Teacher Preparation Program Accountability :
Vermont

Analysis of Vermont's policies

Vermont'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, Vermont does not collect value-added data that connect student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs.

However, the state does rely on some objective, meaningful data to measure the performance of teacher preparation programs. It bases its program approval on a formal system to collect information, such as evaluation forms and testimonials, from both educators that have been recommended for licensure as well as program graduates' employers during the first five years in the profession. Vermont also collects programs' annual summary licensure test pass rates (80 percent of program completers must pass the Praxis I; 60 percent must pass the Praxis II). Regrettably, both pass-rate standards set the bar quite low and are not meaningful measures of program performance.

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 Vermont have been identified in required federal reporting as low performing.

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

Citation

Results Oriented Program Approval, Standard III http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/pgm_prostandards/vsbpe/ropa_07.html Title II State Reports https://title2.ed.gov

Recommendations for Vermont

Collect data that connect student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs.
To ensure that programs are producing effective classroom teachers, Vermont should consider academic achievement gains of students taught by the programs' graduates, averaged over the first three years of teaching.

Gather other meaningful data that reflect program performance.
Although Vermont relies on some objective, meaningful data to measure the performance of teacher preparation programs, the state should expand its requirements to include other metrics such as satisfaction ratings by school principals and teacher supervisors of programs' student teachers, using a standardized form to permit program comparison, and five-year retention rates of graduates in the teaching profession.

Establish the minimum standard of performance for each category of data.
Programs should be held accountable for meeting these standards, with articulated consequences for failing to do so, including loss of program approval after appropriate due process. 

Publish an annual report card on the state's website.
To inform the public with meaningful, readily understandable indicators of how well programs are doing, Vermont should present all the data it collects on individual teacher preparation programs.  

State response to our analysis

Vermont recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.