Teacher Preparation Program Accountability:
Wisconsin

Analysis of Wisconsin's policies

Wisconsin'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.

Wisconsin requires programs to submit a list of program completers who have been recommended for licensure, and performance of graduates will be used to evaluate preparation programs. Beginning in 2013-2014, each program must display its passage rate on the first attempt of recent graduates on licensure exams, and a system will be developed to publicly report these measures of performance for each preparation program. 

However, Wisconsin has not set minimum standards for teacher preparation program performance for each category of data it collects that can be used for accountability purposes.

Further, in the past three years, no programs in the state have been identified as low performing—an additional indicator that programs lack accountability.

Wisconsin maintains control over its approval process. 

Citation

Wisconsin Administrative Code, PI 34.06 2011 Wisconsin Act 166

Recommendations for Wisconsin

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

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

Collect other meaningful, program-level 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 in Wisconsin must therefore include other objective measures that show how well programs are preparing teachers for the classroom, such as: 

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

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

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

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

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

Establish minimum standards of performance.

Merely collecting the types of data described above is insufficient for accountability purposes. The next and perhaps more critical step is for Wisconsin 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

Wisconsin recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis. The state added that it is in the process of developing the Evaluation of Teacher Preparation Programs system.