������Ƶ

Last Friday, the Obama Administration announced its intent to propose—by this summer—new regulations governing programs that prepare teachers, with an eye on implementing them in 2015. The goal of the regulations is to provide better data about, and ultimately strengthen, America’s teacher preparation programs. Based on the limited information available about what these new regulations will entail, the Department of Education’s proposal seems like a step in the right direction—but a hurried implementation could undermine it. Will the Administration expect states to implement the proposed rule changes at a realistic pace?

From the information provided by the Department last week, the will look very similar to that put forth during a series of over two years ago. The new proposed rules would:

• Collect and report program outcome data for individual programs run by institutions of higher education as well as by non-traditional or “alternative” preparation entities. (Current regulations only require reporting of “input” measures, and only for programs at colleges and universities.)
• Encourage states to identify both low- and high-performing programs. (Current law and regulations only require identification of low-performing ones.)
• Tie eligibility to offer TEACH grants in part to program performance, as determined by the states. (Current law requires that TEACH grants be used for “high-quality” programs, but “high-quality” has never been defined and, to date, even programs rated as “low-performing” have been able to offer students these grants.)

The Administration decided not to issue draft regulations when it had the opportunity in 2012. Why has it decided to refocus on the issue now? It’s hard to know, but we do know that attention to improving teacher prep has increased substantially since , due in part to activity by stakeholders. These include 1) the National Council on Teacher Quality’s June 2013 “Teacher Prep Review” release in partnership with U.S. News and World Report that rated teacher preparation programs and 2) the Council for the Accreditation of Education Preparation’s August 2013 adoption of new voluntary that require a much larger focus on program graduate outcomes, including graduates’ impact on student learning. Most recently, congressional on the issue of teacher preparation demonstrated rare, bipartisan support for replacing the currently collected teacher preparation data measures with more relevant outcome-focused ones that can drive improvement.

Regardless of the reason for acting now, regulations that focus attention on meaningful measures of program performance will ensure that prospective educators, hiring districts, and other stakeholders have better data on which programs are preparing graduates for the tough work of teaching.

[pullquote]the Department of Education’s proposal seems like —but a hurried implementation could undermine it.[/pullquote]

However, the Administration must ensure it provides states and programs with sufficient time and guidance to put new data collection and reporting systems in place. While some states, such as Louisiana and Ohio, have already developed tools to report information like student learning growth and survey results of program graduates, most will need time—and potentially technical assistance—to  do so. The Department should thoughtfully consider which elements of its proposed rules should be required by the 2015-16 school year, and which should be works in progress over the next few years, with clear benchmarks along the way. ������Ƶ’s recent brief, , outlines a vision—and a timeline—for balancing this sense of urgency with sufficient time to deliberately develop robust new data and performance reporting systems. Such a staggered implementation would help states make smarter, evidence-based decisions when creating performance rating systems. A rushed implementation could ultimately hinder the success of this initiative, particularly with new assessments and teacher evaluation systems concurrently rolling out in many states.

One final note: the new proposed regulations likely won’t apply to school leader preparation programs, since data reporting required under Title II of the Higher Education Act only specifies teacher preparation programs. However, given the importance of school leaders for overall school performance and improvement (including teacher development), Congress should ensure that principal preparation is given the same attention as teacher preparation when it revisits Title II of the Higher Education Act.”