ndards for testing. Each state is allowed their own testing policy. (1) Absent validation by independent experts, it is not clear what it means to achieve specific pass rates on these tests. The Massachusetts test has never been professionally validated, and the governor of Massachusetts has twice vetoed funding for the validation process.
             Many states use different tests, and even states that use the same test impose different passing levels, or "cut scores." Thus, according to the National Research Council (NRC), "It is virtually impossible to make meaningful comparisons of passing scores across states when states use their own tests." Furthermore many institutions will simply require every student to pass all requisite tests before entering their education programs, giving themselves an automatic 100% pass rate. But 100% pass rates attained in this manner are meaningless because, as the Tide II reporting guidelines note, they "do not reflect how well the institutions have prepared all the students enrolled in their programs to pass state assessments." Nevertheless, Title II requires that states rank their institutions according to pass rates, without taking this issue into account. The public will not know whether an institution attained its 100% pass rate by educating all, or by screening out some (perhaps many), of its students.
             But that's not all. Title II will also decrease the supply of quality teachers. Institutions which adopt the 100% strategy--and many will--inevitably force their students to take state certification tests early in their college careers. This will prematurely push out of teacher preparation those students who, with hard work and good teaching, would pass these tests later in their college career. Furthermore, the national teacher shortage is already dire in some states. For example, this year Texas needs 30,000 new teachers, but its colleges of education produced only about 16,000 graduates.
             When superi...