Teacher Preparation Program Accountability:
South Carolina

Analysis of South Carolina's policies

South Carolina'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, South Carolina 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. The state collects results from new teacher performance evaluations (ADEPT); consolidates them by institution; and then uses the information to affect decisions on the creation, continuation and elimination of programs. South Carolina requires at least a 95 percent pass rate for its ADEPT evaluation results. However, these data are not collected for the state's alternate route program.

South Carolina 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. 

Finally, the state posts "Fact Sheets" on its website that include Praxis II and ADEPT pass rates for each institution.

In South Carolina, national accreditation is required for program approval. 

Citation

Standards, Policies and Procedures for Educator Preparation Units http://ed.sc.gov/agency/se/Educator-Certification-Recruitment-and-Preparation/Ed-Prep/documents/Standards_Policies_Procedures_Board_Approved.pdf Fact Sheets http://ed.sc.gov/agency/act/se/ep/factsheets.cfm www.ncate.org

Recommendations for South Carolina

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

As one way to measure whether programs are producing effective classroom teachers, South Carolina 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. South Carolina 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. 

South Carolina 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 teacher preparation program approval.

South Carolina should not cede its authority and must 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

South Carolina recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis. The state added that it has a set of sensitive indicators for the designations of "at risk" and "low performing" for annual Title II reporting and asserted that it is one of the few states that consistently defines units as being "at risk." This designation triggers technical assistance from the state as well as considerable attention among faculty and administrators of the IHEs who receive the designation. Much useful consultation, planning and follow-up work occur once these designations are declared.