ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY • ADAMS STATE COLLEGE • • ALABAMA A&M UNIVERSITY • ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY • ALBANY STATE UNIVERSITY • ALCORN STATE UNIVERSITY • ALDERSON BROADDUS COLLEGE • ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY • ALVERNIA COLLEGE • ALVERNO COLLEGE • AMERICAN UNIVERSITY • ANDERSON UNIVERSITY-IN • ANDERSON UNIVERSITY-SC • ANDREWS UNIVERSITY • ANGELO STATE UNIVERSITY • AQUINAS COLLEGE • ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY WEST • ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY • ARKANSAS TECH UNIVERSITY • ARMSTRONG ATLANTIC STATE UNIVERSITY • ASBURY COLLEGE • ASHFORD UNIVERSITY • ATHENS STATE UNIVERSITY • AUBURN UNIVERSITY • AUBURN UNIVERSITY MONTGOMERY • AUGSBURG COLLEGE • AUGUSTA STATE UNIVERSITY • AUGUSTANA COLLEGE • AUGUSTANA COLLEGE • AURORA UNIVERSITY • AUSTIN COLLEGE • AUSTIN PEAY STATE UNIVERSITY • AVILA UNIVERSITY • BAKER UNIVERSITY • BALDWIN-WALLACE COLLEGE • BALL STATE UNIVERSITY • BANK STREET COLLEGE OF EDUCATION • BARTON COLLEGE • • BELLARMINE UNIVERSITY • BELMONT UNIVERSITY • BEMIDJI STATE UNIVERSITY • BENEDICT COLLEGE • BENEDICTINE COLLEGE • BENNETT COLLEGE • BEREA COLLEGE • BERRY COLLEGE • BETHANY COLLEGE • BETHEL UNIVERSITY-MN • BETHEL UNIVERSITY-TN • BETHUNE COOKMAN UNIVERSITY • BIRMINGHAM SOUTHERN COLLEGE • BLACK HILLS STATE UNIVERSITY • BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY OF PA • BLUE MOUNTAIN COLLEGE • BLUEFIELD STATE COLLEGE • BLUFFTON UNIVERSITY • BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY • BOSTON COLLEGE • BOSTON UNIVERSITY • BOWIE STATE UNIVERSITY • BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY • BRADLEY UNIVERSITY • BRENAU UNIVERSITY • • BRIDGEWATER COLLEGE • BRIDGEWATER STATE COLLEGE • BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY • BROOKLYN COLLEGE OF CUNY • BUTLER UNIVERSITY • CALDWELL COLLEGE • CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY • CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY • CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY POMONA • CSU CHICO • CSU DOMIGUEZ HILLS • CSU EAST BAY • CSU FRESNO • CSU FULLERTON • CSU LONG BEACH • CSU LOS ANGELES • CSU NORTHRIDGE • CSU SACRAMENTO • CSU SAN BERNARDINO • CSU SAN MARCOS • CSU STANISLAUS • CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF PA • CALUMET COLLEGE OF ST. JOSEPH • CALVIN COLLEGE • CAMERON UNIVERSITY • • CAMPBELLSVILLE UNIVERSITY • CANISIUS COLLEGE • CAPELLA UNIVERSITY • CAPITAL UNIVERSITY • CARDINAL STRITCH UNIVERSITY • CARSON-NEWMAN COLLEGE • CASE WESTERN RESERVE Transformations in UNIVERSITY • CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA • CENTENARY COLLEGE OF LOUISIANA • CENTRAL COLLEGE • CENTRAL CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY • CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY • CENTRAL STATE UNIVERSITY • CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY • CHADRON STATE COLLEGE • CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY Educator Preparation: • CHARLESTON SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY • CHEYNEY UNIVERSITY • CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY • • CHRISTIAN BROTHERS UNIVERSITY • CITADEL MILITARY COLLEGE OF SC • CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK • CITY UNIVERSITY OF SEATTLE • CLAFLIN UNIVERSITY • CLAREMONT GRADUATE UNIVERSITY Effectiveness and • CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY • CLARKE UNIVERSITY • CLAYTON STATE UNIVERSITY • CLEMSON UNIVERSITY • CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY • COASTAL CAROLINA UNIVERSITY • COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON • COLLEGE OF IDAHO • COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY • COLLEGE OF SAINT BENEDICT/SAINT JOHN’S UNIVERSITY • Accountability COLLEGE OF SAINT ROSE • COLLEGE OF SAINT SCHOLASTICA • COLLEGE OF STATEN ISLAND CITY • COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY • COLLEGE OF WOOSTER • COLORADO COLLEGE • COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY • COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO • COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY • COLUMBUS STATE UNIVERSITY • CONCORD UNIVERSITY • CONCORDIA COLLEGE-MN • CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY-IL • CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY-NE • CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY ST PAUL • COPPIN STATE UNIVERSITY • CORBAN UNIVERSITY • CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY • CULVER-STOCKTON COLLEGE • CUMBERLAND UNIVERSITY • DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY • • DAVIDSON COLLEGE • DAVIS & ELKINS COLLEGE • DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY • DELTA STATE UNIVERSITY • DICKINSON STATE UNIVERSITY • DOANE COLLEGE • DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY • DOWLING COLLEGE • DRAKE UNIVERSITY • DRURY UNIVERSITY • DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY June 22, 2011 • D’YOUVILLE COLLEGE • EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY • EAST CENTRAL UNIVERSITY • EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY • EASTERN CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY • EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY • EASTERN MENNONITE UNIVERSITY • EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY • EASTERN NAZARENE COLLEGE • EASTERN NEW MEXICO UNIVERSITY • EASTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY • EDGEWOOD COLLEGE • EDINBORO UNIVERSITY OF PA • EDISON STATE COLLEGE • ELIZABETH CITY STATE UNIVERSITY • ELMHURST COLLEGE • ELON UNIVERSITY • EMORY UNIVERSITY • EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY • ERSKINE COLLEGE • EVANGEL UNIVERSITY • EVERGREEN STATE COLLEGE • FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY • FAIRMONT STATE UNIVERSITY • FAYETTEVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY • FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY • FISK UNIVERSITY • FIVE TOWNS COLLEGE • FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY • FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY • FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY • FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY • FLORIDA MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY • • • FORDHAM UNIVERSITY LINCOLN CENTER • FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY • FORT LEWIS COLLEGE • FORT VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY • FRAMINGHAM STATE COLLEGE • FRANCIS MARION UNIVERSITY • FRANKLIN COLLEGE • FREED HARDEMAN UNIVERSITY • FROSTBURG STATE UNIVERSITY • FURMAN UNIVERSITY • GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY • GANNON UNIVERSITY • GARDNER- WEBB UNIVERSITY • GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY • GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY • GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY • • GEORGIA COLLEGE & STATE UNIVERSITY • GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY • GEORGIA SOUTHWESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY • GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY • GEORGIAN COURT UNIVERSITY • GLENVILLE STATE COLLEGE • GONZAGA UNIVERSITY • GOSHEN COLLEGE • GOVERNORS STATE UNIVERSITY • GRACE COLLEGE • GRACELAND UNIVERSITY • GRAMBLING STATE UNIVERSITY • GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY • GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY • • GREENVILLE COLLEGE • GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS COLLEGE • HAMLINE UNIVERSITY • HAMPTON UNIVERSITY • HARDING UNIVERSITY • HARRIS-STOWE STATE UNIVERSITY • HASTINGS COLLEGE • HEIDELBERG UNIVERSITY • HENDERSON STATE UNIVERSITY • HIRAM COLLEGE • HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY • • HOWARD UNIVERSITY • OF CUNY • HUNTINGTON UNIVERSITY • IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY • ILLINOIS COLLEGE • ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY • INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY • INDIANA UNIVERSITY EAST • INDIANA UNIVERSITY KOKOMO • INDIANA UNIVERSITY NORTHWEST • INDIANA UNIVERSITY OF PA • INDIANA UNIVERSITY PURDUE UNIVERSITY BLOOMINGTON • INDIANA UNIVERSITY PURDUE UNIVERSITY FORT WAYNE • INDIANA UNIVERSITY SOUTH BEND • INDIANA UNIVERSITY SOUTHEAST • INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • IONA COLLEGE • IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY • • JACKSONVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY • • JOHN • JOHN CARROLL UNIVERSITY • JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY • JOHNSON C SMITH UNIVERSITY • JONES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY • KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY • KAPLAN UNIVERSITY • KEAN UNIVERSITY • KEENE STATE COLLEGE • KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY • KENT STATE UNIVERSITY • KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY • KING’S COLLEGE • KUTZTOWN UNIVERSITY • LAMAR UNIVERSITY • LANDER UNIVERSITY • LANGSTON UNIVERSITY • LEE UNIVERSITY • LEES MCRAE COLLEGE • LEHMAN COLLEGE OF CUNY • LEMOYNE OWEN COLLEGE • LENOIR RHYNE UNIVERSITY • • LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE • LEWIS CLARK STATE COLLEGE • LEWIS UNIVERSITY • • LIMESTONE COLLEGE • LINCOLN UNIVERSITY • LINCOLN UNIVERSITY OF PA • • LINDSEY WILSON COLLEGE • LIPSCOMB UNIVERSITY • LIVINGSTONE COLLEGE • LOCK HAVEN UNIVERSITY • • LORAS COLLEGE • • LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY ALEXANDRIA • LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SHREVEPORT • 2 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education • June 22, 2011

he reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation Act (ESEA) and Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA) is prompting policy makers, teachers, parents, Tand many other education stakeholders to carefully consider the current state of schooling in the United States and how federal policy can best generate and support efforts to ensure a strong education for all children. Students must graduate from high school ready to enter college or begin a career, yet too often, they are not adequately prepared. Today, many students are required to take remedial courses when they enter college, and those that enter the workforce directly after high school often find them- selves without basic knowledge and relevant skills to find a career that offers opportunities for professional growth and a living wage. In both cases, these high school graduates are at significant risk of not maximizing their employment and earning potential over time. Not only are these individuals disadvantaged by this reality, but our country suffers economically and socially when its citizens are not able to fully contribute to their community. In response, federal, state, and local policy makers are focus- ing on education reform and ensuring that our students have the skills and knowledge they need in an increasingly competitive world. As policy makers work to improve the education system, educator preparation and the effectiveness of our education work- force must be the central focus of this effort. Research makes clear that a fundamental driver of student achievement is the quality of a child’s teacher.1 Unfortunately, the most effective teachers are unevenly dis- tributed among schools. Students with the greatest needs often have the least access to the best teachers. Extensive research attests to the fact that children in high-poverty schools are much more likely than their more advantaged peers to be assigned new teach- ers, teachers who lack knowledge of their subjects, and teach- ers with lower academic skills. These factors contribute to lower achievement for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.2 The abundant research points to one undeniable fact: Prop- erly preparing new teachers is essential if we are to increase stu- Transformations in Educator Preparation: Effectiveness and Accountability 3

