cover picture

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

TO:	Higher Education and Professional Practice Committee
FROM:	Johanna Duncan-Poitier
SUBJECT:	Chapter 57 Requirement: Study of the Evaluation of Teacher Preparation in New York State
DATE:	October 10, 2007
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goal 3
AUTHORIZATION(S):

SUMMARY

Issue for Discussion

Do the Regents approve four recommendations for evaluating teacher preparation programs in the attached report prepared in accordance with section 305 of the Education Law as amended by Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007?

Reason(s) for Consideration

Review of policy.

Proposed Handling

This item will come before the Higher Education and Professional Practice Committee for discussion at its October 2007 meeting.

Procedural History

Consistent with the Board of Regents leadership to strengthen the quality of teaching in New York State and to ensure that all students are taught by certified and effective teachers, section 305 of State Education Law was amended in April 2007 to require the Commissioner of Education to conduct a study about evaluating the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs in consultation with institutions of higher education and make recommendations to the Board of Regents, including recommendations for developing or modifying data systems. The law states:

“The Commissioner shall evaluate the effectiveness of all teacher preparation programs in the state, and the timelines and costs of developing or modifying data systems to collect the necessary data. Such study shall consider measuring the effectiveness of such programs based on the academic performance of their students and graduates and through other measures. The commissioner shall consult with the chancellors of the state university of New York and the city university of New York, and other representatives of institutions of higher education. Upon completion of such study, the commissioner shall make recommendations to the board of regents on implementation of such methodologies.”

The attached report fulfills this statutory requirement and implements the policy of the Board of Regents. An Executive Summary of the report, including findings and four recommendations with estimated costs and timelines for Regents approval, is presented here.

The Regents teaching policy led to significant achievements. Two examples are:

All teacher preparation programs are aligned with State Learning Standards and accredited. In 2000-2001, 3,500 modified teacher preparation programs at 110 campuses were approved as being in compliance with new Regents standards requiring all teachers to be prepared to teach all students to State Learning Standards. By the end of 2006, all teacher education programs were required to achieve accreditation from NCATE, TEAC or the Regents to ensure that they meet Regents standards and prepare effective teachers to help all students meet State Learning Standards.

All public school students have certified teachers. In 2000, 13,000 uncertified teachers were employed with temporary licenses, primarily in low-performing schools. In 2002, Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) were no longer permitted to hire teachers with temporary licenses. In 2003, temporary licenses were abolished in all schools. A limited number of modified temporary licenses (2,000 in 2003-2004 and 1,500 in 2004-2005) led to a successful end to all credentials other than full certificates by fall 2005.

The Regents continue to support their teaching policy with active involvement in the P-16 education community. For example, on June 6, 2007, Vice Chancellor Tisch and Regents Bendit, Chapey, Gomez-Velez and Brooks-Hopkins visited Middle School 399 and Hostos Community College in the Bronx to learn about the goals and challenges of Bronx area schools and colleges and to see firsthand the impact of the work of the Regents and the Department. Similarly, on July 12, 2007, more than fifty individuals from the higher education and P-12 education community attended a teacher quality forum at Teachers College, Columbia University that was lead by Vice Chancellor Tisch and attended by Regents Phillips, Brooks-Hopkins, Gomez-Velez and Bendit and senior managers from the Department. In addition, Regent Chapey is coordinating an information session to be held at St. John’s University in Queens on November 8, 2007 to update the P-16 education community, community groups and cultural institutions about the Regents and Department’s new initiatives in P-16 education, Contracts for Excellence and early childhood education.

The Regents define an effective system of teacher preparation programs as one that works with the Department and school districts to ensure that there are new teachers in sufficient number to meet the hiring needs of all schools in all subject areas and that new teachers have knowledge, understanding and skills consistent with best practice for helping all students learn. The Regents use three standards-based evaluation approaches to evaluate individual teacher preparation programs. Programs must:

Have curricula aligned with State Learning Standards as well as faculty, resources, procedures and outcomes that meet Regents registration standards;
Meet accrediting agency standards, as provided in partnership agreements with the Department, including standards for assessing candidates’ and completers’ impact on student learning and using findings for program improvement; and
Maintain 80 percent or higher pass rates on required certification examinations, which are aligned with State Learning Standards.

In addition, the Department uses three research-based approaches that apply to multiple programs, institutions and policies. They include:

Studies showing whether teacher preparation programs collectively provide all P-12 schools with enough new teachers to meet hiring needs in all subject areas;
Studies of the activities and impact of alternative teacher preparation programs; and
Studies of “what works” in teacher preparation and teaching policy to raise student achievement and teacher retention.

Study Methodology. As required by State Education Law, this study was based on consultation interviews and meetings with:

Representatives of the chancellors of SUNY and CUNY;
Representatives of other institutions of higher education;
Representatives of school districts and BOCES; and
Other stakeholders.

In addition, Department staff reviewed current research and a summary of promising evaluation practices in other states prepared by the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory (NEIREL).

Findings and Recommendations. The teacher education community indicates that the Regents current approaches to evaluating teacher preparation programs are sound. It also identifies a number of opportunities for strengthening the evaluation of teacher preparation in the future if resources are available. Building on the Regents 1998 teaching policy and its successful implementation, the Department presents four recommendations to the Regents for approval. The recommendations form an ambitious five-year plan for enhancing information systems and organizational capacity to evaluate and improve teacher preparation, teaching practice and student achievement. Implementation will require focused leadership, an infusion of new resources and specialized work groups to study issues and make more detailed recommendations for specific actions. For each recommendation, estimates of costs and timelines are provided. These recommendations and their costs will be shared with the Executive, Legislature and others to identify resources to support them.

Recommendation 1. Seek resources for a Teacher Quality Policy Update. Building on the Regents successful 1998 teaching policy, launch the next phase of a comprehensive review of teaching policy to ensure that the requirements reflect recent research; support the needs of students, schools and teachers; and are consistent with updated State Learning Standards. Some policy updates may lead to pilot projects with rigorous evaluation components. Potential review questions raised during this study are provided in an attachment to the study. Estimated cost: $100,000 per year for three years, for a total of $300,000.

Finding 2. Information systems and organizational capacity should be enhanced to support teacher quality. Teacher preparation programs and school districts need additional information for assessing candidates, completers, programs and in-service teachers for continuous assessment and improvement. For example, teacher preparation programs need:

Technical guidance on interpreting certification exam results and new reports with exam results for program completers; and
A systematic way to track program completers through certification into public schools over time.

Similarly, teacher preparation programs and school districts are interested in:

Developing and validating model tools for assessing candidates, completers and in-service teachers – such as standards- or performance-based assessments and satisfaction surveys of completers and their employers – that have potential for regional or statewide adoption;
Having statewide data systems that link student and teacher data to support the use of value-added models for research on the characteristics of effective teacher preparation programs and policies; and
Having data on candidates enrolled in the teacher preparation pipeline to improve program planning and teacher recruitment.

Recommendation 2. Seek resources to develop a New York State Teacher Quality Research Center. Building on existing data resources and research capacity, a New York State Teacher Quality Research Center (TQRC) should be developed to serve as a repository of data on teachers that can be linked to data on students, schools and districts. These data should be used for research to improve teaching and learning and to provide research services to teacher preparation institutions and others. One of the TQRC’s initial goals should be to use available data to help teacher preparation institutions track program completers and their characteristics (such as academic profile, pathway or race/ethnicity) through certification and into public school employment and to collect evidence about how institutions use the tracking data for program improvement. The TQRC’s next goal should be to establish a professional learning community of P-16 educators and policymakers to design a research and development agenda for improving teacher preparation and teaching practice. The agenda should include the development and validation of model tools for evaluating the effectiveness of pre-service and in-service teachers for adoption on a regional or statewide basis and studies of “what works” in teacher preparation and teaching policy. Estimated cost: $500,000 per year for five years, plus $200,000 if an existing data repository is not used, for a total ranging from $2,500,000 to $2,700,000. Resources should be sought for the TQRC’s first five years from the State and private foundations.

Recommendation 3. Seek resources to enhance the TEACH system to include candidates enrolled in the teacher preparation pipeline. TEACH was originally designed to help individuals apply for certificates online. It should be enhanced to include candidates matriculated in teacher preparation programs so that it can become a source of teacher preparation pipeline data needed for program planning and teacher recruitment. Estimated cost: $300,000 for a one-time cost over one year once a contractor starts work.

Finding 3. Systemic P-16 partnerships are needed to enhance teaching and learning. Teacher preparation programs, school districts, BOCES, teacher centers and others would benefit from more opportunities to work as partners to improve teacher preparation and create more seamless transitions between preparation and in-service teaching. Their goals are to:

Increase the number of new teachers in shortage subject areas through earlier recruitment and, when needed, alternative preparation programs;
Strengthen instruction linked to practice, in such areas as pedagogy, field-based experiences and student teaching;
Develop and use common evaluation tools and procedures for evaluating and improving the effectiveness of candidates and teachers; and
Provide more effective professional development and/or graduate education for novice teachers.

