Teacher Preparation Program Accountability:
Georgia

Analysis of Georgia's policies

Georgia's approval process for its traditional and alternate route teacher preparation programs is on the right track but could do more to hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.
Georgia requires that preparation programs collect data relating to candidate performance and its effect on student learning, which requires candidates to produce evidence of a positive impact on student growth during student teaching. The state's new requirements and standards for approving educator preparation programs, effective January 15, 2013, require all programs to submit data related to these preparation program effectiveness measures. 

However, it does not appear that Georgia applies any transparent, measurable criteria for conferring program approval. The state collects programs' annual summary licensure test pass rates (80 percent of program completers must pass their licensure exams). The 80 percent pass-rate standard, while common among many states, sets the bar quite low and is not a meaningful measure of program performance. Further, in the past three years, no programs in the state have been identified as low performing—an additional indicator that programs lack accountability.
The Governor's Office of Student Achievement (OSA) publishes an annual report card that provides individual teacher preparation program data on state certification assessments.
In Georgia, 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. Georgia conducts its own program reviews. 

Citation

Georgia Rule 505-3-.01 Guidance and Implementation Plan http://www.gapsc.com/EducatorPreparation/Resources/Downloads/Rule_01_Guidance_V1_February_2013.pdf Report Cards http://www.gaosa.org/report.aspx www.ncate.org

Recommendations for Georgia

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 Georgia to establish precise minimum standards for teacher preparation program performance for each category of data. The state should be mindful of setting rigorous standards for program performance, as its current requirement that 80 percent of program graduates pass the state's licensing tests 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.

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

Georgia asserted that beginning in the 2015-2016 school year, new systems for evaluating programs and the performance of their completers will be fully implemented. A two-year pilot period began in 2013-2014, during which available data will be collected and analyzed.  Effectiveness measures include teacher performance (a statewide evaluation system comprised of student growth measures and observations); content knowledge (state content assessments and the edTPA in applicable programs); success at induction (retention in the profession after the three-year induction phase); and other annual program measures that include completion rates, yield, and completer and employer surveys. Teacher performance will comprise 50 percent of the overall effectiveness measure, and programs will be categorized into four performance levels: exemplary, proficient, at-risk of low performing and low performing. Approval status will be tied to the performance rankings, with low-performing programs placed on probation and given a specified period of time to improve or risk loss of approval.
Georgia added that although not yet published, one program provider was deemed "low performing" in 2011-2012, and, as a result, state approval and national accreditation were revoked.