Return to Headlines

State Board of Education Discusses EPP Accountability Measures

Elizabeth Yelverton | NCASA Legal Affairs & Policy Manager

Staff from the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) presented an update on proposed changes to educator preparation program (EPP) performance standards and accountability measures during the monthly State Board of Education meeting on Wednesday. In July 2019, the NC General Assembly approved House Bill 107 (H107) to make changes to the performance standards that all EPPs must meet in order to continue recommending candidates for licensure and avoid sanctions. Specifically, H107 requires the State Board to work with the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and the Professional Educator Preparation and Standards Commission (PEPSC) to develop a “formulaic, performance-based weighted model” to compare annual report card information for each EPP. The bill further requires the State Board to report on the development of this weighted model, as well as other items, in a report to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee by February 15, 2020. The proposed weighted model discussed by DPI staff on Wednesday would generate EPP composite scores as follows:

  • EPP Performance—55%
    • Based on NCEES, EVASS, Proficiency, edTPA/PPAT
  • Retention—10%
    • Based on one-year retention rates
  • Stakeholder Perceptions—35%
    • Based on recent graduate surveys and employer surveys

The Board is expected to vote on this proposed model during its monthly meeting in February.

During its presentation on Wednesday, DPI staff discussed the need to place EPP composite scores generated by the weighted model into a 4-point level system, with a “4” being exemplary and a “1” being sanctionable; however, some Board members expressed concern that when using this system with the most recent EPP data available, there would be no EPPs currently rated at a sanctionable level. Other Board members were concerned about the proposed two-year timeline for incorporating diversity as an accountability measure, arguing the State Board should put more focus on EPP diversity.

DPI staff also discussed changes in the EPP sanctioning process, noting the current proposed model would assign sanctions at the weighted composite level, rather than assigning sanctions based on poor performance in a single category. Staff argued this proposed change was needed so sanctions “could not be leveraged on an overall healthy program if one measure is below standard.” Staff also noted that DPI was in the final stages of developing an EPP Dashboard, which would provide public data on all measures outlined in the weighted model, so that anyone could see in which areas each EPP was struggling or making progress. Staff noted that the initial version of the EPP Dashboard is expected to be released in the next couple of months.

Elizabeth Yelverton