Recommendation 4. Seek resources to support systemic P-16 teacher quality partnerships in every region of the State. Building on regional P-16 teacher quality partnerships that are being piloted in selected regions of the State in 2007-2008, resources should be sought for supporting and extending P-16 teacher quality partnerships in every region. Partnerships will provide opportunities for teacher preparation programs, school districts, BOCES, teacher centers and others to work together to address teacher shortages, improve preparation linked to practice and create more seamless transitions from teacher preparation to teaching practice. Estimated cost: $80,000 per year for a five-year cost of $400,000, and continuing costs over time.

Conclusion. Teachers are essential for raising student achievement and closing achievement gaps. Building on the Board of Regents leadership in strengthening teacher preparation and ensuring that all students have certified and effective teachers, this report makes four recommendations for the Regents approval. The recommendations will enhance data systems and organizational capacity in order to promote additional evaluation and improvement in teaching and learning in New York State. The recommendations are designed to build capacity to:

Enable teacher preparation programs to better meet schools’ hiring needs;
Help teacher preparation programs improve their completers’ effectiveness at raising student achievement;
Help school districts improve their teacher recruitment, hiring and professional development;
Provide policymakers with better information for shaping policies to support career planning as well as teacher preparation, recruitment, retention and effectiveness; and
Give middle school, high school and college students better information about job prospects in teaching to help them make better educational and career choices.

Total estimated costs are summarized below.

Summary of Cost Estimates (in thousands of dollars)
	Recommendations	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5	All Years
1	Policy Update	100	100	100	0	0	300
2	Teacher Quality Research Center*	500	500	500	500	500	2500
3	TEACH pipeline enhancement	300	0	0	0	0	300
4	P-16 partnerships +	80	80	80	80	80	400
	All recommendations	980	680	680	580	580	3500

Recommendation

N/A

Timetable for Implementation

N/A

Attachment

chart

Building on Success:Strengthening Teaching and Learningin New York State Recommendations for the Board of Regentsrequired by Section 305 of State Education Law as amended by Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007

The University of the State of New York

The New York State Education Department

Office of Higher Education

October 2007

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Regents of The University

Robert M. Bennett, Chancellor, B.A., M.S. ......................................................................... Tonawanda

Merryl H. Tisch, Vice Chancellor, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. ......................................................... New York

Saul B. Cohen, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. ........................................................................................... New Rochelle

James C. Dawson, A.A., B.A., M.S., Ph.D. ........................................................................... Peru

Anthony S. Bottar, B.A., J.D. ............................................................................................... Syracuse

Geraldine D. Chapey, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. ........................................................................... Belle Harbor

Arnold B. Gardner, B.A., LL.B. ............................................................................................ Buffalo

Harry Phillips, 3rd, B.A., M.S.F.S. ....................................................................................... Hartsdale

Joseph E. Bowman, Jr., B.A., M.L.S., M.A., M.Ed., Ed.D .................................................. Albany

James R. Tallon, Jr., B.A., M.A. ........................................................................................... Binghamton

Milton L. Cofield, B.S., M.B.A., Ph.D. .............................................................................. Rochester

Roger B. Tilles, B.A., J.D. ......................................................................................................... Great Neck

Karen Brooks Hopkins, B.A., M.F.A. .................................................................................. Brooklyn

Natalie M. Gomez-velez, B.A., J.D. ................................................................................... Bronx

Charles R. Bendit, B.A. .......................................................................................................... Manhattan

President of The University and Commissioner of Education

Richard P. Mills

Senior Deputy Commissioner of Education: P-16

Johanna Duncan-Poitier

Associate Commissioner of Higher Education

Joseph P. Frey

Special Projects Coordinator

Nancy Willie-Schiff

The State Education Department does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its educational programs, services and activities. Portions of this publication can be made available in a variety of formats, including braille, large print or audio tape, upon request. Inquiries concerning this policy of nondiscrimination should be directed to the Department’s Office for Diversity, Ethics, and Access, Room 530, Education Building, Albany, NY 12234. Requests for additional copies of this publication may be made by contacting the Publications Sales Desk, Room 309, Education Building, Albany, NY 12234.

Executive Summary

This report fulfills that requirement and implements the policy of the Board of Regents.

Background. The New York State Board of Regents (Regents) and State Education Department (Department) are responsible for raising student achievement and closing achievement gaps so that all students are prepared for success. To achieve these goals, all students must have effective teachers prepared to teach to high learning standards and all schools must support teaching and learning. In this context, the Regents adopted State Learning Standards in 1996 and a comprehensive teaching policy in 1998 that strengthened college and university teacher preparation programs as well as teacher certification, mentoring, professional development and review and addressed school leadership and resources. The Regents also established a Professional Standards and Practices Board for Teaching (PSPB) to advise policymakers about teaching issues and called for ongoing evaluations of the impact of Regents policy. The Regents teaching policy led to significant achievements. Two examples are: All teacher preparation programs are aligned with State Learning Standards and accredited. In 2000-2001, 3,500 modified teacher preparation programs at 110 campuses were approved as being in compliance with new Regents standards requiring all teachers to be prepared to teach all students to State Learning Standards. By the end of 2006, all teacher education programs were required to achieve accreditation from NCATE, TEAC or the Regents to ensure that they meet Regents standards and prepare effective teachers to help all students meet State Learning Standards. All public school students have certified teachers. In 2000, 13,000 uncertified teachers were employed with temporary licenses, primarily in low-performing schools. In 2002, Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) were no longer permitted to hire teachers with temporary licenses. In 2003, temporary licenses were abolished in all schools. A limited number of modified temporary licenses (2,000 in 2003-2004 and 1,500 in 2004-2005) led to a successful end to all credentials other than full certificates by fall 2005. The Regents continue to support their teaching policy and related policies with active involvement in the P-16 education community. For example, on June 6, 2007, Vice Chancellor Tisch and Regents Bendit, Chapey, Gomez-Velez and Brooks-Hopkins visited Middle School 399 and Hostos Community College in the Bronx to learn about the goals and challenges of Bronx area schools and colleges and to see firsthand the impact of the work of the Regents and the Department. Similarly, on July 12, 2007, more than fifty individuals from the higher education and P-12 education community attended a teacher quality forum at Teachers College, Columbia University that was lead by Vice Chancellor Tisch and attended by Regents Phillips, Brooks-Hopkins, Gomez-Velez and Bendit and senior managers from the Department. In addition, Regent Chapey is coordinating an information session to be held at St. John’s University in Queens on November 8, 2007 to update the P-16 education community, community groups and cultural institutions about the Regents and Department’s new initiatives in P-16 education, Contracts for Excellence and early childhood education. The Regents define an effective system of teacher preparation programs as one that works with the Department and school districts to ensure that there are new teachers in sufficient number to meet the hiring needs of all schools in all subject areas and that new teachers have knowledge, understanding and skills consistent with best practice for helping all students learn. The Regents use three standards-based evaluation approaches to evaluate individual teacher preparation programs. Programs must: Have curricula aligned with State Learning Standards as well as faculty, resources, procedures and outcomes that meet Regents registration standards;Meet accrediting agency standards, as provided in partnership agreements with the Department, including standards for assessing candidates’ and completers’ impact on student learning and using findings for program improvement; and Maintain 80 percent or higher pass rates on required certification examinations, which are aligned with State Learning Standards. In addition, the Department uses three research-based approaches that apply to multiple programs, institutions and policies. They include: Studies showing whether teacher preparation programs collectively provide all P-12 schools with enough new teachers to meet hiring needs in all subject areas; Studies of the activities and impact of alternative teacher preparation programs; andStudies of “what works” in teacher preparation and teaching policy to raise student achievement and teacher retention.

Study Methodology. As required by State Education Law, this study was based on consultation interviews and meetings with:

Representatives of the chancellors of SUNY and CUNY;
Representatives of other institutions of higher education;
Representatives of school districts and BOCES; and
Other stakeholders.

In addition, Department staff reviewed current research and a summary of promising evaluation practices in other states prepared by the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory (NEIREL).

