TPPs prepare teaching candidates to employ effective teaching techniques and gain real-world experience in the classroom. TPPs take many forms and may be operated by a variety of organizations (see table 1). For example, the structure of TPPs can vary widely, from “traditional” TPPs such as four-year undergraduate programs with student teaching requirements, to “alternative route” TPPs such as those wherein candidates serve as a classroom teacher while concurrently completing their coursework. State oversight responsibilities related to TPPs may be held by one or more state agencies, including the state department of education, the state board of education, or a state independent standards board. States have discretion in how they conduct oversight of TPP quality, by, for example: defining the types of TPPs that may operate in the state, such as undergraduate or post-baccalaureate TPPs, or alternative route TPPs; reviewing and approving individual TPPs to operate and periodically assessing them for renewal; assessing whether any TPPs in the state are low-performing, as required under the Higher Education Act, using criteria of the state’s choosing; and, setting licensing requirements that teaching candidates must satisfy that often include completing an approved TPP and passing licensing tests that assess subject-matter knowledge or other skills. States are also responsible for adopting academic content standards for K-12 students. To address concerns about inadequately prepared students, all states are now using or developing academic standards that are explicitly tied to college and career preparation (referred to in this report as new K-12 standards). In 2010, the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association spearheaded the effort to help states develop common college- and career-ready standards for grades K-12 in math and English, which resulted in the Common Core State Standards. As of the beginning of the 2014-15 academic year, 44 states and the District of Columbia were using the Common Core Standards that were developed and published in 2010, and the remaining states were using or developing their own college- and career-ready standards. Education does not have direct oversight authority over TPPs.main ways it influences the quality of TPPs are (1) implementing the Higher Education Act Title II reporting requirements and (2) awarding and administering several competitive grants. Title II of the Higher Education Act requires states and institutions of higher education (referred to in this report as “colleges and universities”) that conduct TPPs to annually report specific information. States and most colleges or universities that offer TPPs submit the required data using reporting templates developed by Education (see table 2). In this report we use the term “college or university” to mean “institution of higher education” as defined by the act. This table presents a summary of the templates developed by the Department of Education for reporting purposes and is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the Higher Education Act Title II reporting requirements for states or institutions of higher education. For the statutory reporting requirements, see 20 U.S.C. §§ 1022d-1022f. Education is responsible for ensuring that states and colleges and universities offering TPPs provide the required information. The agency also compiles and disseminates the information to the public in annual reports, webpages and data spreadsheets. Education contracts with a private research organization (Westat) to provide states and colleges and universities with technical assistance in collecting the required information and to assist the agency in compiling, analyzing, and publishing the resulting data. On December 2, 2014, Education published a notice of proposed rulemaking, which among other things, proposed to modify the The proposed rule was available for Title II reporting requirements.public comment through February 2, 2015. As part of this rulemaking effort, Education has also proposed revisions to the templates for reporting the Title II data. Education administers several competitive grant programs that provide funding for TPP reforms. Of these competitive grants, the largest that is focused specifically on improving TPP quality is the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program. In September 2014, Education selected 24 partnerships, including TPPs and partnering school districts, to receive a combined $35 million in Teacher Quality Partnership grant funds to improve teacher preparation primarily for science, technology, engineering, and math teachers. The Transition to Teaching grant program also provides grants to recruit and retain teachers in high-need schools and encourage the development and expansion of alternative route TPPs. Aside from these two grant programs, applicants for grants from the Race to the Top Fund, Investing in Innovation Fund, and Supporting Effective Educator Development program may also choose to develop proposals related to teacher preparation programs and activities, among other topics. For example, Investing in Innovation grants funded 25 projects related to TPPs out of the 143 projects the program has funded during fiscal years 2010-2014. All states reported that they review traditional TPPs before approving them to prepare new teachers and may renew approval on a periodic basis. To do this, nearly all states reported that they review TPP program design and data about candidates before approving them to prepare