Teacher Preparation Regulations
link to page 1 
February 9, 2017
Teacher Preparation Regulations
On October 12, 2016, the Department of Education (ED)
Table 1. Teacher Preparation Providers and
released final teacher preparation regulations. The new
Programs by Type, 2010 and 2014
rules build on statutory reporting and accountability
requirements for programs that prepare teachers to work in
Providers
Programs
the nation’s elementary and secondary schools.
2010
2014
2014
Since the 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act
Total
2,054
2,171
26,589
(HEA), teacher preparation providers have been required
under Title II of the HEA to report program performance
Traditional, IHE-based
1,458
1,497
18,514
information to state authorities who, in turn, are required to
Alternative, IHE-based
430
473
5,325
assess program quality, identify poor-performing programs,
and report this information to ED. The newly issued
Alternative, non-IHE-based
166
201
2,750
regulations greatly expand the information that must be
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Report on Teacher Quality,
collected and reported and institute new financial penalties
https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/index.html.
for teacher preparation providers that operate programs
identified as “at risk” or “low performing.”
In addition to state requirements for becoming a teacher,
Title II statutes oblige states to report several program
According to ED’s most recent report on teacher
attributes such as the number and characteristics of enrolled
preparation in the United States, nearly 500,000 individuals
teaching candidates, subject area specializations, and pass
were enrolled in a teacher preparation program during the
rates and scaled scores on certification and licensing exams.
2011-2012 school year, and almost 200,000 teachers
States must report this information for both traditional and
completed a program that year.
alternative route programs.
Program Versus Provider
The HEA further requires states to develop criteria to assess
program quality, identify “at risk” and “low performing”
ED makes a distinction between various types of preparation
programs, and report this information to ED. In 2014, 12
programs and the entities that act as providers of that training.
states identified a total of 45 programs as “at risk” or “low
For example, a col ege of education can act as a provider of
performing”—nearly evenly split between the two
several distinct programs that train people to teach in different
designations. The number of poor performing programs has
contexts and areas of concentration such as elementary
fluctuated from a low of 16 in 2005 to a high of 50 in 2012.
education, high school chemistry, special education, English for
According to ED, since reporting began, 22 states have
speakers of other languages, etc. Current Title II reporting
never identified a program as at risk or low performing.
statutes do not clearly distinguish between providers and
programs; however, ED has been able to estimate the number of
Section 207 of the HEA also states that,
both entities for the most recent reporting cycle.
any teacher preparation program from which the
State has withdrawn the State’s approval, or
In 2014, states reported information on 26,589 teacher
terminated the State’s financial support, due to the
preparation programs operated by 2,171 providers. As
low performance of the program based upon the
Table 1 shows, the majority of programs and providers are
located in institutions of higher education (IHE), while the
State assessment described [in the HEA] shall be
recent growth of providers has largely occurred among
ineligible for any funding for professional
alternative routes into the teaching profession.
development activities awarded by the Department
[and] may not be permitted to accept or enroll any
HEA Reporting and Accountability Rules
student who receives aid under [HEA] Title IV.
HEA provisions (most recently authorized by P.L. 110-315)
It is unclear whether any state has ever withdrawn approval
require states and IHE-based providers to publish report
or financial support for a provider based on an HEA-
cards on the quality of teacher preparation. Based on IHE
mandated program assessment.
report cards and states’ own data collections, states must
report to ED on the quality of both IHE-based and non-
New Regulatory Requirements
IHE-based teacher preparation programs.
The new regulations retain current reporting and
accountability requirements and include (1) clearer
guidance on what constitutes a provider versus a program,
(2) new post-program completion measures, and (3)
additional penalties for poor performance.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Teacher Preparation Regulations
Under the new rules, a provider will be required to report
Such measures were included in a new framework
on each of the individual programs it operates. Section
developed by the field’s largest accrediting body. ED’s
612.2 of the regulations define a program as “a program,
guidance on the new regulations points to five states in
whether traditional or alternative route, offered by a teacher
which this type of structure is already in place. Still, the
preparation entity that leads to initial State teacher
rollout of these systems among IHEs in these states has
certification or licensure in a specific field.” Under the
been slow and somewhat problematic.
regulations, states will now be required to report on
programs offered via distance education.
In early 2012, ED convened a panel of experts to start the
process of negotiated-rulemaking. These sessions quickly
The regulations will require providers to report three new
broke down over issues related to measures of teacher
outcome indicators for candidates completing each type of
effectiveness. When draft rules were released in 2014, more
program they offer: (1) learning outcomes for students
than 2,300 comments were submitted mostly in opposition
taught by program graduates, (2) employment outcomes,
to the role of student test scores in assessing teacher quality
and (3) feedback surveys. Student learning outcomes must
in the proposal.
take into account student growth, teacher evaluation results,
and/or another relevant state-determined measure.
While the role of test scores in the final rules has been
Employment outcomes include placement and retention
lessened, objections to their inclusion remain, as do
rates of graduates in their first three years of teaching,
concerns about the cost and feasibility of implementation.
including placement and retention in high-need schools.