Finding 1. The Regents and the Department have an opportunity to launch the next phase of efforts to review and update teaching policy. The Regents 1996 State Learning Standards and 1998 teaching policy set the standards to which teacher preparation program, their completers and in-service teachers are held. These standards define what teachers are expected to know and be able to do and they influence evaluation and the pool of potential teachers. Since that time, the Regents and the Department have been engaged in an ongoing review evaluation of Regents teaching policy. As a result, a number of modifications to the policy have been made to reflect the changing educational environment. The next phase of efforts to evaluate teaching policy will help ensure that the policy reflects recent research; supports the current needs of students, schools and teachers; and is consistent with updated State Learning Standards. Recommendation 1. Seek resources for a Teacher Quality Policy Update. Building on the Regents successful 1998 teaching policy, launch the next phase of a comprehensive review of teaching policy to ensure that the requirements reflect recent research; support the needs of students, schools and teachers; and are consistent with updated State Learning Standards. Some policy updates may lead to pilot projects with rigorous evaluation components. Potential review questions raised during this study are provided in an attachment to the study. Estimated cost: $100,000 per year for three years, for a total of $300,000. Finding 2. Information systems and organizational capacity should be enhanced to support teacher quality. Teacher preparation programs and school districts need additional information for assessing candidates, completers, programs and in-service teachers for continuous assessment and improvement. For example, teacher preparation programs need: Technical guidance on interpreting certification exam results and new reports with exam results for program completers; andA systematic way to track program completers through certification into public schools over time. Similarly, teacher preparation programs and school districts are interested in: Developing and validating model tools for assessing candidates, completers and in-service teachers – such as standards- or performance-based assessments and satisfaction surveys of completers and their employers – that have potential for regional or statewide adoption; Having statewide data systems that link student and teacher data to support the use of value-added models for research on the characteristics of effective teacher preparation programs and policies; and Having data on candidates enrolled in the teacher preparation pipeline to improve program planning and teacher recruitment. Recommendation 2. Seek resources to develop a New York State Teacher Quality Research Center. Building on existing data resources and research capacity, a New York State Teacher Quality Research Center (TQRC) should be developed to serve as a repository of data on teachers that can be linked to data on students, schools and districts. These data should be used for research to improve teaching and learning and to provide research services to teacher preparation institutions and others. One of the TQRC’s initial goals should be to use available data to help teacher preparation institutions track program completers and their characteristics (such as academic profile, pathway or race/ethnicity) through certification and into public school employment and to collect evidence about how institutions use the tracking data for program improvement. The TQRC’s next goal should be to establish a professional learning community of P-16 educators and policymakers to design a research and development agenda for improving teacher preparation and teaching practice. The agenda should include the development and validation of model tools for evaluating the effectiveness of pre-service and in-service teachers for adoption on a regional or statewide basis and studies of “what works” in teacher preparation and teaching policy. Estimated cost: $500,000 per year for five years, plus $200,000 if an existing data repository is not used, for a total ranging from $2,500,000 to $2,700,000. Resources should be sought for the TQRC’s first five years from the State and private foundations. Recommendation 3. Seek resources to enhance the TEACH system to include candidates enrolled in the teacher preparation pipeline. TEACH was originally designed to help individuals apply for certificates online. It should be enhanced to include candidates matriculated in teacher preparation programs so that it can become a source of teacher preparation pipeline data needed for program planning and teacher recruitment. Estimated cost: $300,000 for a one-time cost over one year once a contractor starts work. Finding 3. Systemic P-16 partnerships are needed to enhance teaching and learning. Teacher preparation programs, school districts, BOCES, teacher centers and others would benefit from more opportunities to work as partners to improve teacher preparation and create more seamless transitions between preparation and in-service teaching. Their goals are to:Increase the number of new teachers in shortage subject areas through earlier recruitment and, when needed, alternative preparation programs; Strengthen instruction linked to practice, in such areas as pedagogy, field-based experiences and student teaching;Develop and use common evaluation tools and procedures for evaluating and improving the effectiveness of candidates and teachers; andProvide more effective professional development and/or graduate education for novice teachers. Recommendation 4. Seek resources to support systemic P-16 teacher quality partnerships in every region of the State. Building on regional P-16 teacher quality partnerships that are being piloted in selected regions of the State in 2007-2008, resources should be sought for supporting and extending P-16 teacher quality partnerships in every region. Partnerships will provide opportunities for teacher preparation programs, school districts, BOCES, teacher centers and others to work together to address teacher shortages, improve preparation linked to practice and create more seamless transitions from teacher preparation to teaching practice. Estimated cost: $80,000 per year for a five-year cost of $400,000, and continuing costs over time.

Enable teacher preparation programs to better meet schools’ hiring needs;Help teacher preparation programs improve their completers’ effectiveness at raising student achievement;Help school districts improve their teacher recruitment, hiring and professional development;Provide policymakers with better information for shaping policies to support career planning as well as teacher preparation, recruitment, retention and effectiveness; and

Give middle school, high school and college students better information about job prospects in teaching to help them make better educational and career choices.

Total estimated costs are summarized below.

Summary of Cost Estimates (in thousands of dollars)
	Recommendations	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5	All Years
1	Policy Update	100	100	100	0	0	300
2	Teacher Quality Research Center*	500	500	500	500	500	2500
3	TEACH pipeline enhancement	300	0	0	0	0	300
4	P-16 partnerships +	80	80	80	80	80	400
	All recommendations	980	680	680	580	580	3500

*It is recommended that resources for the Center be sought from the State and private foundations for the first five years. An additional $200,000 could be needed in Year 1 if an existing data repository is not used. +Costs will be ongoing.
Table of Contents Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 1 Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 3 Study Methodology ................................................................................................................. 7 Findings ................................................................................................................................... 7 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 15 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 19 Attachments

1. Classroom Teaching Certificate Titles as of February 2, 2004 ................................ 20

2. New York State Institutions with Registered Teacher Preparation Programs ......... 23

3. Accreditation Procedures and Standards for Teacher Preparation Programs ....... 24

4. Consultation Contacts .................................................................................................... 30

5. Potential Questions for a Teacher Quality Policy Review .......................................... 31

References .............................................................................................................................. 34
(This page intentionally left blank)
Building on Success:Strengthening Teaching in New York State Purpose

Definitions

Several key terms in section 305 of Education Law are defined here. Teacher preparation programs. Teacher preparation programs are the more than 3,000 undergraduate and graduate programs of study at colleges and universities that are registered by the State Education Department (Department) as leading to one or more certificates in classroom teaching service in the titles listed in Attachment 1. Programs leading to certificates in pupil personnel service or administrative and supervisory service are beyond the scope of this study, although these certificate areas are essential for strengthening teaching and learning. As of August 2007, New York State has 117 campuses with registered teacher preparation programs, listed in Attachment 2. Three fourths (76 percent) are in the independent sector, 14 percent are in State University of New York (SUNY), 8 percent are in The City University of New York (CUNY) and less than 2 percent are in degree-granting proprietary colleges. Some institutions have only one or two programs while other institutions have hundreds.
Teacher preparation programs are diverse. Their enrollment ranges from fewer than ten to hundreds of candidates. (National Evaluation Systems, 2007) Some programs lead to initial certification while others lead to professional certification. More than 200 programs are registered as being jointly offered with two-year colleges. Some lead to both undergraduate and graduate degrees. Teacher preparation programs provide different routes to certification for new teachers. Most undergraduate teacher preparation programs leading to initial certificates (the entry level certificate) rely on a three-way partnership between education faculty, arts and sciences faculty and teachers in primary and secondary (P-12) schools. The majority of these programs enroll pre-service teachers who obtain field and student teaching experiences in P-12 schools. Most graduate programs leading to an initial certificate rely on a two-way partnership between education faculty and P-12 schools. Alternative teacher preparation programs are graduate programs that begin candidates in a pre-service summer program to prepare them to be employed as full-time teachers of record in P-12 schools in the fall while they continue their studies and receive school-based and university-based supports. Teacher preparation programs accounted for two-thirds of all certificates issued to new teachers in 2005-2006. (New York State Education Department, 2007) Of the 24,800 program completers that year, 68 percent were from the independent sector, 22 percent were from SUNY, 10 percent were from CUNY and less than 1 percent came from the degree-granting-proprietary sector. (National Evaluation Systems, 2007) Teacher preparation program completers will provide an even larger share of new teachers in the future if the Individual Evaluation pathway to certification ends in 2009 as planned. Evaluate. “Evaluate” is defined as “examine and judge carefully.” In higher education, it involves “the systematic collection, review and use of information about educational programs undertaken for the purpose of improving student learning and development.” (Palomba and Banta, 1999) Evaluation is also used to judge whether educational programs or policies meet their stated goals or specific standards, should continue or change, or compare favorably to one another or benchmarks. The unit of analysis depends on an evaluation’s purpose. Students and graduates. State Education Law refers to “students” and “graduates” of teacher preparation programs. This report refers to teacher preparation program students as “candidates” and graduates of teacher preparation programs as “completers” to avoid confusion with students and graduates in P-12 schools. Academic performance. “Academic performance” usually means knowledge, understanding and skills in general education and academic disciplines, but not in pedagogy. High school Grade Point Averages (GPAs), high school exit exam scores, college admissions examination scores and college GPAs are typically used to measure the academic performance of entering candidates. College GPAs and teacher certification examination scores or pass rates are used to measure the academic performance of enrolled candidates and completers.

Effectiveness. The Board of Regents (Regents) 1998 teaching policy defines effective teacher preparation programs as those that meet their stated goals, which must include the preparation of teachers whose knowledge, understanding and skills are consistent with best practices for helping all students learn. This definition is widely accepted and is consistent with federal standards for accrediting agencies. (Levine, 2006) In addition, the Regents teaching policy and Regents Statewide Plan for Higher Education define an effective system of teacher preparation programs as one that works with the Department and school districts to produce enough new teachers to meet the hiring needs of all schools – including hard-to-staff schools in urban and rural areas – in all subject areas. (New York State Board of Regents, 2005, Priority D11) This is consistent with national expectations, as indicated by the Senate’s Higher Education Act reauthorization bill (S. 1641) passed in July 2007, which, if enacted, would require colleges and universities with teacher preparation programs to set annual goals on graduating teachers in hard-to-staff subject areas and would require programs to create specific curricula to prepare teachers to work in hard-to-staff urban or rural areas. However, it is important to recognize that the number of teacher preparation program completers is not the only influence on teacher shortages. Economists define labor supply as the labor available at various wage rates, other things being equal. This means that even when there are enough program completers to meet schools’ staffing needs, shortages can occur if the cost of staying in the teaching profession (i.e., professional certification requirements) is too high relative to expected benefits or if certified teachers are unwilling to begin or continue working where they are needed because of compensation and/or working conditions.

Background The Regents 1998 teaching policy and current approaches to evaluating teacher preparation provide a solid foundation for future evaluations. Regents 1998 teaching policy. The Regents and Department are responsible for raising student achievement and closing achievement gaps so that all students are prepared for success. To achieve these goals, all students must have effective teachers who help students meet high academic standards and all schools must support teaching and learning. In this context, the Regents adopted State Learning Standards in 1996 and a comprehensive teaching policy in 1998. The teaching policy strengthened college and university teacher preparation programs, certification, mentoring, professional development and review, school leadership and school resources. The Regents also established a Professional Standards and Practices Board (PSPB) for Teaching to advise policymakers about teaching issues and called for ongoing evaluation of the Regents policy. The Regents teaching policy led to significant achievements. Two examples are:

All teacher preparation programs are aligned with State Learning Standards and accredited. In 2000-2001, 3,500 modified teacher preparation programs at 110 campuses were approved as being in compliance with new Regents standards requiring all teachers to be prepared to teach all students to State Learning Standards. By the end of 2006, all teacher education programs were required to achieve accreditation from NCATE, TEAC or the Regents to ensure that they meet Regents standards and prepare effective teachers to help all students meet State Learning Standards. All public school students have certified teachers. In 2000, 13,000 uncertified teachers were employed with temporary licenses, primarily in low-performing schools. In 2002, Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) were no longer permitted to hire teachers with temporary licenses. In 2003, temporary licenses were abolished in all schools. A limited number of modified temporary licenses (2,000 in 2003-2004 and 1,500 in 2004-2005) led to a successful end to all credentials other than full certificates by fall 2005. The Regents continue to support their teaching policy with active involvement in the P-16 education community. For example, on June 6, 2007, Vice Chancellor Tisch and Regents Bendit, Chapey, Gomez-Velez and Brooks-Hopkins visited Middle School 399 and Hostos Community College in the Bronx to learn about the goals and challenges of Bronx area schools and colleges and to see firsthand the impact of the work of the Regents and the Department. Similarly, on July 12, 2007, more than fifty individuals from the higher education and P-12 education community attended a teacher quality forum at Teachers College, Columbia University that was lead by Vice Chancellor Tisch and attended by Regents Phillips, Brooks-Hopkins, Gomez-Velez and Bendit and senior managers from the Department. In addition, Regent Chapey is coordinating an information session to be held at St. John’s University in Queens on November 8, 2007 to update the P-16 education community, community groups and cultural institutions about the Regents and Department’s new initiatives in P-16 education, Contracts for Excellence and early childhood education.

Current approaches to evaluation. The Regents and Department currently use six approaches to ensure quality and ongoing improvement in teacher preparation programs. Three approaches are part of the standards-based program registration process and apply to individual programs and their institutions; three are research-based approaches that apply to multiple programs, institutions and policies.

Registration: Curricula, resources and procedures. Before an institution can register a new teacher preparation program, it must submit a comprehensive application to the Department to ensure the program meets Regents standards. The application requires programs to provide information on the purpose of the program, collaboration with P-12 schools, collaboration of education faculty with other departmental faculty, and details of curricula and faculty. The application allows the institution to demonstrate how the program meets Regents standards so that candidates in the program are prepared to teach to the New York State Learning Standards and complete college study in the specified education core, content core, and pedagogical core areas as well as complete field experiences and student teaching appropriate to the certificate title. Each program must have faculty that have appropriate degrees and expertise aligned with their teaching assignments. The institution is expected to support its programs with necessary resources, and implement procedures for assessing program effectiveness and making improvements. Each program’s curriculum must ensure that completers will have the knowledge, understanding and skills associated with effective teaching for all P-12 students. Each program must demonstrate acceptable admission standards for the academic performance of its candidates and provide support services that enable all admitted candidates to succeed. The academic performance of teacher preparation candidates and completers is measured by an institutional review of their academic performance and field practice while in the program, and their score results on required State certification examinations. Registration relies on the accreditation process for evidence of program effectiveness based on candidates’ and completers’ impact on student learning, the ultimate test of program effectiveness. Registration standards are available at http://www.highered.nysed.gov/ocue/.

Registration: Accreditation. To ensure that every registered teacher preparation program practices ongoing assessment and improvement, the Regents require that the education department or unit of all institutions preparing teachers in New York State be accredited by one of three accrediting agencies, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the Teacher Education Accrediting Council (TEAC) – both of which have partnership agreements with the Department – or the Regents, through the Regents Accreditation of Teacher Education (RATE). As of September 2007, New York was one of only nine states that required all teacher preparation programs to be accredited. (NCATE, 2007; TEAC, 2007) Each accrediting agency evaluates an institution’s education department and teacher preparation programs on a multi-year cycle based on the agency’s accreditation standards and, as applicable, partnership agreement. Although the three accrediting agencies use different approaches and criteria, their evaluation processes generally involve an institutional self-study, peer review with input from Department staff, site visits and a peer summary report. An important component of accreditation is the expectation that institutions will assess their candidates’ and completers’ impact on student learning to the extent feasible and use findings for program improvement. To attain accreditation, teacher preparation programs must have appropriate standards for the academic performance of their admitted applicants, candidates and completers; however, accrediting agencies do not set specific academic performance standards for programs except that they have adopted the registration standard for 80 percent pass rates on certification exams. Attachment 3 summarizes the three accrediting agencies’ procedures and standards and provides links to more detailed information.

As of spring 2007, 47 percent of New York State’s campuses with teacher preparation programs had selected NCATE; 28 percent had selected RATE; and 25 percent had selected TEAC. Accreditation, first required by the Regents in 2000, appears to have had a profound impact on teacher preparation institutions. It has been credited with improving programs by enhancing program coherence and focus; promoting collaboration between faculty in schools of education and liberal arts and sciences; stimulating the collection and examination of a wide range of evidence for assessing the performance of candidates, completers and programs; and increasing faculty reliance on evidence to support instructional practice and program improvement. (Brabeck; 2007; Knapper, 2007; Lehman College, 2007; Weber, 2007; Tobias, 2006)

Registration: Certification examination pass rates. To ensure that completers of teacher preparation programs have the knowledge, understanding and skills required for entry into teaching to State Learning Standards, each institution is required to have program completer pass rates of 80 percent or more on all three New York State Teacher Certification Examinations (NYSTCEs) required for initial certification. These examinations include the Liberal Arts and Science Test (LAST), which assesses general knowledge, including writing skills; the Assessment of Teaching Skills-Written (ATS-W), which assesses pedagogical knowledge; and an appropriate Content Specialty Test (CST), which assesses knowledge in one or more subjects related to the certificate. Although the examinations are not designed or validated for screening candidates for program entry or completion, institutions use them to inform decisions about individual candidates’ educational needs and program improvement. An institution whose pass rate falls below 80 percent on an exam must successfully implement an approved corrective action plan for the relevant programs to remain registered. Certification examinations set statewide thresholds for the academic performance of teacher preparation program completers that are aligned with State Learning Standards. Pass rates are available at http://www.highered.nysed.gov/ocue/TitleIIData/titleIIDataMain.htm.

Teacher supply and demand studies. The Department uses its teacher certification and public school workforce data to evaluate whether teacher preparation programs collectively produce enough new teachers to meet the hiring needs of all public schools in all subject areas and geographic regions of the State and issues annual teacher supply and demand reports. (New York State Education Department, 2007) Each report compares the number of new teachers to the number of vacancies for new teachers in each subject area and geographic region in order to identify shortages that are independent of teachers’ willingness to work or employers’ hiring standards. These reports are used to inform planning and policy development at all levels of education. The most recent report is available at http://www.highered.nysed.gov/.

Studies of alternative teacher preparation programs. The Department issues periodic reports on the activities and impact of alternative teacher preparation (ATP) programs to inform policy decisions about the programs. In 2000, the Regents authorized ATP programs to provide a needed source of new teachers and ATP programs continue to provide new teachers in hard-to-staff subject areas and geographic regions. Reports are available at http://www.highered.nysed.gov/ocue/intrototransc.htm

Studies of “what works” in teacher preparation. The Department supports research being conducted by scholars from the University at Albany and Stanford University that describes teacher labor markets and evaluates the impact of policies and practices designed to improve teaching and student learning. For example, the research has shown the impact of different pathways to certification on gains in student achievement and teacher retention in New York City. Research findings are available at http://www.teacherpolicyresearch.org/.