dent learning and close the achievement gap for disadvantaged children. All new teachers must be prepared to implement high- impact instruction designed to realize attainment of demanding objectives for all learners, including low-income students, stu- dents with disabilities, and English language learners (ELLs).

Why Educator Preparation Must Be Transformed As Congress works to reauthorize ESEA and HEA, transform- ing educator preparation and strengthening accountability for preparation programs is vital to ensuring that high school gradu- ates are college- and career-ready. More effective teachers mean higher student achievement and higher rates of college persis- tence and completion. Also, teachers are providing instruction and expected to raise student achievement among an increasingly diverse population of students, including ELLs and students with disabilities. The Nation’s Report Card, or the National Assessment of Edu- cation Progress, has shown some improvement in recent years. However, serious achievement gaps remain, especially between minority and nonminority students, students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers, and ELLs and their English-speak- ing peers. In addition, whether students receive instruction from an effective teacher greatly impacts the likelihood of their taking remedial education courses in college.3, 4 Diversity in the general education environment has only increased since the last reauthorization of ESEA, dubbed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). With NCLB’s requirements to hold schools accountable for the achievement of subgroups of children—including ELLs and children with disabilities—schools have increasingly focused on providing instruction to all students through general education teachers. This has resulted in general education teachers being responsible for providing instruction to a much more diverse student population than they taught a decade ago.5 4 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education • June 22, 2011

The Current Federal Investment in Educator Preparation The bulk of any effort or investment to affect reform within the profession should be directed to higher education if the goal is to achieve systemic and impactful change. Currently 90% of new teachers are prepared in institutions of higher education (IHEs), and even those preparing to be teachers through nonprofit, state or district programs usually receive some of their preparation through IHEs. The schools of education at IHEs offer both under- graduate preparation programs and alternate programs at the graduate and postbaccalaureate level that lead to initial certifica- tion. More than 1,400 institutions—and thousands of programs within them—prepare teachers, principals, school counselors, and other education professionals. Clearly, higher education is at the core of educator preparation in this country. The current federal investment in educator preparation is primarily made through three levers: TEACH grants, Teacher Quality Partnership grants, and the accountability provisions for educator preparation programs.* These programs and provisions provide funding for teacher candidates and the programs that pre- pare them and require programs to report on their quality. The TEACH grants, authorized in 2008, provide upto $16,000 for undergraduate teacher candidates and up to $8,000 for graduate teacher candidates to support tuition and other school-related expenses for their preparation. Upon completion of their programs, recipients must teach for 4 years in a high-need school and high-need field. To be eligible for a TEACH grant, applicants must maintain a 3.25 GPA or have scored in the top quartile of a college admissions test such as the SAT or ACT. To date, $234,000,000 in TEACH grant monies has been disbursed

* Other federal programs that support the preparation of educators, either as part of the grant or in whole, are Math and Science Partnerships (the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation), Transi- tion to Teaching, School Leadership, Elementary and Secondary School Counseling, and Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow (although this was eliminated in the final FY 2011 appropriations bill). Transformations in Educator Preparation: Effectiveness and Accountability 5

to more than 35,000 teacher candidates. In the 2010-2011 school year, the first group of TEACH grant recipients entered class- rooms as teachers in math, science, special education, and other shortage areas. Another federal lever used to enhance educator preparation is the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) grant program, which provides funding to partnerships of IHEs, high-need school dis- tricts, and high-need schools to improve and strengthen teacher preparation and student achievement. Under TQP, institutions benefit from working closely with school districts that are essen- tially customers for the teachers they produce. School districts benefit because they get access to university-based education leaders who can improve the effectiveness of their teachers. The TQP program holds the clinical experience of teacher candidates as the core preparation component that leads to new-teacher effectiveness. Currently the TQP program is funded at $43 million, and through this, 40 grantees* are redesigning their undergradu- ate teacher preparation programs, implementing master’s-level teacher residency programs, and building school leadership prep- aration programs. The partnerships funded through TQP are pro- ducing dramatic and positive results. More than 10,000 teacher candidates and 500 high-need schools are benefitting from these grants. Grantees are using these funds to improve their prepara- tion programs by evaluating the effectiveness of their graduates, implementing targeted changes based on graduates’ experience, and strengthening and evaluating clinical practice. Unfortunately, the accountability requirements for teacher preparation programs under Title II have not had the same impact as the TQP grants on improving preparation programs. While every institution and state has annually submitted the data required by the statute regarding the quality and productivity of preparation programs, the data are primarily focused on pro- gram inputs rather than on program outcomes. Additionally, the statute requires states to report the names of the low-performing

