"The development and implementation of accountability systems has been one of the most powerful, perhaps the most powerful, trend in educational policy in the last 20 years" (Barber, 2004, p.1). The need to uphold high standards for all students has resulted in an "accountability agenda", with data being placed at the forefront of reform efforts. The authors of, Leading Schools in a Data-Rich World: Harnessing Data for School Improvement, describe the demand for high accountability as "the watchword of education with data holding a central place in the current wave of large-scale reform" (Earl, Katz, & Fullan, 2006, p.3). Clearly, all schools are feeling the pressure of increased information requirements from funding agencies, state education departments, and local boards of education.

Recently, President Bush "put his final stamp on the No Child Left Behind Act" which, "directs states to make public information comparing student achievement on their own tests against national-assessment scores" (Hoff, 2008, p.1). Increased attention to student achievement has led to further debate over the relationship between teacher education and teacher effectiveness (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2006). Advocates for strong teacher preparation programs cite studies documenting the positive effects of teacher education and certification on student achievement. In Minnesota, teacher education programs must provide evidence that students meet subject matter standards. Programs must also provide evidence that their students understand how children learn and how to teach in a way that all students can be successful. This is especially critical in schools serving low-income students and students of color. In contrast, there are those who believe that bright individuals with subject matter knowledge and little or no preparation for teaching can be equally effective in classrooms. They often argue that teacher preparation programs merely impose unnecessary requirements and additional costs without any added benefits. 

These debates have led to questions asking whether certified teachers are more effective than those who have not completed requirements for certification and "whether some candidates with strong liberal arts backgrounds might be at least as effective as teacher education graduates" (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2005, p. ii). An increasing amount of research is being conducted to help answer this question. For example, in a study out of Stanford University, Linda Darling-Hammond and her research team collected and examined student achievement data linked with data about their teachers' certification status, experience, and degree levels over a period of seven years (2005, p.3). Results found certified teachers to be "significantly more effective in raising student test scores than teachers without certification or with substandard certification in 22 of 36 estimates" (p.20), suggesting that teachers' effectiveness appears strongly related to the preparation they have received for teaching. This study is unique in that the researchers compared the effectiveness of differently prepared or certified teachers using appropriate controls for their students' prior learning (p.2).

MACTE institutions recognize the importance and legitimacy of teacher education accountability. We rely on credible evidence and data to demonstrate our programs' effectiveness and to make changes for improvement. We encourage the Board of Teaching to hold all teacher preparation programs, including alternative programs, to the same level of accountability and to require the same quality of evidence and data to support their effectiveness. There are many challenges to providing more credible evidence of teacher program effectiveness. For this reason we are pleased to be playing an active role in the Board's current work to redesign the program approval process. We look forward to developing a system that effectively assesses the quality of all teacher education programs and the students that complete them.