Study Methodology

As required by State Education Law, this study was based on consultation interviews and meetings with:

Representatives of the chancellors of SUNY and CUNY;
Representatives of other institutions of higher education;
Representatives of school districts and BOCES; and
Other stakeholders.

Attachment 4 is a list of all consultation contacts. In addition, Department staff reviewed current research and a summary of promising evaluation practices in other states prepared by the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory (NEIREL).

Findings

There are a total of five findings. The first two findings address the statutory requirement to consider evaluating the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs based on measures of the academic performance of students (candidates) and graduates (completers). The remaining three findings from this study involve other evaluation measures and approaches identified by the P-16 education community. Statutory requirement: Finding 1. The academic performance of entering candidates is not an appropriate measure of teacher preparation program effectiveness. There is some evidence that the college entrance examination scores of candidates in teacher preparation programs in the U.S. have risen in recent years, although differences between certification areas remain wide and secondary subject teachers continue to have the highest scores. (Gitomer, forthcoming; Latham, Gitomer and Ziomek, 1999) However, there is not strong research evidence to support the evaluation of teacher preparation programs based the academic performance of entering candidates. (ECS, 2003) In its comprehensive report, the Panel on Research and Teacher Education of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) concluded: There is not strong research evidence that the college admissions exam scores or high school GPAs of entering teacher preparation candidates are good predictors of effective teaching;There is some evidence that teachers who do well on verbal ability tests do better in the classroom, but the evidence is not very strong;Although the U.S. Department of Education has claimed that “verbal ability and content knowledge are the most important attributes of highly qualified teachers,” no study has compared their relative importance to other knowledge and skills; andThe use of college admissions examinations to make decisions about individuals can be problematic because these measures tend to screen out minorities who would otherwise perform well in college. (Cochran-Smith and Zeichner, 2005)A forthcoming study suggests that the combination of college admissions exam scores in math and certification exam results is related to teachers’ effectiveness in math in grade 4 and 5 in New York City, but there was a weaker relationship for middle school math and a relatively small relationship for English. (Boyd et al., 2007) Finally, the college admissions examinations scores and high school GPAs of entering candidates may not be appropriate for evaluating teacher preparation programs at colleges with missions to serve first-generation, low-income and nontraditional students. Statutory requirement: Finding 2. The academic and other performance of enrolled candidates and completers is an appropriate measure of teacher preparation program effectiveness that the Regents currently use. As required by program registration and accreditation, New York State’s teacher preparation programs evaluate their candidates’ academic performance (such as general knowledge and core subject knowledge) and other performance (such as pedagogic knowledge, teaching skills and dispositions) to make decisions about program admission, grades in courses and clinical experiences, degree conferral, and recommendation for certification. In addition, the Department evaluates teacher preparation programs based on their completers’ certification exam pass rates, creating statewide thresholds for academic and other performance. Nearly all teacher preparation institutions have program completer pass rates of 80 percent or more on each required certification exam. (National Evaluation Systems, 2007) Teacher certification exams are designed to screen out certificate applicants who lack entry-level knowledge and skills and are not designed to predict teachers’ classroom effectiveness, but they do predict effectiveness in some circumstances. (Goldhaber, 2007)

Study: General Finding. The Regents current approaches to evaluating teacher preparation programs individually and collectively are sound, but these approaches could be strengthened in several ways if resources are available. In recent years there has been an increasing use of evidence to evaluate and improve teacher preparation programs in New York State as a result of Regents registration and accreditation requirements. The new emphasis on evidence-based decision making is illustrated by special projects such as the SUNY project on teacher education program assessment supported by the federal Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), the Teachers for a New Era (TNE) project funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Pathways Project funded by the Carnegie Corporation and other sponsors.

The teacher education community indicates that the Regents current approaches for evaluating individual teacher preparation programs and institutions and sound. These approaches require programs and institutions to identify multiple sources of evidence about candidates, completers and program effectiveness for program registration and accreditation, which provides the most reasonable and comprehensive basis for making high stakes decisions about programs. The teacher education community also indicates that these approaches have been transformational, although it may be too early to see their full impact. Within this context of overall support for Regents current approaches to evaluating teacher preparation, support is not absolute, as some teacher educators ask whether the ongoing costs of accreditation for all institutions is justified by the benefits of accreditation. Similarly, some teacher educators ask why the Chapter 57 amendments to Education Law are needed given the extensive evaluation system already in place.

Teacher preparation institutions support the Department’s teacher supply and demand studies, studies of alternative teacher preparation programs and research on “what works” in teacher preparation. They caution that scientific knowledge about effective teacher preparation is still in its infancy and recommend further research and pilot projects (including those requiring regulatory waivers) with rigorous evaluation components.

While the teacher preparation community supports current approaches to evaluating teacher preparation programs, it identified three areas for improvement within those approaches:

a next phase of comprehensively reviewing and updating Regents teaching policy;
enhanced information systems and organizational capacity; and
systemic P-16 teacher quality partnerships in all regions of the State.

These areas for improvement are also supported by the P-12 education community.

Study: Finding 1. The Regents and the Department have an opportunity to launch the next phase of efforts to review and update teaching policy. The Regents 1996 State Learning Standards and 1998 teaching policy set the standards to which teacher preparation program, their completers and in-service teachers are held. These standards define what teachers are expected to know and be able to do and they influence evaluation and the pool of potential teachers. Since that time, the Regents and the Department have been engaged in an ongoing review evaluation of Regents teaching policy. As a result, a number of modifications to the policy have been made to reflect the changing educational environment. The next phase of efforts to evaluate teaching policy will help ensure that the policy reflects recent research; supports the current needs of students, schools and teachers; and is consistent with updated State Learning Standards. (National Research Council, forthcoming; Schwartz, 2007; Murnane and Steele, 2007; National Council on Teacher Quality, 2007; Moore Johnson, 2006; Darling-Hammond, 2005; Levin and Quinn, 2003) Attachment 5 contains potential policy review questions that were posed by the P-16 education community during consultation for this study.

Study: Finding 2. Information systems and organizational capacity should be enhanced to support teacher quality. Better information is needed to support the ongoing evaluation and improvement of teacher preparation and teaching practice.

Study: Finding 2.1. Teacher preparation institutions seek better information about certification examination results to help them use the results for program improvement. They request a faculty guide for all New York State Teacher Certification Examinations (NYSTCEs) that explains each exam, how it is validated and scored and how to interpret its scores and sub-scores for use in program improvement. They also request new reports for each examination that show pass rates as well as mean scores, mean sub-scores and standard deviations for each year’s program completers at their institution, in each sector and in the State. They would also welcome reports with item analyses to help them improve instruction. (As of October 2007, the Department, the NYSTCE contractor and the teacher preparation community were working together to be responsive to these requests.)

Study: Finding 2.2. Teacher preparation institutions and others seek better information about the certification and employment of program completers over time. To help teacher preparation institutions assess their programs on an ongoing basis, they request a systematic way to use the Department’s certification and employment databases to track their program completers (and their characteristics, such as pathway, race/ethnicity and academic profile) through certification and into public school employment in New York State. As feasible, they also request assistance in tracking completers into other employment in New York State and other states. Teacher preparation programs and others seek information about the career paths of program completers to give middle school, high school and college students and their families better information about job prospects in teaching for educational and career planning. (As of October 2007, the Department and the University at Albany were working together to seek resources for a 2007-2008 pilot project to be responsive to these issues.)

Study: Finding 2.3. Teacher preparation institutions and others seek better tools for measuring the teaching effectiveness of teacher preparation candidates, program completers and in-service teachers. Effective teaching is a highly complex skill that requires the application of extensive knowledge in many domains and that does not lend itself easily to measurement. (Shulman, 2007; Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2005; Wasley and McDiarmid, 2003) Teacher preparation programs and P-12 school and district leaders seek valid and reliable ways to measure and enhance the teaching effectiveness of candidates, completers and in-service teachers. An approach that relies on multiple, complementary measurement tools holds promise because it builds on strengths of each measurement tool, while recognizing its pitfalls, and it offers opportunities for research and validation.

Measurement Tool 1. Standards-based and performance-based assessments. The NYSTCE Assessment of Teaching Skills-Performance is being phased out because it is no longer a requirement for professional certification. The NYSTCE Assessment of Teaching Skills-Written, which is required for initial certification, measures pedagogical knowledge and skills but not actual performance. To measure actual teaching performance, teacher preparation faculty and public school teachers overseeing field experiences and student teaching, as well as school and district leaders responsible for Annual Professional Performance Reviews, currently use many different tools of varying technical quality. These tools include checklists, rubrics, teacher work samples and teacher portfolios. (Brabeck, 2007; Lehman College, 2007; Kappner, 2007; Tobias, 2007; Weber, 2007; Danielson, 1996) The SUNY FIPSE project is planning to develop a database describing some of the tools being used throughout the State. (Forum, 2007) One challenge with these types of tools is ensuring the consistency of measurement so that results are valid, reliable and comparable across individuals and over time.

