Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
The Review

Stop Complaining About Teacher Assessments; Find Alternatives

By Robert C. Pianta May 6, 2012

When talks between the U.S. Department of Education and teacher-preparation programs over performance-based accountability collapsed last month, no one should have been surprised. Like most other accountability efforts in education, the department’s proposed plan was more stick than carrot. But those of us in the higher-education field of teacher preparation must accept our share of responsibility for the breakdown in negotiations as well.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

When talks between the U.S. Department of Education and teacher-preparation programs over performance-based accountability collapsed last month, no one should have been surprised. Like most other accountability efforts in education, the department’s proposed plan was more stick than carrot. But those of us in the higher-education field of teacher preparation must accept our share of responsibility for the breakdown in negotiations as well.

The department had proposed that states evaluate teacher-preparation programs using graduates’ job placement, teachers’ job retention, the achievement gains of their students, and graduates’ and their students’ satisfaction surveys. Those assessments would have been used to classify programs’ impacts, and only those in the “effective” or “exceptional” groups would have been eligible for the federal Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (Teach) Grant Program, which provides financial support for students planning to teach in schools that serve low-income families.

In this continuing ritual of education-reform point/counterpoint, teacher-preparation programs, state education agencies, deans of schools of education, and teacher unions have raised legitimate concerns: State tests that derive individual teachers’ contributions to student test-score gains (what is known as a teacher’s “value added” to student achievement) are administered in only about half of the grades or subjects; state-standards tests are narrowly focused and fail to assess all of the ways teachers contribute to student learning; the “value added” scores lack reliability and validity; many teachers-to-be are prepared in one state but teach in another; programs have little control over graduates’ decisions to remain in the teaching profession long term; and the rules might “decommission” the very programs that supply teachers to high-need schools.

These concerns are not unreasonable. In fact, to say that carrying out the proposed rules would have been a mess is an understatement. For example, the fact that all grades and subjects would not be tested meant that a large number of education graduates would not have test scores to use as evidence of their performance. And how can a program prepare teachers to teach effectively to a wide range of different state standards, since not all graduates stay put? Combine those challenges with the immediacy and high stakes attached to the rules, and you have a process that would only have diverted time and energy from traction on credible program improvement.

But the tug-of-war that marked this rule-making process, like nearly all of the political debates around teacher performance, reflects that teacher unions, higher education, and even alternative teacher-preparation routes such as Teach for America have ceded responsibility for building credible and open internal quality controls. Education schools and other preparers of teachers have failed to build competency- and knowledge-assessment systems to identify and measure the skills that teachers need for successful performance. Such systems would be capable of publicly verifying that teachers met certain known performance benchmarks before they entered the profession, and passing would mean a high likelihood that the students taught by a graduate would make progress academically.

State agencies today certify teachers using an accumulation of academic credits and assessments that do not discriminate between good and poor performers. Nearly all graduates pass criteria that have no known association with teaching and learning in elementary and secondary classrooms. But when teacher-preparation organizations say that state-standards tests and value-added metrics are neither reliable nor valid, they sound like unions arguing against teacher evaluation—placing blame on imperfect assessments rather than finding alternatives and testing them.

Those of us who work in the fields of teacher training and education research could have been ready—with assessments, internal quality controls, data systems for follow-up, and mechanisms to feed back to programs the results of our graduates’ work with students. That someone else has come along and said, “Do this or else,” should come as no surprise. The Education Department’s error, and it is not a trivial one, was attaching high stakes and penalties to what should be a process of using information to systematically guide improvement and evaluation of programs.

We in teacher preparation need to know the learning gains of the students taught by our graduates, and we should know how well they teach. Even if the tests are lousy, narrow, and imperfect, they are important to employers and provide one form of information that could be useful for program-driven planning, quality control, and evaluation.

Many states and teacher-preparation programs are working on protocols for assessing their graduates, and it is vitally important that such assessment work continue. It is equally important that the Education Department develop and adopt policies that support the use of assessments and accountability for teacher preparation.

The rule-making process is not over. The Education Department may now put forward whatever teacher-preparation assessment criteria it likes; however, department officials have indicated that they will be receptive to contributions from those in the field of teacher preparation. We should certainly take better advantage of this opportunity than we did of the last one.

If we cannot counter the federal plan with a cohesive set of our own solutions, then we should follow the Education Department’s procedures for a period of, say, three years, but with two caveats: that no penalties be attached during that time, and that the information obtained from applying the rules be made public. During those three years, we should work out the kinks in measurement, develop and test parameters of accountability that could inform policy, and use the teacher-preparation process to begin improvements not only in our primary and secondary classrooms but in higher education as well.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion Assessment & Accreditation
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Vector illustration of large open scissors  with several workers in seats dangling by white lines
Iced Out
Duke Administrators Accused of Bypassing Shared-Governance Process in Offering Buyouts
Illustration showing money being funnelled into the top of a microscope.
'A New Era'
Higher-Ed Associations Pitch an Alternative to Trump’s Cap on Research Funding
Illustration showing classical columns of various heights, each turning into a stack of coins
Endowment funds
The Nation’s Wealthiest Small Colleges Just Won a Big Tax Exemption
WASHINGTON, DISTICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES - 2025/04/14: A Pro-Palestinian demonstrator holding a sign with Release Mahmud Khalil written on it, stands in front of the ICE building while joining in a protest. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators rally in front of the ICE building, demanding freedom for Mahmoud Khalil and all those targeted for speaking out against genocide in Palestine. Protesters demand an end to U.S. complicity and solidarity with the resistance in Gaza. (Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Campus Activism
An Anonymous Group’s List of Purported Critics of Israel Helped Steer a U.S. Crackdown on Student Activists

From The Review

John T. Scopes as he stood before the judges stand and was sentenced, July 2025.
The Review | Essay
100 Years Ago, the Scopes Monkey Trial Discovered Academic Freedom
By John K. Wilson
Vector illustration of a suited man with a pair of scissors for a tie and an American flag button on his lapel.
The Review | Opinion
A Damaging Endowment Tax Crosses the Finish Line
By Phillip Levine
University of Virginia President Jim Ryan keeps his emotions in check during a news conference, Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Charlottesville. Va. Authorities say three people have been killed and two others were wounded in a shooting at the University of Virginia and a student is in custody. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
The Review | Opinion
Jim Ryan’s Resignation Is a Warning
By Robert Zaretsky

Upcoming Events

07-31-Turbulent-Workday_assets v2_Plain.png
Keeping Your Institution Moving Forward in Turbulent Times
Ascendium_Housing_Plain.png
What It Really Takes to Serve Students’ Basic Needs: Housing
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin