Teacher Preparation Program Accountability:
Nevada

Analysis of Nevada's policies

Nevada's approval process for its traditional and alternate route teacher preparation programs could do more to hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.

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

The state does rely on some other objective, meaningful data to measure the performance of its traditional teacher preparation programs. Nevada has set minimum standards for traditional program performance; failure to meet those standards precipitates action by the Board of Education that may result in a program losing state approval. The Board reviews any program that reports fewer than 95 percent of its teacher candidates passing their licensure tests, or if school districts report that more than 5 percent of program graduates newly hired by districts are dismissed or not rehired. This 95 percent standard is among the highest in the nation, with most states setting the pass-rate standard at 80 percent.

Nevada also requires each teacher preparation program to submit an annual report, although it is not clear how the information gained from these reports contributes to the program approval process. The report must include:

• The annual accountability report submitted by the institution to the federal government;
• Information regarding the types of teaching positions program graduates have attained;
• A satisfaction survey that asks program graduates and principals to give their view on the quality of a program's preparation; and
• A plan for improvement based upon these findings.

However, the state does not collect these data for its alternate route programs. Further, there is no evidence that the state's standards for program approval are resulting in greater accountability. In the past three years, no programs in Nevada have been identified in required federal reporting as low performing.

The state's website does not include a report card that allows the public to review and compare program performance.

In Nevada, 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. Nevada delegates its subject-matter program review process to NCATE/CAEP. Programs must align with NCATE/CAEP standards. 

Citation

Nevada Administrative Code 391.557, .-558, .-560 Title II State Reports https://title2.ed.gov www.ncate.org

Recommendations for Nevada

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

As one way to measure whether programs are producing effective classroom teachers, Nevada 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 all programs are preparing teachers for the classroom. Nevada should expand its requirements to its alternate route programs and also include such measures as:

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

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

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

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

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

Nevada 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. 

Nevada 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

Nevada had no comment on this goal.