Teacher preparation institutions are interested in working with P-12 schools, districts, BOCES and others to explore the development and validation of one or more tools for standards- or performance-based evaluation that have the potential for regional or statewide adoption for both pre-service and in-service teachers, or, if that is not possible, model tools that share core items and are aligned to the same professional teaching standards. Their interest is consistent with a growing national interest in standards- and performance-based teaching assessment tools that can be validated against gains in student achievement. “When performance assessments can both predict teacher effectiveness and support individual and institutional learning, they can help to create an engine for stimulating greater teacher effectiveness in the system as a whole.” (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Denner et al, 2004; Griffin and Hett, 2004) It is challenging to develop and validate tools that adequately reflect the distinctive goals of each teacher preparation institution, school district and school but one possible response to that challenge would be to design tools with common items that could be supplemented with local items.

Examples of standards- and performance-based assessment tools include the assessments required for national board certification, the teacher work sample model developed by the Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality, the Formative Assessment System developed by the New Teacher Center at Santa Cruz, student teaching assessments in the State of Washington, initial licensing assessments in California and Oregon and professional licensing assessments in Connecticut.

Measurement Tool 2. Satisfaction surveys. Surveys of teacher preparation program students and graduates and their supervisors or principals are another way to measure program effectiveness. School administrators’ judgments about teachers tend to be accurate for the best and worst teachers, though they tend not to distinguish teachers in the middle of the effectiveness distribution, roughly between the 20th and 80th percentiles. (Jacob, 2007) Currently, teacher preparation institutions use a variety of surveys of exiting candidates, completers and completers’ employers. (Forum, 2007) Teacher preparation institutions would like to explore the development of statewide surveys with core items that could be supplemented with institution-specific items. One possible mechanism for administering such surveys might be to ask all applicants for initial and professional certificates to complete a brief, online survey about their preparation and to ask all recent recipients of initial certificates to identify their principal or supervisor and authorize them to complete a brief, online survey, provided that these requests did not delay the certification process.

There are models for statewide surveys. In New York State, several SUNY campuses use the same online survey from a commercial source and the New York City Department of Education conducts online surveys of Teaching Fellows and their principals. At least seven other states, including Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Massachusetts and California, have used statewide surveys of teacher preparation completers, school administrators or both. (Breslow and Midouhas, 2007; Futernick, 2007; SREB, 2006) It is challenging to develop a survey that adequately reflects the distinctive goals of each teacher preparation institution but one possible response to this challenge would be to design a survey with common items that could be supplemented with institution-specific items.

Measurement Tool 3. Value-added models (VAM). Value-added models, which estimate the “effect” of teachers on their students’ year-to-year gains on assessments while statistically controlling for other measurable influences on the gains, are promising research and evaluation tools. (Aspen Institute, 2007; Berry, Fuller, Reeves and Laird, 2007; Boyd et.al., 2007;; Strauss, Hao and Wang, 2007; Kane, Rockoff and Steiger, 2006; Teaching Commission, 2006 and 2004; Cochran-Smith and Zeichner; 2005; Carey, 2004; Fallon, 2003; Sanders and Rivers, 1996) Some support their use in evaluating teacher preparation programs. (Data Quality Campaign, 2007; Louisiana Board of Regents, 2007)

VAM requires longitudinal data on students, student assessment results and teachers, and a mechanism for linking student and teacher data. As of 2006, 16 states, including Louisiana, Utah and Florida, had an operational teacher identifier system with a mechanism for linking student and teacher data. (Badolato, 2007) VAM also requires student assessments that measure student gains from year to year in the same learning domains, such as mathematics or English, and extensive data about non-teacher influences on student gains.

In order to implement VAM on a statewide basis in New York State, at least three investments would be required. First, the Department’s data systems would need a teacher identifier and a mechanism for linking student and teacher data. Section 305 of State Education Law was amended in April 2007 to require the Department to consider creating these features, and their creation will be one of the topics covered in the Department’s plan for a P-16 data system. Pending the completion of that plan, staff experts believe that short-term and long-term approaches may be needed to support VAM. In the short term, the Department may need to create a link between student assessment results and the teacher(s) responsible for instruction in the assessed subjects. In the longer term, the Department will probably need to require all districts to conform to statewide system of unique identifiers for every instructional assignment so that teachers and students can be linked through the assignment identifiers. In both cases, the Department’s mechanism for linking teachers to students and database storage will need to rigorously protect the privacy of individual students and teachers in accordance with State and federal privacy laws. Second, the Department would

need to ensure that its grade 3 through 8 assessments in math and English Language Arts are appropriate for measuring student gains from year to year. Third, the Department would need to develop and test mathematical models for measuring value-added at appropriate units of analysis using available data.

Like any research methodology, VAM has limitations. A 2003 Rand Corporation study concluded that the research base was insufficient to support the use of VAM for high-stakes decisions about individual teachers or schools, that research must be informed by “the practical needs and constraints facing users of VAM” and that the implementation of VAM must be informed by “understanding of what inferences and decisions the research currently supports.” (McCaffrey, Koretz, Lockwood and Hamilton, 2003). Other researchers and assessment experts concur. (Forum, 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Berry et al., 2007; Murnane and Steele, 2007; New York State Education Department Technical Advisory Group on Assessment, 2007; Braun, 2005)

Despite VAM’s limitations, many in New York State’s teacher preparation community, along with the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE), support the creation of a link between student and teacher data and the use of VAM for responsible research on improving teacher preparation, recruitment and hiring – such as the Pathways Project in New York City – while using other approaches that are more appropriate for informing high-stakes decisions about individual teacher preparation programs and teachers. (Forum, 2007; New York State Professional Standards and Practices Board for Teaching, 2007; New York State Council of University Deans, 2007; Boyd et al, 2007; Robinson, 2007) When used responsibly, VAM is a valuable research tool for evaluating policies and practices through the important lens of their impact on student learning gains. One option being used in other states to address the limitations of VAM is to adopt policies on the intended and appropriate uses of linked data and VAM to avoid inappropriate and irresponsible uses.

Study: Finding 2.4. Teacher preparation institutions and others seek data on the pipeline of candidates in teacher preparation programs. Except for summary enrollment data for programs preparing teachers and other school professionals to serve students with disabilities, the Department does not have data on candidates enrolled in the teacher preparation pipeline and, therefore, cannot project the future number of program completers that may be available to meet schools’ hiring needs. Pipeline data and projections of program completers are important for planning teacher preparation programs, responding to expected demand, strengthening teacher recruitment and hiring practices and helping students and their families make informed educational and career choices. The following data would be needed for each matriculated candidate:

Individual identifiers and characteristics (the same ones that are used for certification)
Date of matriculation into a teacher preparation program
Teacher preparation institution and program(s) and their codes (from the Inventory of Registered Programs)
Certificate title and code for each certificate being sought
Expected program completion date
Plans for seeking employment in NYS public schools

Study: Finding 3. Systemic P-16 partnerships are needed to enhance teaching and learning. Teacher preparation programs are carried out by some combination of education faculty, arts and sciences faculty and teachers in P-12 schools. Representatives of teacher preparation institutions, school districts, BOCES and others seek more opportunities to work together to strengthen teacher preparation and teaching practice and achieve the following goals.

Address teacher shortages. P-12 school leaders are concerned about teacher shortages and teacher attrition in high-need schools and want to work with teacher preparation institutions to address these concerns since shortages result from districts’ wages and working conditions as well as the number of graduates of teacher preparation programs. High-need school districts are particularly interested in knowing the number and characteristics of teacher preparation candidates and completers in shortage subject areas and the number and characteristics of completers who take jobs in high-need schools and remain in those schools over time and the characteristics of those schools.

Strengthen preparation linked to practice. P-12 education leaders recognize that new teachers will always need induction, mentoring and other support. However, some recommend that preparation be strengthened in such areas as classroom management, differentiated instruction and the use of assessment results to guide instruction and are open to working with teacher preparation institutions to strengthen preparation in these areas. At the same time, some teacher preparation institutions are concerned about the challenge of finding field placements and student teaching placements where their candidates can emulate models of best practice and interact with students representing a wide range of learning needs. Some teacher preparation programs would welcome the opportunity to mentor their completers during the completers’ first year of employment as a part of both graduate education and program evaluation.

Develop shared evaluation tools. P-12 school leaders and the teacher preparation community are interested in working together to develop standards-based or performance-based tools for evaluating teaching effectiveness that have been validated against student performance and that would create a more seamless transition from pre-service to in-service teaching. Regional or statewide adoption of such tools has the potential to raise student achievement through evidence-based improvements in teacher preparation, mentoring, in-service professional development and practice. Teacher preparation institutions are interested in obtaining survey data on the satisfaction of their completers and their completers’ principals or supervisors without overwhelming school leaders with different surveys from multiple institutions.

