[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-202869-105":59,"doc-detail-202869-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","interpret-with-caution-the-first-state-title-ii-reports-on-the-quality-of-teacher-preparation-june-2002","Interpret With Caution - The First State Title II Reports on the Quality of Teacher Preparation - June 2002","","Huang, Yi, and Haycock analyze the first round of state reporting required under Title II of the Higher Education Act, focusing on whether states meet the law’s intent to make teacher preparation performance accountable and publicly comparable. Across six reported dimensions, most state submissions show little actionable clarity, with findings described as inconsistent, incomplete, and difficult to understand. The study highlights examples such as widespread 100% pass-rate claims, limited evidence of low-performing programs, and uneven assessment systems, while noting that appended study data support the results.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/interpret-with-caution-the-first-state-title-ii-reports-on-the-quality-of-teacher-preparation-june-2002/202869/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/interpret-with-caution-the-first-state-title-ii-reports-on-the-quality-of-teacher-preparation-june-2002/202869.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Alex Sinclair","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-23","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the document’s focus regarding teacher preparation reporting?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It examines results from the first state Title II reports to determine whether states are meeting requirements and the law’s intended purpose for public accountability in teacher preparation.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How do the authors describe the overall quality of state reporting?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Most state reports were inconsistent, incomplete, and incomprehensible, limiting the clarity of the reported information about teacher education program performance.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Which patterns in the state data does the document flag as potentially misleading?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The document notes examples such as only one teacher preparation institution being classified as low-performing, very few teachers being on waivers, many institutions claiming 100% pass rates, and large differences in uncertified teacher distributions across districts.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},202869,1788551759,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},1099523882182,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","ED 468205  \nAUTHOR  \nTITLE  \nINSTITUTION  \nPUB DATE  \nNOTE  \nAVAILABLE FROM  \nPUB TYPE  \nEDRS PRICE  \nDESCRIPTORS  \nIDENTIFIERS  \nABSTRACT  \n# DOCUMENT RESUME\n\nHuang,Sandra;Yi,Yun;Haycock,Kati  \nInterpret With Caution:The First State Title II Reports onthe Quality of Teacher Preparation.Education Trust West,Oakland,CA.2002-06-0024p.  \nThe Education Trust,Tel:510-465-6444;Web site:http://www.edtrust.org/main/main/index.asp.Reports -Descriptive(141)EDRS Price MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.  \nAcademic Standards;Accountability;Data Collection;  \n*Educational Quality;Elementary Secondary Education;HigherEducation;*Preservice Teacher Education;Program Evaluation;State Government;Teacher Certification;Teacher Evaluation*Higher Education Act Title II;Waivers  \nIn enacting new teacher quality provisions in the HigherEducation Act,Congress intended to increase clarity and consistency of publicreporting about the status of teacher education programs and ensure thatstates establish accountability measures for teacher preparation institutions.Beginning in 2001,states must report yearly data on six dimensions of teacherpreparation and performance(teacher standards,requirements for  \ncertification/licensure,assessment requirements and pass rates,criteria formeasuring program performance,teachers on waivers,and state effortstoimprove teacher quality).This paper presents results from an analysis of thisdata,investigating whether states are meeting the requirements and spirit ofthe law.Overall,state reports revealed little.Most of the reporting wasinconsistent,incomplete,and incomprehensible.Some of the misleading  \nfindings include the fact that only one teacher preparation institution in thenation is classified as low-performing.A very low number of teachers are onwaivers,and many institutions,even whole states,have 100-percent pass rateson licensure tests.Some states still have very weak assessment systems or noteacher assessment system at all.Many states have very large differences inthe distribution of uncertified teachers between high-poverty districts andothers.Study data are appended.(Contains 15 references.)(SM)  \nReproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.  \n# Interpret With Caution:\n\nThe First State Title II Reports on theQuality of Teacher PreparationJune 2002  \nQ  \n于0  \n鑫  \nU.S.DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOttico of Educational Research and ImprovementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER(ERIC)  \nThe  \n凶This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.  \nEducation  \n□ Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.  \nTrust  \n·Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.  \nP  \nPERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIALHASBEEN GRANTED BY  \n—  \nBarth  \nTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER(ERIC)  \n1  \n# The status of teacherpreparation\n\nhe standards movement challenges AmericanJI teachers as never before.It asks them to get all oftheir students to levels that used to be achieved byonly a few.  \nTeachers themselves worry about whether they areprepared for this challenge.The American Federationof Teachers issued a blistering report on this subject in2000,calling for far greater involvement of arts andsciences faculty in the preparation of teachers and forthe adoption of more rigorous content tests for licen-sure.Teacher educators involved with the NationalCommission on Teaching and America's Futureaddressed a looming national crisis in one of themajor reports to emerge during 1990s.They warned,\"Student learning in this country will improve onlywhen we focus our efforts on improving teaching.\"  \nVoters worry too.In the most recent PublicEducation Network/Education Week national publicopinion poll,they rate improving teacher quality asnumber one on their agenda.And business leaders havejoined the call;putting a qualified teacher in everyclassroom is a high-priority is","cbCairkGaec9bIDc","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCairkGaec9bIDc","pdf",580653,25,"English","# Document Resume\n## Program Evaluation Findings\n## Teacher Quality Context","[{\"question\":\"What is the document’s focus regarding teacher preparation reporting?\",\"answer\":\"It examines results from the first state Title II reports to determine whether states are meeting requirements and the law’s intended purpose for public accountability in teacher preparation.\"},{\"question\":\"How do the authors describe the overall quality of state reporting?\",\"answer\":\"Most state reports were inconsistent, incomplete, and incomprehensible, limiting the clarity of the reported information about teacher education program performance.\"},{\"question\":\"Which patterns in the state data does the document flag as potentially misleading?\",\"answer\":\"The document notes examples such as only one teacher preparation institution being classified as low-performing, very few teachers being on waivers, many institutions claiming 100% pass rates, and large differences in uncertified teacher distributions across districts.\"}]","Interpret With Caution - The First State Title II Reports on the Quality of Teacher Preparation - June 2002 | PDF",63]