Your donation will help us produce journalism like this. Please give today.

California has invested around $1.6 billion in teacher preparation over the past decade, so why is the impact of this investment still unknown? We don’t have the data we need to know where teachers are being well prepared to support the students in our schools.

As the former director of a teacher preparation program, I can’t tell you how badly we wanted to know how our alumni were doing in the field. The only way we could find out was tracking down—or hounding—each graduate on our own. 

What percentage of our alumni actually entered teaching? Where did they teach? And how long did they remain? We didn’t know. 

How many stayed in teaching, were let go, or moved into administration? Unclear. 

What could we responsibly discern about how our alumni were impacting student outcomes? Mostly impossible to say.  

Other states have stopped guessing. I was just visiting Texas where education leaders are making strategic investments in teacher preparation, informed by the consequences of failed policy that led to the proliferation of uncertified teachers. 

They can now better direct and understand their investments because they follow candidates from their first application through their fifth year of teaching — making much of the data public and using it to inform funding decisions. Tennessee also publishes a teacher preparation report card, with a website directed at potential future teachers to help them make informed decisions about their pathways. California can’t boast anything similar.

I know, I know. Data freaks people out. It’s too often been used irresponsibly or as a weapon, and even as a tool it can reflect back versions of ourselves and our institutions we don’t always want to see. 

But when we harness data as a love language, it helps us identify where to pour our attention, care and support first. Data can help programs identify where they need to improve, help prospective teachers make informed decisions and help states direct resources more intentionally. 

In California, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the California Department of Education should make sure that every candidate has a unique statewide educator identifier number as soon as they enroll in any in-state teacher preparation program. Aspiring educators already get an SEID when they apply for the background clearance needed to work or student teach in schools. Districts use the number to report teaching assignments to the state. Only teacher preparation programs are left out in a way that inhibits both consistent tracking from the state and programs’ ability to follow their own candidates’ trajectories.

With an SEID starting at the prep-program enrollment date, the state could track how many candidates complete each program and how long it takes. Right now, California relies on fallible self-reporting from programs; actual completion rates and timelines are not made public. Without this information, aspiring teachers choose programs based on a recommendation, advertised time to completion, convenience and cost — all important, but only part of the picture.

With program enrollment dates linked to each SEID, the state could also show aspiring teachers and districts how each program’s alumni fare once they begin teaching. The state has been building a public teacher training and retention dashboard through its Cradle-to-Career data system, which was originally due in 2025 but is still forthcoming. When it arrives, it should report outcomes program by program.

Programs that don’t consistently contribute to a teacher workforce that meets the needs of California’s students should not continue to be subsidized by the state. Recent investments needed to make teacher preparation affordable for candidates — the Golden State Teacher Grant, the Student Teacher Stipend, and to a lesser extent the Teacher Residency Grant program — now flow to candidates in almost any accredited program. 

Is it possible this inadvertently made the California teacher education market more appealing? The number of programs has grown alongside these investments.

No single measure demonstrates a program’s quality, but taken together, used responsibly and shared transparently, these data would give any state a much clearer picture of how teacher preparation programs are impacting local communities. 

Programs with room for growth should get robust state support to improve — and be held accountable for annual progress. Programs that fail to improve despite meaningful support may ultimately need to close. In California, these data would help us funnel wise investments into institutions that demonstrate their impact and commitment to continuous improvement.

If we start tracking data that let programs, applicants, and districts see the outcomes of teacher prep beyond the credential line, what might change? As author adrienne maree brown wrote, “What we pay attention to grows.”

Rebecca Hatkoff, is a researcher, teacher and California enthusiast. Through her consultancy Possibilities Unbound, she provides technical assistance and thought partnership. She is the former director of teacher education at Claremont Graduate University.