OHE Homepage | Office of K-16 Initiatives and Access Programs | Office of Quality Assurance | Office of Teaching Initiatives | Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education (EMSC)

About OHE

OHE Offices

Contact OHE

Action Item for the Board of Regents

SUMMARY

Issue for Decision

Do the Regents approve the four recommendations for evaluating teacher preparation programs as discussed by the Board of Regents in the October committee meeting and described in the attached report?  These recommendations are aligned with the Regents teaching policy and were 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 and budgetary considerations.

Proposed Handling

This item will come before the Higher Education and Professional Practice Committee for action at its December 2007 meeting. 
           
Procedural History

            This report was discussed by the Regents Higher Education and Professional Practice Committee at its October 2007 meeting.

Background Information

            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 to 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.  It has an Executive Summary that explains the full report’s findings and four recommendations with estimated costs and timelines for your approval. 

Revisions Since October 2007 Discussion

            The report has been revised to reflect the policy discussion of the Board of Regents.  Specifically, as requested, it was revised to include the fact that the University at Albany received a grant of $50,000 from the Carnegie Corporation of New York to support a one year pilot of a New York State Teacher Quality Research Center for (1) providing preliminary data to teacher preparation institutions and the Department to track teacher preparation program completers into certification and public school employment and (2) surveying teacher preparation institutions on their use, or planned use, of the tracking data.   The Department will be seeking approval from the Office of the State Comptroller for a sole source contract to provide an additional $50,000. 

            Revisions were also made in response to recommendations from the Professional Standards and Practices Board for Teaching (PSPB).  Each recommendation is quoted below and followed by the Department’s response.  The PSPB is one of many boards that play an advisory role for the Department and the Regents.  No other comments were received since this item was first shared with the Board of Regents.  

PSPB:      “The report provides a thoughtful and thorough review of actions that have been underway since the last comprehensive changes in teacher policy in 1998.  The report appropriately points to the coordinated steps that have pursued teacher quality goals.  The PSPB is both pleased to see the presentation of this work and pleased to have been part of the continuing effort.  We hope and expect that the PSPB will play a critical role in advising the Department and Regents during the continuing policy reviews.  In reviewing this draft of the report, the PSPB offers comment in six areas.”

PSPB-1:  “The PSPB recommends complete removal of the inclusion of district-based professional development to replace in part, or in whole, the graduate education required for professional certification (found on page 16 of the October 2007 draft of Building on Success:  Strengthening Teaching and Learning).”

“With all respect for P-16 partnerships and their potential for informing professional preparation and practice, graduate study leading to a master’s degree in New York must conform to standards of graduate study consistent with national, state, and professional education.  In this regard, the qualifications and characteristics of graduate education differ significantly from that of district professional development.” 

“Further, given that holding advanced graduate study degrees represents a minimum entry standard into a profession, and given the breadth of coverage that extends beyond the immediate local application, as well as integration of research, theory, and practice, that occurs in advanced graduate study, the PSPB endorses maintaining the master’s degree as the standard for professional certification.”

SED-1:     Among the study findings, under the heading “Pilot new approaches to professional development and professional certification” (page 15 of the October report), it was reported that the P-12 education community was interested in exploring new ways to provide professional development and graduate education to new teachers and in conducting studies with rigorous evaluation components to replace some or all of the graduate education required for professional certification.  In response to the PSPB’s comments, the term “pilot” in the heading has been changed to “explore,” the findings have been clarified, the PSPB’s perspective has been added to the findings and the following sentence has been added: “Any change to the graduate education requirement for professional certification would first need to be considered and approved by the Board of Regents.” 

PSPB-2: “The PSPB advises the Regents to reject definitions of effectiveness of teacher preparation programs that rely on goal-setting and quotas for the production of particular kinds of teachers (such as teachers in hard-to-staff areas, found on page 3 of the October 2007 draft of Building on Success:  Strengthening Teaching and Learning).  The PSPB notes that setting goals for the production of particular kinds of teachers is unlikely to enhance the desired numbers of teachers, given the other personal and market forces at play in career decision making.” 

“Rather, the PSPB would recommend that the Regents consider and adopt policies that target these additional personal and market forces, including efforts in K-12 education, higher education, government, business, and other stakeholder communities, such as:

• promoting students acquiring realistic expectations about teaching workforce opportunities,
• enhancing the pipeline of high school students interested in teaching in high needs areas,
• insuring higher quality workplace experiences and compensation, enhancing hiring timelines and practices, and
• creating additional incentives to recruit individuals into the teaching profession.”

SED-2:     The October report contains a definition of the “effectiveness” of teacher preparation (page 3) that was based on existing, written policies of the Regents.  As an example of national interest in having enough teachers for all classrooms, the report refers to the bill passed by the U.S. Senate to reauthorize the Higher Education Act (S.1641), which requires individual teacher preparation institutions to set annual goals for graduating teachers in specific subject areas.  In response to the PSPB’s comments, the reference to the Senate bill S.1641 has been deleted because the Regents have not yet taken a position on this legislative proposal.  With that deletion, the revised report contains no language about goal setting or quotas for individual teacher preparation institutions.  In addition, in response to the PSPB’s recommended policies for increasing the supply of teachers, changes have been made to the definition section of the report and the PSPB’s policy recommendations have been added to Attachment 5 under the heading “Teacher Supply and Demand.” 