OMB estimated it would cost $42 million over 10 years;
Feedback surveys must solicit opinions from graduates and
however, some argue that figure is far too low.
graduates’ employers on the effectiveness of program
preparation.
Finally, some critics of the new regulations feel that the
new regulations constitute too much federal involvement in
States must use these indicators to gauge program quality
determining how teacher preparation programs are
and rate individual programs as belonging in one of four
appraised. They cite the recent scaling back of educational
categories: exceptional, effective, at risk, or low
accountability provisions in the Every Student Succeeds
performing. In addition to the penalties in place under
Act which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary
current law for providers that lose state approval, the new
Education Act as the kind of approach that should be taken
regulations would punish providers running any program
toward postsecondary education programs.
identified for poor performance. Specifically, providers
operating a program that a state finds to be at risk or low
Recent Congressional Action
performing for two out of three years would lose their
On February 7, 2017, the House passed a resolution
eligibility for TEACH Grant funding. That means all
(H.J.Res. 58) to nullify the new teacher preparation
students enrolled with that provider would lose access to as
regulations by invoking the Congressional Review Act. The
much as $4,000 in federal financial aid. In 2014-2015,
Senate must act on the resolution within a 60-days–of-
TEACH Grants were awarded to just over 30,000 students
Senate-session period for the disapproval to take effect.
attending about 800 IHEs.
Related Documents
States are expected to work with providers and other
The full text of the final teacher preparation regulation is
stakeholders to design the new reporting system during the
available at http://www.ed.gov/teacherprep?src=teachprep-
2016-2017 school year, pilot the system during 2017-2018,
pr.
and fully implement it in 2018-2019. TEACH Grant
accountability provisions are not set to take effect until the
More information on the TEACH Grant is available at
2021-2022 school year.
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/grants-scholarships/
teach#what-is-teach.
More Agreement on the Problem Than
on the Solution
For analysis of the Congressional Review Act, see CRS In
Many in the teacher preparation field agree that
Focus IF10023, The Congressional Review Act (CRA), by
accountability for the quality of teacher training has been
Maeve P. Carey and Christopher M. Davis.
insufficient. Even with the changes made during the most
recent HEA reauthorization, current quality indicators
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, Specialist in Education Policy
largely focused on program completion data fall short of the
kinds of outcome measures many experts think are needed.
IF10596
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Teacher Preparation Regulations
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10596 · VERSION 2 · NEW
February 9, 2017
Teacher Preparation Regulations
On October 12, 2016, the Department of Education (ED)
Table 1. Teacher Preparation Providers and
released final teacher preparation regulations. The new
Programs by Type, 2010 and 2014
rules build on statutory reporting and accountability
requirements for programs that prepare teachers to work in
Providers
Programs
the nation’s elementary and secondary schools.
2010
2014
2014
Since the 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act
Total
2,054
2,171
26,589
(HEA), teacher preparation providers have been required
under Title II of the HEA to report program performance
Traditional, IHE-based
1,458
1,497
18,514
information to state authorities who, in turn, are required to
Alternative, IHE-based
430
473
5,325
assess program quality, identify poor-performing programs,
and report this information to ED. The newly issued
Alternative, non-IHE-based
166
201
2,750
regulations greatly expand the information that must be
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Report on Teacher Quality,
collected and reported and institute new financial penalties
https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/index.html.
for teacher preparation providers that operate programs
identified as “at risk” or “low performing.”
In addition to state requirements for becoming a teacher,
Title II statutes oblige states to report several program
According to ED’s most recent report on teacher
attributes such as the number and characteristics of enrolled
preparation in the United States, nearly 500,000 individuals
teaching candidates, subject area specializations, and pass
were enrolled in a teacher preparation program during the
rates and scaled scores on certification and licensing exams.
2011-2012 school year, and almost 200,000 teachers
States must report this information for both traditional and
completed a program that year.
alternative route programs.
Program Versus Provider
The HEA further requires states to develop criteria to assess
program quality, identify “at risk” and “low performing”
ED makes a distinction between various types of preparation
programs, and report this information to ED. In 2014, 12
programs and the entities that act as providers of that training.
states identified a total of 45 programs as “at risk” or “low
For example, a col ege of education can act as a provider of
performing”—nearly evenly split between the two
several distinct programs that train people to teach in different
designations. The number of poor performing programs has
contexts and areas of concentration such as elementary
fluctuated from a low of 16 in 2005 to a high of 50 in 2012.
education, high school chemistry, special education, English for
According to ED, since reporting began, 22 states have
speakers of other languages, etc. Current Title II reporting
never identified a program as at risk or low performing.
statutes do not clearly distinguish between providers and
programs; however, ED has been able to estimate the number of
Section 207 of the HEA also states that,
both entities for the most recent reporting cycle.
any teacher preparation program from which the
State has withdrawn the State’s approval, or
In 2014, states reported information on 26,589 teacher
terminated the State’s financial support, due to the
preparation programs operated by 2,171 providers. As
low performance of the program based upon the
Table 1 shows, the majority of programs and providers are
located in institutions of higher education (IHE), while the
State assessment described [in the HEA] shall be
recent growth of providers has largely occurred among
ineligible for any funding for professional
alternative routes into the teaching profession.
development activities awarded by the Department
[and] may not be permitted to accept or enroll any
HEA Reporting and Accountability Rules
student who receives aid under [HEA] Title IV.
HEA provisions (most recently authorized by P.L. 110-315)
It is unclear whether any state has ever withdrawn approval
require states and IHE-based providers to publish report
or financial support for a provider based on an HEA-
cards on the quality of teacher preparation. Based on IHE
mandated program assessment.
report cards and states’ own data collections, states must
report to ED on the quality of both IHE-based and non-
New Regulatory Requirements
IHE-based teacher preparation programs.
The new regulations retain current reporting and
accountability requirements and include (1) clearer
guidance on what constitutes a provider versus a program,
(2) new post-program completion measures, and (3)
additional penalties for poor performance.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Teacher Preparation Regulations
Under the new rules, a provider will be required to report
Such measures were included in a new framework
on each of the individual programs it operates. Section
developed by the field’s largest accrediting body. ED’s
612.2 of the regulations define a program as “a program,
guidance on the new regulations points to five states in
whether traditional or alternative route, offered by a teacher
which this type of structure is already in place. Still, the
preparation entity that leads to initial State teacher
rollout of these systems among IHEs in these states has
certification or licensure in a specific field.” Under the
been slow and somewhat problematic.
regulations, states will now be required to report on
programs offered via distance education.
In early 2012, ED convened a panel of experts to start the
process of negotiated-rulemaking. These sessions quickly
The regulations will require providers to report three new
broke down over issues related to measures of teacher
outcome indicators for candidates completing each type of
effectiveness. When draft rules were released in 2014, more
program they offer: (1) learning outcomes for students
than 2,300 comments were submitted mostly in opposition
taught by program graduates, (2) employment outcomes,
to the role of student test scores in assessing teacher quality
and (3) feedback surveys. Student learning outcomes must
in the proposal.
take into account student growth, teacher evaluation results,
and/or another relevant state-determined measure.
While the role of test scores in the final rules has been
Employment outcomes include placement and retention
lessened, objections to their inclusion remain, as do
rates of graduates in their first three years of teaching,
concerns about the cost and feasibility of implementation.
including placement and retention in high-need schools.
OMB estimated it would cost $42 million over 10 years;
Feedback surveys must solicit opinions from graduates and
however, some argue that figure is far too low.
graduates’ employers on the effectiveness of program
preparation.
Finally, some critics of the new regulations feel that the
new regulations constitute too much federal involvement in
States must use these indicators to gauge program quality
determining how teacher preparation programs are
and rate individual programs as belonging in one of four
appraised. They cite the recent scaling back of educational
categories: exceptional, effective, at risk, or low
accountability provisions in the Every Student Succeeds
performing. In addition to the penalties in place under
Act which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary
current law for providers that lose state approval, the new
Education Act as the kind of approach that should be taken
regulations would punish providers running any program
toward postsecondary education programs.
identified for poor performance. Specifically, providers
operating a program that a state finds to be at risk or low
Recent Congressional Action
performing for two out of three years would lose their
On February 7, 2017, the House passed a resolution
eligibility for TEACH Grant funding. That means all
(H.J.Res. 58) to nullify the new teacher preparation
students enrolled with that provider would lose access to as
regulations by invoking the Congressional Review Act. The
much as $4,000 in federal financial aid. In 2014-2015,
Senate must act on the resolution within a 60-days–of-
TEACH Grants were awarded to just over 30,000 students
Senate-session period for the disapproval to take effect.
attending about 800 IHEs.
Related Documents
States are expected to work with providers and other
The full text of the final teacher preparation regulation is
stakeholders to design the new reporting system during the
available at http://www.ed.gov/teacherprep?src=teachprep-
2016-2017 school year, pilot the system during 2017-2018,
pr.
and fully implement it in 2018-2019. TEACH Grant
accountability provisions are not set to take effect until the
More information on the TEACH Grant is available at
2021-2022 school year.
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/grants-scholarships/
teach#what-is-teach.
More Agreement on the Problem Than
on the Solution
For analysis of the Congressional Review Act, see CRS In
Many in the teacher preparation field agree that
Focus IF10023, The Congressional Review Act (CRA), by
accountability for the quality of teacher training has been
Maeve P. Carey and Christopher M. Davis.
insufficient. Even with the changes made during the most
recent HEA reauthorization, current quality indicators
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, Specialist in Education Policy
largely focused on program completion data fall short of the
kinds of outcome measures many experts think are needed.
IF10596
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Teacher Preparation Regulations
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10596 · VERSION 2 · NEW