* 12 of the grantees are funded through ARRA funds. 6 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education • June 22, 2011

programs and the criteria by which their performance is judged. In the nearly 13 years since the enactment of this statute, the vast majority of states have failed to identify their low-performing programs. In addition, those programs identified by states as low- performing tend to stay on the low-performing list year after year. Many states have only vague criteria for how the performance of their teacher preparation programs is judged. Improving teacher preparation and the effectiveness of our teachers should be a top priority for policy makers as they work to reauthorize ESEA. The drive of states, school districts, schools, and parents to increase achievement makes these issues even more important than when ESEA was last reauthorized 10 years ago. This drive, coupled with research showcasing the critical link between preparation and effectiveness, prompts us to offer the following key recommendations to strengthen teacher prepara- tion and effectiveness in the upcoming reauthorization of ESEA.

Policy Recommendations Following are AACTE’s policy recommendations for ESEA reauthorization. The recommendations encompass a wide range of areas within teacher quality that impact educator preparation: programmatic support, accountability provisions, and statewide data systems.

Recommendation #1: The Teacher Quality Partnership program should be renamed the Educator Quality Partnership program and be revamped to focus on supporting the educator preparation and staffing needs of the partner schools and districts.

Federal support for improving how IHEs prepare teachers is primarily provided through the TQP program under Title II of HEA. With the demands being placed on school districts to improve teacher effectiveness, educator preparation—and specifi- cally the TQP program—needs to be supported and improved. Transformations in Educator Preparation: Effectiveness and Accountability 7

For this reason, we urge Congress to include the TQP program in ESEA reauthorization with the following key changes: • Expand the focus of the program to include preparing and supporting teachers, principals, school administrators, psychologists, and other key education personnel. • Require that activities funded under the program be guided by an assessment of the actual needs of the school district partners. • Integrate key activities to improve educator preparation in the areas of turning around struggling schools; meeting the needs of ELLs; reducing discipline problems; improving the use of data by educators; and building stronger induction and mentoring programs for new teachers. • Maintain existing features of the TQP program such as »» Requiring at least a one-year clinical experience in preparation programs. »» Collaborating closely with the arts and sciences as appropriate. »» Requiring a program match and maintaining the existing waiver authority. »» Closely following program graduates into the classroom. »» Focusing on preparing educators for high-need schools and high-need subject/field areas.

Recommendation #2: Two levels of teacher definitions should exist—Qualified and Effective

The enactment of NCLB introduced the concept of a “highly qualified teacher” to the education lexicon. Teachers all across the country sought to meet this standard and school districts worked to implement its requirements. While reinforcing the impor- tance of state certification and subject matter competency, these requirements produced little evidence that they were driving stu- dent achievement as the law requires no demonstration of the impact on student learning. Rather than focusing solely on inputs measures, we recommend establishing a set of baseline criteria 8 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education • June 22, 2011

that determine if new teachers are “qualified” and veteran teachers are “effective.” Specifically, AACTE proposes: • A new “qualified” teacher definition that serves as a base set of criteria for teachers who are entering the profession for the first time. This definition would not discriminate based on the teacher preparation program or pathway an individual teacher attended. All existing teachers who are currently highly qualified would meet this definition. A “qualified” teacher has: »» Obtained full state certification or licensure. »» Completed a state-approved teacher preparation program. »» Passed a state-approved performance assessment. • A new “effective” teacher definition that would apply to all existing teachers and those teachers who have taught previously. An “effective” teacher has: »» Obtained full state certification or licensure. »» Demonstrated evidence of success through multiple measures, including evidence of student learning gains and evaluations, as defined by the state. • School districts are not permitted to hire nonqualified and noneffective teachers with Title I funding. Rather, school districts could use their own state or local funding to hire teachers who have not met these definitions. This recommendation is consistent with the existing requirements related to highly qualified teachers under current law. • School districts that hire teachers who do not meet the qualified or effective definitions would have to: »» Publically report on the number of teachers who have not met these definitions and whether these teachers are located in schools that receive Title I funding. »» Provide adequate supervision for teachers without a “qualified” designation with an effective teacher. »» Equitably distribute teachers who do not meet these definitions across all schools in the district to avoid concentrations in high-poverty schools. Transformations in Educator Preparation: Effectiveness and Accountability 9

Teacher Performance Assessment A recent development that will significantly strengthen accountability for teacher preparation programs and reflect candidates’ readiness for the classroom is the creation of a nationally available, valid, and reliable teacher performance assessment (TPA).6 AACTE, Stanford University, and Pearson are leading the Teacher Performance Assessment Consortium, which involves 21 states and more than 80 teacher preparation programs collaborating on a nationally accessible preservice assessment that will be used to improve teacher preparation and assess the readiness of teacher candidates to become the “teacher of record.” This effort is based on the existing Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). The TPA is a multiple-measure assessment system to be used by teacher preparation programs throughout the latter part of a teacher candidate’s preparation. This system is subject specific, with separate evaluations for elementary and secondary credential areas. It will analyze lesson plans, video clips of instruction, student work samples, and teacher assignments. The capstone assessment in the TPA analyzes a 3-to-5-day period of instruction in the teacher candidate’s student teaching experience. A few additional performance assessment models exist, but they are not as widely used as TPA, nor do most of them have the reliability and validity that TPA and PACT do.