new teachers, and more than half also use one or more types of information to assess graduates’ effectiveness as teachers. To assess program design, 49 states and the District of Columbia reported in our survey that they assess whether TPPs seeking approval are meeting standards for program quality.specify that teaching candidates should be trained to identify the For example, these standards may appropriate teaching techniques for particular learning needs or achieve a particular threshold of subject matter knowledge. States also reported that they typically reviewed program design for traditional TPPs by reviewing syllabi or other course material (43 states), and interviewing TPP faculty or staff (41 states). To conduct these reviews, states reported that they may use teams made up of peers from other TPPs, state staff, national accreditation organization staff, or a combination, and make determinations using professional judgment. For example, when conducting these reviews, 43 states reported that they consider information collected by an external TPP accreditation organization— such as the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP)—for at least some traditional TPPs. In addition to reviewing program design, nearly all states reported in our survey that they examine data about teaching candidates. Most states reported using data about the proportion of candidates who obtain a teaching license (48 states) and the proportion of candidates who graduate (29 states) as part of their approval process for all traditional TPPs (see fig. 1). These results are based on our survey of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In some instances, the wording of the original survey question has been modified for brevity and to remove technical terminology. See the related e-supplement, GAO-15-599SP, for the original language. Additionally, for information about the teaching candidate data that states used as part of their approval process for alternative route TPPs, see questions 9a, 9f, 9h, and 9i in the related e- supplement. “Pre-service assessments” could include evaluations of candidates’ performance as student teachers. More than half of states reported that they also review certain information about graduate effectiveness when assessing TPPs for approval or renewal. States that incorporate this information reported doing so in several ways. Most commonly, 30 states reported using surveys that assessed principals’ and other district personnel’s satisfaction with recent traditional TPP graduates. Fifteen states reported assessing traditional TPPs based on other outcomes data such as the test scores (i.e., K-12 student assessment results) of public school students taught by recent TPP graduates (see fig. 2). For example, one of our case study states uses such data to help TPPs identify potential problem areas in the training they provide to teaching candidates. Officials in this state told us they used these data to help a TPP identify shortcomings in its social science program. As of the 2014-2015 academic year, at least 10 additional states reported that they planned to begin using graduate effectiveness information or expand their current use of such information as part of their approval process, according to our case study state interviews and several survey responses. For example, officials in Tennessee told us that they currently review some effectiveness data in their approval process and plan to begin reviewing recent TPP graduates’ teacher evaluation results in the future. Additionally, officials in Arizona told us they plan to begin reviewing data on graduate effectiveness as part of their approval process. They told us that the impetus behind adding this new data is to better align the state’s TPP quality standards with recommended requirements presented by CAEP, so that TPPs that already have CAEP approval may receive an expedited state approval process. States and TPPs reported challenges collecting information on graduates’ effectiveness. Officials from 3 of our 5 case study states and 7 of the 14 TPPs we spoke to said that collecting this type of data is difficult. For example, state oversight offices or TPPs would need to obtain key information about TPP graduates—such as performance evaluations or employer survey responses—from local districts and several of these officials noted districts may be difficult to identify or not be willing to provide such information. Officials in one of our case study states noted that it was especially challenging to obtain data on teachers who work in another state or in private schools. As shown in figure 2 above, states more commonly reported using information about the effectiveness of graduates teaching in public schools within their state versus information about those teaching in private schools or in other states. When deciding whether to approve or renew TPPs for operation, 22 states reported using fewer sources of information for alternative route TPPs compared to traditional TPPs. For example, eight states reported that they assessed alternative route TPPs against state developed standards less frequently than traditional TPPs and seven states reported using observations of alternative route TPP courses or experiences less frequently (see table 3). The differences in how states approve alternative route TPPs compared to traditional TPPs may be a consequence of several factors, including how states define alternative route TPPs and differences in state requirements for alternative route and traditional TPPs.