Teacher Preparation Program Accountability:
Washington

Analysis of Washington's policies

Washington'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.

Washington requires that preparation programs collect candidate "work samples" that document positive impact on student learning; however, the state has no requirement that value-added data will be utilized to connect student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs.

Washington collects some objective data to measure the performance of its preparation programs, including licensure test scores and first-year teacher/principal surveys. However, the state does not apply any transparent, measurable criteria for conferring program approval.

The state's website includes data that allow the public to review and compare program performance.

Finally, Washington maintains control over its approval process. 

Citation

Washington Administrative Code 181-78A Standard II - Accountability and Program Improvement http://program.pesb.wa.gov/program-review/standards/standard-2 Title II State Reports https://title2.ed.gov Educator Program Information http://data.pesb.wa.gov/program-information

Recommendations for Washington

Ensure that data that connects student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs is collected.
While current Washington policy allows for this data to be collected, student achievement growth measures are not specifically required.  As one way to measure whether programs are producing effective classroom teachers, Washington 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 programs are preparing teachers for the classroom. Washington should expand its requirements to also include:
1.    Evaluation results from the first and/or second year of teaching
2.    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. Programs should then be held accountable for meeting these standards, and there should be consequences for failing to do so, including loss of program approval.

State response to our analysis

Washington had no comment on this goal.