Recommendation #3: Teacher evaluation efforts should incorporate multiple measures of assessment including impact on student learning, classroom observations, peer reviews, and school-wide progress on meeting key indicators of success.

Coupled with an expanded focus on teacher preparation is the equally important issue of evaluating teachers on their impact 10 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education • June 22, 2011

on raising student achievement. Many states and school districts have established teacher evaluation systems with differing levels of specificity and focus. ESEA must take a role in helping shape fair and effective teacher evaluation systems that allow school officials to accurately assess a teacher’s impact in the classroom. To accomplish this, AACTE recommends that ESEA encour- age the development and implementation of fair and effective teacher evaluation systems. Specifically, ESEA should encourage the development and implementation of evaluation systems that: • Use performance assessments. • Measure growth in student achievement based on state and district assessments and teacher-generated assessments. • Take into account the performance of a school’s students as a whole in addition to the impact of individual teachers on individual students. • Include multiple measures of effectiveness as determined by the state or school district. • Require school districts to develop a plan to ensure the equitable distribution of teachers within the district. The Teacher Incentive Fund also plays an important role in promoting a culture of teacher effectiveness through the grants that districts, state agencies, and national organizations such as the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards have received under this program. To date this program has not been formally authorized by Congress, despite having been funded through annual appropriations. Authorizing this program would enhance Congress’ ability to conduct thoughtful oversight that could further strengthen the strong foundation that this program has created and inform practices as well as policy. In order to con- tinue to enhance teacher effectiveness, we recommend the Teacher Incentive Fund be authorized as a separate program within ESEA. Transformations in Educator Preparation: Effectiveness and Accountability 11

Recommendation #4: Current accountability provisions in Title II of HEA should be streamlined and focused on program outcomes, and the federal government should actively enforce provisions regarding the identification and closure of low-performing and at-risk programs.

AACTE and its member institutions are committed to prepar- ing educators who are ready to be effective in schools, and we support using statewide data systems for program improvement. The federal role in holding preparation programs accountable is carried out by requiring institutions and states to submit annual report cards that capture data on pass rates and scores of teacher candidates on certification exams, demographic information on the teacher candidates, information on clinical components of programs, and efforts to prepare teachers to meet the needs of diverse student populations. Current law requires states to identify low-performing teacher preparation programs and to provide technical assistance to them. It is up to each state to determine its criteria for low-performing programs and the length and type of technical assistance made available to low-performing programs. Since 2002, less than half of states reported having “at-risk” or “low-performing” programs, and in states that have identified such programs, many of the institutions maintain those designations for several years. AACTE urges the Department to consider how it can more actively enforce the accountability provisions, particularly around the identifica- tion of low-performing and at-risk programs. AACTE believes that preparation programs that fail to pro- duce effective teachers who raise student academic achievement should close. To achieve these goals, we recommend that ESEA require: • Strengthened accountability provisions related to teacher preparation programs under Title II of HEA: 12 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education • June 22, 2011

»» States, in developing criteria for identifying low- performing teacher preparation programs, must allow for public comment on such criteria, and any finalized criteria should be made publicly available. »» States must continue to identify low-performing teacher preparation programs as required under current law, but also include student achievement attributable to graduates of individual programs (as appropriate) as a factor in determining whether a program is low performing. Other factors to be considered include placement and retention of graduates, candidate success in passing valid performance assessments, and principal evaluations. »» The statute must establish a period of time by which low-performing programs will be reviewed for program improvement. If these programs continue to be identified as low performing, they should be closed. »» States that do not develop, implement, and publicly dis- close their criteria for low-performing programs would lose a portion of the administrative funds they receive under ESEA programs. »» All educator preparation programs (university-based, nonprofit, for-profit, state, and local) must be subject to the same accountability provisions to ensure consistency in the effectiveness of graduates. • All providers of educator preparation must submit report cards on program quality with all existing reporting requirements applying to all educator preparation programs (university-based, nonprofit, for-profit, state, and local). • States, rather than IHEs, must report on the number of individuals who have been certified or licensed to teach. • All teacher preparation programs must set annual goals for preparing teachers for high-need subject areas and ensure teachers are prepared to meet the needs of diverse learners. Transformations in Educator Preparation: Effectiveness and Accountability 13

Recommendation #5: The federal government must invest in statewide data systems that include a link to teacher preparation programs and that track key aspects of programs that lead to effectiveness.

