programs, which should be published on the state's website at the program level for the sake of public transparency. Data should be presented in a manner that clearly conveys whether programs have met performance standards.  

Maintain full authority over the process for approving teacher preparation programs. 

Connecticut should ensure that it is the state that considers the evidence of program performance and makes the decision about whether programs should continue to be authorized to prepare teachers. 

State response to our analysis

Connecticut recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis. The state added that one of the six principles that the Educator Preparation Advisory Council (EPAC) has already presented to the State Board includes accountability and data reporting for all teacher preparation programs, both traditional and alternate routes. EPAC will consider the recommendations for data collection and reporting for all approved programs provided by NCTQ.