Teacher Preparation Program Accountability:
Pennsylvania

Analysis of Pennsylvania's policies

Pennsylvania'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, Pennsylvania 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. Pennsylvania requires that programs "demonstrate how information from systematic evaluations of their programs, including students and educator evaluators, and achievement levels of candidates for certification in the Department-designed assessment program are used for continual program improvement." However, these data are not collected for alternate route programs.

The state also collects programs' annual summary licensure test pass rates (80 percent of program completers must pass their licensure exams). Regrettably, 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 state's website does not include a report card that allows the public to review and compare program performance.

In Pennsylvania, there is some overlap of accreditation and state approval. Although NCATE/CAEP and the state conduct concurrent on-site reviews, Pennsylvania delegates its subject-matter program review process to NCATE/CAEP. 

Citation

Pennsylvania Code Title 22 Chapter 49.14 Title II State Reports https://title2.ed.gov www.ncate.org

Recommendations for Pennsylvania

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

As one way to measure whether programs are producing effective classroom teachers, Pennsylvania 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. Pennsylvania should expand its requirements to its alternate routes and also include such measures as:  

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

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.

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. Pennsylvania should be mindful of setting rigorous standards for program performance, as its current requirement that 80 percent of program completers must pass their licensing exams 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. 

Pennsylvania 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. 

Pennsylvania 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

Pennsylvania recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis. The state added that it has begun a new annual and major review of all educator preparation programs offered in the Commonwealth. This includes both traditional and alternate non-IHE programs. Programs are required to provide evidence of the candidates' ability to positively affect student growth in their classroom, and stakeholder surveys are collected from graduates, cooperating teachers and school principals on the performance of candidates and the program's ability to prepare quality educators.  

Pennsylvania added that for the first time, it will be reporting low-performing and at-risk programs in the Title II State Report. Program providers will be contacted regarding this designation in the near future. The state is also currently working on a report card that will allow the public to contrast and compare preparation program performance.