Pilot new approaches to professional development and professional certification. With the goal of helping novice teachers, P-12 education leaders are interested in working with teacher preparation institutions to develop advanced graduate programs leading to professional certificates that incorporate district-based professional development and working with the Department to develop pilot projects with rigorous evaluation components that permit district-based professional development that meets high standards to replace some or all of the graduate education required for professional certification.

Recommendations

Building on the Regents 1998 teaching policy and its successful implementation, the Department presents four recommendations to the Regents for approval. The recommendations form an ambitious five-year plan for enhancing information systems and organizational capacity to evaluate and improve teacher preparation, teaching practice and student achievement. Implementation will require focused leadership, an infusion of new resources and specialized work groups to study issues and make more detailed recommendations for specific actions. For each recommendation, estimates of costs and timelines are provided. These recommendations and their costs will be shared with the Executive, Legislature and others to identify resources to support them.

Recommendation 1: Seek resources for a Teacher Quality Policy Update.

Building on the Regents successful 1998 teaching policy, launch the next phase of a comprehensive review of teaching policy to ensure that the requirements reflect recent research; support the needs of students, schools and teachers; and are consistent with updated State Learning Standards. Some policy updates may lead to pilot projects with rigorous evaluation components. Potential review questions raised during this study are provided in Attachment 5.

Estimated costs and timelines. A Teacher Quality Policy Update would require at least $100,000 per year for three years, for a total cost of $300,000. Costs include one new Grade 26 Associate to provide staff leadership, contracted services for experts and travel costs for work group members. The schedule for reviewing content-specific standards for teacher preparation programs should be aligned with the Department’s schedule for reviewing State Learning Standards, which will extend beyond two years. (As of August 2007, the Professional Standards and Practices Board had begun work on a few policy issues.)

Recommendation 2. Seek resources to develop a New York State Teacher Quality Research Center.

Building on existing data resources and research capacity, a New York State Teacher Quality Research Center (TQRC) should be developed to serve as a repository of data on teachers that can be linked to data on students, schools and districts. These data should be used for research to improve teaching and learning and to provide research services to teacher preparation institutions and others. One of the TQRC’s initial goals should be to use available data to help teacher preparation institutions track program completers and their characteristics (such as academic profile, pathway or race/ethnicity) through certification and into public school employment and to collect evidence about how institutions use the tracking data for program improvement. The TQRC’s next goal should be to establish a professional learning community of P-16 educators and policymakers to design a research and development agenda for improving teacher preparation and teaching practice. The agenda should include the development and validation of model tools for evaluating the effectiveness of pre-service and in-service teachers for adoption on a regional or statewide basis and studies of “what works” in teacher preparation and teaching policy.

There are models for a TQRC in other states. Each model has its own priorities and approaches. While nearly all are based at a university or university system and rely on multiple funding sources, some involve partnerships between a university and a State education agency. The models include:

National Research and Development Center’s CALDER Center http://www.urban.org/publications/900978.html and http://www.caldercenter.org/
California State University Center for Teacher Quality http://www.calstate.edu/teacherquality/
Ohio Teacher Quality Partnership http://www.tqpohio.org/index.php
Louisiana’s Value-Added Teacher Preparation Program Assessment Model http://asa.regents.state.la.us/TE/value_added_model
Illinois Education Research Council http://ierc.siue.edu/aboutcouncil.htm
Virginia’s VITAL http://research.schev.edu/topicpages.asp?t=9

Scholars at the University at Albany have done similar work in New York State with the Department as a supporting partner. See http://www.teacherpolicyresearch.org/.

The experience of these models suggests that the TQRC should have achievable goals, strong leadership, an advisory council representing data providers and users to guide its work and ensure the responsible and appropriate use of data, and reliable and adequate resources from multiple sources, including New York State government, the federal government, philanthropic foundations and teacher preparation institutions.

The many types of data that the TQRC would need in order to achieve its research goals are described in the research literature. (Badolato, 2007; Goldhaber, 2005; Vorhees and Barnes, 2003) Many of these types of data already exist for New York State in some form.

The Department has data on NYSTCE test takers and their test results; teacher preparation program completers; certificate recipients and certificates issued; teachers employed in public schools and their assignments; P-12 students and their enrollment pathways; P-12 student assessment results; the characteristics of schools and districts and their students; and the characteristics of teacher preparation institutions.

Teacher preparation institutions have data on teacher preparation candidates, including their demographics, their admissions and enrollment history, their transcripts and their performance on evaluations in courses, field experiences and student teaching experiences associated with their programs.

Local school districts have data on their teachers’ professional performance reviews, tenure status and professional development plans and activities.

Teachers retirement systems have data on retirees that may be helpful for projecting demand for teachers or estimating the potential impact of incentive programs for retired teachers to return to teaching.

The New York State Department of Labor has data that could be used to follow program completers into employment in New York State beyond public schools.

Other states have data that could be used to follow program completers into employment outside of New York State.

Estimated costs and timelines. Estimated cost: $500,000 per year for five years, plus $200,000 if an existing data repository is not used, for a total ranging from $2,500,000 to $2,700,000. Resources should be sought for the TQRC’s first five years from the State and private foundations. (As of October 2007. the Department and the University at Albany were seeking resources for a 2007-2008 pilot project to begin responding to some of the research needs of teacher preparation institutions.)

Recommendation 3. Seek resources to enhance the TEACH system to include candidates enrolled in the teacher preparation pipeline.

TEACH was originally designed to help individuals apply for certificates online. Building on its successful implementation, TEACH should be enhanced to include candidates matriculated in teacher preparation programs in order to create a data source on the teacher preparation pipeline data. Pipeline data are important for planning teacher preparation programs, assessing whether future teachers are likely to reflect the racial/ethnic diversity of the State’s P-12 students, projecting and averting teacher shortages, strengthening teacher recruitment, and helping students and their families make informed educational and career choices.

Estimated costs and timelines. A pipeline enhancement to the TEACH system is expected to cost approximately $300,000 for a one-time contract to create data entry screens, enhance the TEACH database structure and create standard pipeline reports and file extracts. A detailed enhancement plan would need to be prepared in consultation with teacher preparation institutions and their candidates. Once plans are final and the contracting process completed, contracted work should take approximately one year to complete.

Recommendation 4. Seek resources to support systemic P-16 teacher quality partnerships in every region of the State.

Building on regional P-16 teacher quality partnerships that are being piloted in selected regions of the State in 2007-2008, resources should be sought for supporting and extending P-16 teacher quality partnerships in every region. Partnerships will provide opportunities for teacher preparation programs, school districts, BOCES, teacher centers and others to work together to address teacher shortages, improve preparation linked to practice and create more seamless transitions from teacher preparation to teaching practice.

Estimated costs and timelines. The 2007-2008 pilot project are is being implemented with existing resources but additional resources will be needed to extend partnerships to every region of the State and build on the findings from the pilot project. One new Grade 26 Associate is needed to lead this project and coordinate technical assistance to partnerships in every region, at a cost of $80,000 per year for five years, for a total cost of $400,000. This cost will recur indefinitely to support regional partnerships.

Conclusion

Effective teachers are essential for raising student achievement and closing achievement gaps. This report makes four recommendations for the Regents approval for enhancing data systems and organizational capacity in order to promote ongoing evaluation and improvement in teacher preparation and teaching practice in New York State. The recommendations are designed to build capacity to:

Enable teacher preparation programs to better meet schools’ hiring needs; Help teacher preparation programs improve their completers’ effectiveness at raising student achievement; Help school districts improve teacher recruitment, hiring, professional development and effectiveness at raising student achievement; Provide policymakers with better information for shaping policies to support career planning as well as teacher preparation, recruitment, retention and effectiveness; and

Give middle school, high school and college students better information about job prospects in teaching to help them make better educational and career choices.

The four recommendations have a total estimated cost of $3,500,000 for the first five years. Of that total, $2,500,000 is for a Teacher Quality Research Center and should be requested from the State and private foundations. Only one recommendation requires ongoing State funding of $100,000 beyond the first five years. A summary of cost estimates is shown in the following table.