PSPB-3: “The PSPB recommends removing the term “satisfaction” from page 12 of the October 2007 draft of Building on Success:  Strengthening Teaching and Learning that currently reads “Measurement Tool 2. Satisfaction surveys.” 

SED-3:     The term “satisfaction” has been removed. 

PSPB-4: “Whereas the PSPB was established by the Regents as a body to provide advice to the Regents on matters of teaching policy and practice, it recommends that the Regents draw on the PSPB as an integral part of the process of policy review and analysis.”

SED-4:     The Department agrees that the PSPB is an integral part of the process of policy review and analysis.  Its advisory role was explained in the October report on page 3.   It was created by the Board of Regents to advise the Regents and the Commissioner on matters related to the preparation, certification, and practice of teaching.  It comprises P-12 teachers, school administrators, higher education representatives, a teacher education student, and public members, all committed to advancing the quality of teaching and learning in New York State.  

PSPB-5: “The PSPB urges substantial caution about implementing value-added modeling for the evaluation of teacher education programs, candidates, and teachers.  There is not a sufficient research base to support individualizing the relationship between “student assessment results and teachers responsible for instruction in the assessed subjects” (p. 13 of the October 2007 draft of Building on Success:  Strengthening Teaching and Learning).” 

“However, aggregated data in a research context, that incorporates knowledge of all factors bearing on student performance, would be helpful to inform teacher preparation programs on the characteristics and circumstances of student achievement.”

“The PSPB also recommends that additional attention be directed to promoting the capacity of teachers and teacher candidates to understand and use student data to plan effective instruction and intervention.”

SED-5:     The Department agrees with the PSPB’s caution about implementing and using value-added modeling for the evaluation of individual candidates, teachers and preparation programs.  The October report (page 13) reflected our concern about the inappropriate uses of VAM and emphasized the importance of clarifying in advance that VAM should be used for research to improve practice, but with caution for the evaluation of individual candidates, teachers or preparation programs.  In response to the PSPB’s comments, changes were made to clarify this position. 

                  The Department also agrees that it is important to enhance the capacity of teacher candidates and teachers to understand and use student data to plan effective instruction and intervention.  This issue was raised in the sixth bullet under the heading “Teacher Preparation Programs” in Attachment 5 of the October report, which listed potential questions for policy review, and could also have been part of the policy review process described in Recommendation 1 of the October report.  In response to the PSPB’s comment, a sentence was added to Finding 1 in the December report (page 9) to raise this specific issue as an example of a policy issue to be reviewed. 

PSPB-6: The PSPB notes that the October 2007 draft of Building on Success:  Strengthening Teaching and Learningdecision - teacher preparation.cover_20071213 understates what can and should be learned from, and enhanced in, the currently existing sound systems for insuring quality teacher preparation and practice in New York State (alignment of teacher preparation programs with state learning standards; provision of certified teachers for all public school students; registration systems for all teacher preparation programs, accreditation systems for all teacher preparation programs, and various research studies).

SED-6:     The Department agrees that all available evidence should be used to support a teaching policy review. In response to the PSPB’s comment, in the December report the explanation for Recommendation 1 (page 16) and Attachment 5 (page 32, under the heading for “Teacher Preparation”’) have been revised to clarify that the policy review process should be based, in part, on evidence about the existing systems for ensuring quality teacher preparation.  For example, the revised report mentions that a study of findings from the first round of accreditation reviews would help identify common areas of strength and weakness in teacher preparation that may have implications for policy and practice.  Going beyond teacher preparation, the revised report also mentions the use of evidence about existing systems for ensuring teacher quality to improve policy and practice in Attachment 5 under the heading for “Policy Coherence.”

Findings and Recommendations

The final report reflects the Department’s study, requests from the Board of Regents and responses to recommendations from the PSPB.  Building on the Regents 1998 teaching policy and its successful implementation, the report presents four recommendations, discussed in October 2007, 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. 

Finding 1.  The Regents and the Department have an opportunity to launch the next phase of efforts to review and update teaching policy.  The Board of 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. 

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 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 coordinated an information session 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.

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 that has had a positive and far-reaching impact, 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, including questions about policy coherence; teacher supply and demand; teacher preparation programs; teacher certification examinations; teacher certification; teacher hiring, induction, mentoring and professional development; and teacher incentives, career development and working conditions.  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 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. 

The total estimated costs to implement the four recommendations are summarized below.  These recommendations respond to requirements established in Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007.

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. 

Recommendation

Approval

Timetable for Implementation

This item will be forwarded to the Governor’s Office, as requested, because it has budgetary implications.  Partial implementation of Recommendation 1 (teaching policy review and update) has already begun.  Full implementation of all recommendations will begin as new resources become available. 

Attachment

Board of Regents | NYSED Homepage | Disclaimer and Notices | Employment Opportunities | Internet Privacy and Security Policy | NYS Archives | NYS Library | NYS Museum | Office of Counsel | Office of Cultural Education | Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education (EMSC) | Office of Higher Education | Office of Operations and Management Services | Office of the Professions | Office of State Review | Office of Vocational & Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) | Program Office Listing | Search NYSED Sites