Over the last decade, the number of initial teacher education (ITE) providers in the United States has increased dramatically, for both traditional and alternative programmes, raising concern about the quality and accountability of these programmes (Ewell, 2012). In response, in 2016, the United States Department of Education released new regulations for increasing the type and amount of data that ITE programmes and states must provide under title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (United States Government, 1965), including evidence that providers are preparing effective teachers (US Department of Education, 2014). Six year earlier, the Council for Accreditation of Education Preparation (CAEP) was established as a national accreditation body. In 2013 (CAEP), the CAEP issued revised accreditation standards, describing five standards and their components that define quality in terms of organisational performance and serve as the basis for accreditation reviews and judgments:
To earn CAEP accreditation, teacher education institutions (TEIs) must submit annual data about their teacher candidates and completers, including outcome data related to the skills of graduates from the perspective of hiring principals. Every seven years, accredited programmes submit a report that includes pedagogical artefacts. After the TEI submits the report, a team from CAEP conducts site visits, usually accompanied by state education officials, and prepares a final report that provides the basis of its decision to accredit (CAEP, 2016). Currently, CAEP (2018) has partnership agreements with 17 states.
But in the United States, individual States are responsible for approving initial teacher education (ITE) programmes – and the process varies from state to state, and may not include alternative providers. According to the latest State Teacher Policy Yearbook,
Despite the fact that 41 states retain full or final authority over their process for approving all teacher preparation programmes (with the remainder ceding at least some of their authority to the national teacher education accrediting body, CAEP), few states have implemented adequate accountability systems that hold programmes to clear minimum standards of performance and provide information to the public about programme quality (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2017, p. 18)
However, some states, such as Massachusetts and Colorado, are requiring alternative providers to meet the same approval requirements (DeMonte, 2017).
The Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education in Massachusetts has the statutory authority to approve initial teacher education (ITE) programmes in the State of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MA DESE) has 408 school districts, 4 267 ITE graduates and 72 ITE providers, of which 18 of which are alternative providers (MA DESE, 2018). Public and private higher education institutions, districts, collaboratives, and non-profit organisations may apply for ITE programme approval, but all types of organisations must prepare candidates in accordance with the standards for licensure and programme approval and are subject to regular reviews.
Figure 1. The ITE programme review process decisions in Massachusetts
Public and private higher education institutions, districts, collaboratives, and non-profit organisations may apply for programme approval, but all types of organisations must prepare candidates in accordance with the standards for licensure and programme approval and are subject to regular reviews every seven years (MA DESE, 2016). In 2016, Massachusetts had 82 approved ITE programme providers.
In 2012, Massachusetts updated its programme approval standards to increase expectations of providers and emphasise the use of outcomes data (such as student impact scores) to evaluate programme effectiveness (MA DESE, 2016). The state developed a set of explicit criteria for evaluating providers to put the standards into operation. Criteria were grouped into the following six domains:
The continuous improvement domain encourages providers to regularly review and improve the quality of the programmes they deliver. The criteria for the continuous improvement domains includes whether the provider:
During programme reviews, information is collected based on the set of review criteria and outcomes data, and followed-up in a two or three-day site visit involving interviews, observations, and discussions. A judgement is made about each criteria, domain, and whether the programme should be approved, as described in Figure 1.
There are five potential approval determinations: approved with distinction; approved; approved with conditions; probationary approval; and not approved. Programmes approved with distinction are granted the longest period of authorisation and receive preference in department-funded initiatives. Those approved with conditions may have more frequent reviews or face enrolment restrictions.
The OECD review team in its review of the United States from 25-28 October 2016 concluded that Massachusetts’ approach to review and approval of programmes is a strength in that it:
The OECD review team also noted that:
CAEP (2018), Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, (accessed on 28 May 2018). 
Ewell, P. (2012), Recent Trends and Practices in Accreditation: Implications for the Development of Standards for Council for the Accreditation of Education Programs (CAEP), Council for the Accreditation of Education Programmes (CAEP), Washington, D.C.. 
MA DESE (2018), Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, (accessed on 28 May 2018). 
This case study describes a “promising practice” drawn from an OECD review of initial teacher preparation in the United States from 25-28 October 2016.
The OECD Review Team identified a number of “promising practices” in each country. These practices may not be widespread or representative, but seen in the context of other challenges, they represent a strength or opportunity to improve the country’s initial teacher preparation system – and for other countries to learn from them.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgement of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to email@example.com.