Data allow for both oversight and improvement of prepara- tion programs and are a critical tool for educators in understand- ing what instructional techniques produce consistent student achievement. Given the current state of accountability for educa- tor preparation programs, it is clear that the capacity for institu- tions and states to collect data, beyond the current input data, varies significantly from place to place. Moreover, in most cases, the capacity to follow graduates into the classroom to collect placement, retention, and effectiveness data does not exist at this time. One of the most important tools to assist in this effort is statewide data systems.

A Promising Statewide Data System Many states have begun to embrace the need for meaningful accountability that leads to reform of teacher preparation programs. The Louisiana Board of Regents has developed a Value-Added Teacher Preparation Model to examine the effectiveness of its teacher preparation programs. The model predicts student achievement in grades 4-9, compares the prediction to student performance on several standardized tests, and compares the achievement of students taught by program graduates to that of similar students taught by certified teachers who have taught for 2 or more years. Through this model, the Regents have found that varying levels of effectiveness exist within and across teacher preparation programs and that certified teachers are more effective than teachers who are not certified to teach the content. Institutions in Louisiana have used the data produced from this model to better understand the quality of their programs and to modify their programs. 14 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education • June 22, 2011

There is much focus on enabling these data systems to collect information on students and teachers. Little attention, though, is given to building in links to teacher preparation programs and collecting data on key characteristics of preparation programs that lead to preparing effective educators. AACTE, the Data Quality Campaign, and many other organizations have collabo- rated to develop a template that states can use to ensure data on teacher preparation are built into these systems. AACTE urges the Department to consider this template as it supports the devel- opment of statewide data systems. Further, AACTE recommends the following ESEA requirements: • Educator preparation programs should be given access to data and other measures used to evaluate the performance of their graduates, both to ensure accuracy and fairness and to improve the quality and effectiveness of the programs. • States should work closely with teacher preparation programs in determining the data elements needed in any statewide data system. • As statewide data systems develop, they must allow for track- ing student achievement attributable to individual teachers for purposes of accountability and program improvement. • Statewide data systems should include the ability to track educators’ career paths, induction experiences, and perfor- mance measures (such as impact on student achievement, evaluation results, merit pay, and observational measures). • States should ensure the privacy of both student and educator data. Conclusion The need to strengthen educator preparation and the account- ability of its programs is vital to ensuring that students are career- and college-ready when they graduate from high school. Reauthorization of ESEA and HEA presents an important oppor- tunity to support further transforming educator preparation. AACTE’s recommendations in this area address critical steps to bring about this transformation. Transformations in Educator Preparation: Effectiveness and Accountability 15

Endnotes

1 Jordan, H., Medro, R., & Weerasignhe, D. (1997).Teacher effects on longitudinal student achievement: A preliminary report on research on Teacher Effectiveness; Sanders, W. L. (1998). Value-added assessment. The School Administrator, 55(11), 24-32; Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future academic achievement. University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center; Hanushek, E. A. (1992, February). “The trade-off between child quantity and quality.” Journal of Political Economy, 100(1), 84-117; Ferguson, R., & Ladd, H. (1996). Additional evidence on how and why money matters. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. 2 Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Education Trust; Center for Teaching Quality. (2007). Teaching and learning conditions improve high school reform efforts. Hillsborough, NC: Author; Clotfelter, C. H., Ladd, J. V., & Wheeler, J. (2007). High poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. Working paper 1. Washington, DC: Urban Institute; Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). Why some schools have more underqualified teachers than others. Brookings Paper on Education Policy, 2004(1), 45-48. 3 Strong American Schools. (2009). Diploma to nowhere. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.deltacostproject.org/resources/pdf/ DiplomaToNowhere.pdf 4 Bailey, T. (2009, February). Rethinking developmental education in community college (CCRC Brief No. 40). New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. 5 Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Research Council, Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education. http:// www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html; Blanton, L. P., Pugach, M. C., & Florian, L. (2011). Preparing general education teachers to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and National Center for Learning Disabilities. http://aacte.org/pdf/Publications/Reports_Studies/ AACTE%20NCLD%20Policy%20Brief%20May%202011.pdf 6 See http://www.aacte.org/index.php?/Programs/Teacher-Performance- Assessment-Consortium-TPAC/teacher-performance-assessment- consortium.html LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY • LOURDES COLLEGE • LOYOLA • LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO • LOYOLA UNIVERSITY IN MARYLAND • LYON COLLEGE • MACON STATE COLLEGE • MADONNA UNIVERSITY • MALONE UNIVERSITY • MANCHESTER COLLEGE • • MANSFIELD UNIVERSITY • MARIAN UNIVERSITY • MARIETTA COLLEGE • MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY • MARY BALDWIN COLLEGE • MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY • MARYVILLE UNIVERSITY OF SAINT LOUIS • MAYVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY • MCDANIEL COLLEGE • MCKENDREE UNIVERSITY • MERCER UNIVERSITY • • MEREDITH COLLEGE • METHODIST COLLEGE • METROPOLITAN STATE COLLEGE • METROPOLITAN STATE UNIVERSITY • MIAMI DADE COLLEGE • MIAMI UNIVERSITY • MIDAMERICA NAZARENE UNIVERSITY • MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY • MIDLAND LUTHERAN COLLEGE • MIDWESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY • MILES COLLEGE • MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY OF PA • MILLIGAN COLLEGE • MILLIKIN UNIVERSITY • • MINNESOTA STATE UNIVERSITY MANKATO • MINNESOTA STATE UNIVERSITY MOORHEAD • MINOT STATE UNIVERSITY • COLLEGE • MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY • MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN • MISSISSIPPI VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY • MISSOURI BAPTIST UNIVERSITY • MISSOURI SOUTHERN STATE UNIVERSITY • MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY • MISSOURI WESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY • MOLLOY COLLEGE • MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY • MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY • MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY BILLINGS • MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY • MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY • MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY • MORNINGSIDE COLLEGE • MORRIS COLLEGE • MOUNT MARTY COLLEGE • MOUNT MARY COLLEGE • MOUNT MERCY COLLEGE • MOUNT SAINT MARY’S UNIVERSITY • MOUNT VERNON NAZARENE UNIVERSITY • MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY • NATIONAL LOUIS UNIVERSITY • NATIONAL UNIVERSITY • NEBRASKA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • NEVADA STATE COLLEGE • NEW JERSEY CITY UNIVERSITY • NEW MEXICO HIGHLANDS UNIVERSITY • NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY • NEW YORK CITY COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY • NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY • NEW YORK UNIVERSITY • NEWBERRY COLLEGE • NIAGARA UNIVERSITY • NICHOLLS STATE UNIVERSITY • NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY • NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY • NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY • NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY • NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY • NORTH PARK UNIVERSITY • NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY • NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY • NORTHEASTERN STATE UNIVERSITY • NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY • NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY • NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY • NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY • NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY • NORTHERN STATE UNIVERSITY • NORTHWEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY • NORTHWEST NAZARENE UNIVERSITY • NORTHWESTERN COLLEGE • NORTHWESTERN COLLEGE • NORTHWESTERN OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY • NORTHWESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY • • NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY • OAKLAND CITY UNIVERSITY • OAKLAND UNIVERSITY • OHIO DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY • OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY • OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY • OHIO UNIVERSITY • OHIO WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • OKLAHOMA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY • OKLAHOMA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY • OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY • OKLAHOMA PANHANDLE STATE UNIVERSITY • OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY • OKLAHOMA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY • OLIVET NAZARENE UNIVERSITY • ORAL ROBERTS UNIVERSITY • OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY • OTTAWA UNIVERSITY • OTTERBEIN UNIVERSITY • OUACHITA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY • OUR LADY OF THE LAKE UNIVERSITY • PACE UNIVERSITY • PACIFIC LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY • PACIFIC UNIVERSITY • PAINE COLLEGE • PARK UNIVERSITY • PEACE COLLEGE • PENN STATE HARRISBURG • PENN STATE UNIVERSITY • PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY • PERU STATE COLLEGE • PHILANDER SMITH COLLEGE • PIKEVILLE COLLEGE • PITTSBURG STATE UNIVERSITY • PLYMOUTH STATE UNIVERSITY • POINT LOMA NAZARENE UNIVERSITY • PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY • PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY • PRESBYTERIAN COLLEGE • • PROVIDENCE COLLEGE • PURDUE UNIVERSITY • PURDUE UNIVERSITY CALUMET • PURDUE UNIVERSITY NORTH CENTRAL • QUEENS COLLEGE OF CUNY • QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY • • RAMAPO COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY • REGENT UNIVERSITY • RHODE ISLAND COLLEGE • RICHARD STOCKTON COLLEGE OF NJ • RIDER UNIVERSITY • ROCKHURST UNIVERSITY • ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY • ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY • ROWAN UNIVERSITY • NEW BRUNSWICK • SACRED HEART UNIVERSITY • SAGE COLLEGES • SAGINAW VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY • SAINT AMBROSE UNIVERSITY • SAINT AUGUSTINE’S COLLEGE • SAINT BONAVENTURE UNIVERSITY • SAINT CATHERINE UNIVERSITY • SAINT CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY • SAINT JOHN FISHER COLLEGE • SAINT JOSEPH COLLEGE • SAINT JOSEPH’S COLLEGE • SAINT LEO UNIVERSITY • SAINT MARTIN’S UNIVERSITY • SAINT MARY OF THE WOODS COLLEGE • SAINT MARY’S COLLEGE • SAINT MARY’S COLLEGE OF CA • SAINT OLAF COLLEGE • SAINT PAUL’S COLLEGE • SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS COLLEGE • • SALEM COLLEGE • SALEM INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY • SALEM STATE COLLEGE • SALISBURY UNIVERSITY • SALISH KOOTENAI COLLEGE • • SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY • • SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY • SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY • SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVERSITY • SEATTLE UNIVERSITY • SETON HALL UNIVERSITY • SHAW UNIVERSITY • SHAWNEE STATE UNIVERSITY • SHEPHERD UNIVERSITY • SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY • SIENA COLLEGE • SILVER LAKE COLLEGE • SIMPSON COLLEGE • SLIPPERY ROCK UNIVERSITY OF PA • SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY • SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY • SOUTH COLLEGE • SOUTH DAKOTA American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education STATE UNIVERSITY • SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY • SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA UNIVERSITY • SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY • SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY 1307 New York Ave., NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005• SOUTHERN ADVENTIST UNIVERSITY • SOUTHERN ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY • SOUTHERN www.aacte.org CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY • SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CARBONDALE • SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARDSVILLE • SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY • SOUTHERN NAZARENE UNIVERSITY • SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY • SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND A&M COLLEGE • SOUTHERN The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education is a nationalUNIVERSITY AT NEW ORLEANS • SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE • SOUTHWESTERN OKLAHOMA STATEalliance of educator preparation programs dedicated to the highestUNIVERSITY • SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY • • SPELMAN COLLEGE • SPRING ARBOR UNIVERSITY • SPRING HILL COLLEGE • ST. FRANCIS COLLEGE • STANFORD UNIVERSITY •quality professional development of teachers and school leaders in orderSUNY BUFFALO STATE COLLEGE • SUNY COLLEGE AT BROCKPORT • SUNY COLLEGE AT CORTLAND •to enhance PK-12 student learning. The 800 institutions holding AACTESUNY COLLEGE AT ONEONTA • SUNY GENESEO • SUNY NEW PALTZ • SUNY OSWEGO • STEPHEN F membership represent public and private colleges and universities in everyAUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY • • • SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY • SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY • TABOR COLLEGE • TAYLOR UNIVERSITY • TEMPLE UNIVERSITY • TENNESSEEstate, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam.STATE UNIVERSITY • TENNESSEE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY • TEXAS A&M INTERNATIONAL AACTE’s reach and influence fuel its mission of serving learners by providingUNIVERSITY • TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY • TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY COMMERCE • TEXAS A&M all school personnel with superior training and continuing education.UNIVERSITY CORPUS CHRISTI • TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE • TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY • TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY • TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY SAN MARCOS • TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY • TEXAS WOMAN’S UNIVERSITY • THOMAS MORE COLLEGE • TOURO UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA • TOWSON UNIVERSITY • TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY • TREVECCA NAZARENE UNIVERSITY • TRINITY UNIVERSITY • TRINITY UNIVERSITY • TROY UNIVERSITY • TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY • UNION COLLEGE-KY • UNION COLLEGE-NE • • UNIVERSITY OF AKRON • UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA • UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM • UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA HUNTSVILLE • UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE • UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS • UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA SOUTHEAST • UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA • UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS • UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK • UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT MONTICELLO • UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT PINE BLUFF • UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES • UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS • UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA • UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL MISSOURI • UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA • UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI • UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER • UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT COLORADO SPRINGS • UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER • UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT • UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON • UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE • UNIVERSITY OF DENVER • UNIVERSITY OF DETROIT MERCY • UNIVERSITY OF EVANSVILLE • UNIVERSITY OF FINDLAY • UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA • UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA • UNIVERSITY OF GREAT FALLS • UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD • UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA • UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII WEST OAHU • UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON • UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON CLEAR LAKE • UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON VICTORIA • UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO • UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS • UNIVERSITY OF IOWA • UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS • UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY • UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE • UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE • UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT MONROE • UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE • UNIVERSITY OF MAINE • UNIVERSITY OF MAINE AT FARMINGTON • UNIVERSITY OF MARY HARDIN BAYLOR • UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON • UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY • UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK • UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE • UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE • UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST • UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON • UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH • UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL • UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS • UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI • UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN • UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN FLINT • UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA DULUTH • UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MORRIS • UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES • UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI • UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY • UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI COLUMBIA • UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI SAINT LOUIS • • UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA • UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA WESTERN • • UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT KEARNEY • UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA • UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN • UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS • UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE • UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO • UNIVERSITY OF NORTH ALABAMA • UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL • UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE • UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO • UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT PEMBROKE • UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON • UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA • UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA • UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS • UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO • UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA • UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME • UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA • UNIVERSITY OF OREGON • UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX ARIZONA • UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX COLORADO • UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX HAWAII • UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX INDIANA • UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX LAS VEGAS • UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX PUERTO RICO • UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX UTAH • UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH • UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND • UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO RIO PIEDRAS • UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND • UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND • UNIVERSITY OF RIO GRANDE • UNIVERSITY OF SAINT MARY • UNIVERSITY OF SAINT THOMAS-MN • UNIVERSITY OF SAINT THOMAS- TX • UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO • UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO • UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND ARTS OF OK • UNIVERSITY OF SCRANTON • UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA • UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA • UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN • UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT • UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA UPSTATE • UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA • UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA • UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA ST PETERSBURG • UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFOR • UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN INDIANA • UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MAINE • UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI • UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA • UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT MARTIN • UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE • UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON • UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO • UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS OF THE PERMIAN BASIN