Summary of Cost Estimates (in thousands of dollars)
	Recommendations	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5	All Years
1	Policy Update	100	100	100	0	0	300
2	Teacher Quality Research Center*	500	500	500	500	500	2500
3	TEACH pipeline enhancement	300	0	0	0	0	300
4	P-16 partnerships +	80	80	80	80	80	400
	All recommendations	980	680	680	580	580	3500

*The Regents should seek resources for the Center from the State and private foundations for the first five years. An additional $200,000 could be needed in Year 1 if an existing data repository is not used. +Costs will be ongoing.
Attachment 1

Classroom Teaching Certificate Titles as of February 2, 2004

LOWER AND UPPER ELEMENTARY GRADES

Codes and Titles:

3013 - Early Childhood Education Birth - Grade 2
3014 - Childhood Education Grades 1 - 6

EARLY SECONDARY GRADES 7-9 EXTENSIONS

Codes and Titles:

4069 - English Language Arts Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4084 - Mathematics Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4086 - Social Studies Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4046 - Biology Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4047 - Chemistry Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4048 - Earth Science Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4049 - Physics Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4064 - Spanish Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4066 - Latin Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4068 - German Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4070 - Russian Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4072 - Hebrew Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4074 - Italian Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4076 - Greek Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4077 - Urdu Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4079 - Japanese Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4080 - French Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4081 - Chinese Grades 7 - 9 Extension
4092 - American Sign Language Grades 7 - 9 Extension
5234 - Cantonese Grades 7 - 9 Extension
5241 - Mandarin Grades 7 - 9 Extension

MIDDLE CHILDHOOD EDUCATION GRADES 5-9

Codes and Titles:
4011 - Generalist in Middle Childhood Education Grades 5 - 9
4012 - English Language Arts Grades 5 - 9
4013 - Mathematics Grades 5 - 9
4018 - Social Studies Grades 5 - 9
4014 - Biology Grades 5 - 9
4015 - Chemistry Grades 5 - 9
4016 - Earth Science Grades 5 - 9
4017 - Physics Grades 5 - 9
4019 - General Science Grades 5 - 9 Extension
4031 - American Sign Language Grades 5 - 9
4032 - Cantonese Grades 5 - 9
4033 - Chinese Grades 5 - 9
4034 - French Grades 5 - 9
4035 - German Grades 5 - 9
4036 - Greek Grades 5 - 9
4037 - Hebrew Grades 5 - 9
4038 - Italian Grades 5 - 9
4039 - Japanese Grades 5 - 9
4041 - Latin Grades 5 - 9
4042 - Mandarin Grades 5 - 9
4043 - Russian Grades 5 - 9
4044 - Spanish Grades 5 - 9
4045 - Urdu Grades 5 - 9
SECONDARY ACADEMIC SUBJECTS GRADES 7-12

Codes and Titles:
5013 - English Language Arts 7 - 12
5130 - Mathematics Grades 7 - 12
5110 - Social Studies Grades 7 - 12
5010 - Biology Grades 7 - 12
5030 - Chemistry Grades 7 - 12
5050 - Physics Grades 7 - 12
5070 - Earth Science Grades 7 - 12
5091 - General Science Grades 7 - 12 Extension
5140 - French Grades 7 - 12
5150 - Spanish Grades 7 -12
5160 - Latin Grades 7 - 12
5170 - German Grades 7 -12
5180 - Russian Grades 7 - 12
5190 - Hebrew Grades 7 - 12
5200 - Italian Grades 7 - 12
5210 - Greek 7-12
5225 - Urdu Grades 7 - 12
5226 - American Sign Language Grades 7 - 12
5230 - Chinese Grades 7 - 12
5232 - Cantonese Grades 7 - 12
5238 - Mandarin Grades 7 -12
4054 - Japanese Grades 7 - 12

SECONDARY ACADEMIC SUBJECTS GRADES 5-6 EXTENSION

Codes and Titles:
5014 - English Language Arts Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5131 - Mathematics Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5111 - Social Studies Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5011 - Biology Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5031 - Chemistry Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5051 - Physics Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5071 - Earth Science Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5093 - General Science Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5171 - German Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5181 - Russian Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5191 - Hebrew Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5201 - Italian Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5231 - Chinese Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5233 - Cantonese Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5239 - Mandarin Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5348 - Japanese Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5349 - French Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5350 - Spanish Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5351 - Latin Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5352 - Greek Grades 5 - 6 Extension

5357 - Urdu Grades 5 - 6 Extension
5358 - American Sign Language Grades 5 - 6 Extension

EXTENSIONS
[To teach a language other than English in grades 1-6 (holding a valid certificate to teach a language other than English in grade 7-12 is a prerequisite)]

Codes and Titles:
4099 - Japanese Grades 1 - 6 Extension
5166 - French Grades 1 - 6 Extension
5167 - Spanish Grades 1 - 6 Extension
5168 - Latin Grades 1 - 6 Extension
5169 - German Grades 1 - 6 Extension
5172 - Russian Grades 1 - 6 Extension
5173 - Hebrew Grades 1 - 6 Extension
5202 - Italian Grades 1 - 6 Extension
5212 - Greek Grades 1 - 6 Extension
5245 - Chinese Grades 1 - 6 Extension
5246 - Cantonese Grades 1 - 6 Extension
5247 - Mandarin Grades 1 - 6 Extension
5248 - Urdu Grades 1 - 6 Extension
5249 - American Sign Language Grades 1 - 6 Extension

SPECIAL SUBJECTS (ALL GRADES)

Codes and Titles:
6013 - Visual Arts
6021 - Business and Marketing
6121 - Health Education
6131 - Family and Consumer Sciences
6141 - Technology Education
6150 - Music
6160 - Physical Education
6193 - Theatre
6200 - Dance
6011 - Agriculture
9017 - Deaf and Hard of Hearing
9018 - Blind and Visually Impaired
9021 - Speech and Language Disabilities
7020 - Library Media Specialist
7051 - Educational Technology Specialist

LITERACY

Codes and Titles:
7061 - Literacy Birth - Grade 6
7062 - Literacy Grades 5 - 12

ENGLISH TO SPEAKERS OF OTHER LANGUAGES

Codes and Titles:
7080 - English to Speakers of Other Languages

BILINGUAL EDUCATION EXTENSION

Codes and Titles:
7093 - Bilingual Education Extension
7094 - Bilingual Education (Library Media/Education Technology Specialist) Extension

TEACHING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

Codes and Titles:
9013 - Students with Disabilities Birth - Grade 2
9014 - Students with Disabilities Grades 1 - 6

9015 - Students with Disabilities - Generalist Grades 5 - 9
9026 - Students with Disabilities - English Grades 5 - 9
9037 - Students with Disabilities - Mathematics Grades 5 - 9
9042 - Students with Disabilities - Social Studies Grades 5 - 9
9022 - Students with Disabilities - Biology Grades 5 - 9
9024 - Students with Disabilities - Chemistry Grades 5 - 9
9027 - Students with Disabilities - Earth Science Grades 5 - 9
9038 - Students with Disabilities - Physics Grades 5 - 9
9019 - Students with Disabilities - American Sign Language Grades 5 - 9
9023 - Students with Disabilities - Cantonese Grades 5 - 9
9025 - Students with Disabilities - Chinese Grades 5 - 9
9028 - Students with Disabilities - French Grades 5 - 9
9029 - Students with Disabilities - German Grades 5 - 9
9031 - Students with Disabilities - Greek Grades 5 - 9
9032 - Students with Disabilities - Hebrew Grades 5 - 9
9033 - Students with Disabilities - Italian Grades 5 - 9
9034 - Students with Disabilities - Japanese Grades 5 - 9
9035 - Students with Disabilities - Latin Grades 5 - 9
9036 - Students with Disabilities - Mandarin Grades 5 - 9
9039 - Students with Disabilities - Russian Grades 5 - 9
9043 - Students with Disabilities - Spanish Grades 5 - 9
9044 - Students with Disabilities - Urdu Grades 5 - 9
9051 - Students with Disabilities - English Language Arts Grades 7 - 12
9063 - Students with Disabilities - Mathematics Grades 7 - 12
9066 - Students with Disabilities - Social Studies Grades 7 - 12
9046 - Students with Disabilities - Biology Grades 7 - 12
9048 - Students with Disabilities - Chemistry Grades 7 - 12
9053 - Students with Disabilities - Earth Science Grades 7 - 12
9064 - Students with Disabilities - Physics Grades 7 - 12
9045 - Students with Disabilities - American Sign Language Grades 7 - 12
9047 - Students with Disabilities - Cantonese Grades 7 - 12
9049 - Students with Disabilities - Chinese Grades 7 - 12
9054 - Students with Disabilities - French Grades 7 - 12
9055 - Students with Disabilities - German Grades 7 - 12
9056 - Students with Disabilities - Greek Grades 7 - 12
9057 - Students with Disabilities - Hebrew Grades 7 - 12
9058 - Students with Disabilities - Italian Grades 7 - 12
9059 - Students with Disabilities - Japanese Grades 7 - 12
9061 - Students with Disabilities - Latin Grades 7 - 12
9062 - Students with Disabilities - Mandarin Grades 7 - 12
9065 - Students with Disabilities - Russian Grades 7 - 12
9067 - Students with Disabilities - Spanish Grades 7 - 12
9068 - Students with Disabilities - Urdu Grades 7 - 12

ANNOTATIONS AND EXTENSIONS

Codes and Titles:
9170 - Gifted Education Extension
9171 - Severe or Multiple Disabilities Annotation
7100 - American Sign Language as the Medium of Instruction Extension

CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION GRADES 7-12

Codes and Titles:

Agriculture
8249 - Natural Resources and Ecology
8253 - Animal Science
8254 - Plant Science
8261 - Agricultural Production, Science and Business
8262 - Agricultural Engineering and Mechanics

Health Occupation
8201 - Dental Assisting
8211 - Dental Laboratory Technology
8241 - Medical Assisting
8251 - Medical Laboratory Assisting
8252 - Emergency Medical Services
8291 - Nurse's Assisting
8301 - Practical Nursing

Family and Consumer Sciences
(Associates or Higher Degree Requi