Teacher Preparation Policy
The state's approval process for teacher preparation programs should hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce. This goal was reorganized in 2021.
Minimum Standards of Performance: Kansas does not set minimum standards of performance for the data that programs must report.
Program Accountability: Although Kansas does not set minimum standards of performance, as part of continuing program approval, the state does confer statuses of "approved," "approved with stipulations," or "not approved." Additionally, while programs must meet 75% of content area program standards in order to be recommended for approval, these standards are not necessarily performance-based criteria with clearly stated minimum thresholds.
State Report Cards: Kansas does not produce and publish its own annual report card that shows all the data the state collects on individual teacher preparation programs. Instead, the state provides a link to its Title II State Report on the United States Department of Education website. This report contains educator preparation program-level data on programs offered and program completers in each content area.
Program Approval Process: Kansas maintains full authority over teacher preparation program approval. CAEP accreditation is one requirement as part of a larger program approval process. Kansas also conducts its own program reviews.
Kansas Administrative Regulations 91-1-70a;-231; -235; -236 Institutional Handbook for Program Approval https://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/TLA/Licensure/Licensure%20Documents/progapprovalhdbk2016revision07-20-16.pdf?ver=2017-03-13-160748-970 Title II Reports http://www.ksde.org/Agency/Division-of-Learning-Services/Teacher-Licensure-and-Accreditation/Postsecondary/Higher-Ed-Faculty-Resources/Title-II-Accountability Kansas CAEP Agreement http://caepnet.org/working-together/state-partners
Establish the minimum standards of performance for each category of data.
Kansas should establish precise minimum standards for teacher preparation program performance for each category of data it collects to help clarify expectations regarding program quality.
Ensure program accountability decisions are based on minimum standards of performance.
While Kansas has the structure of a program accountability system, including follow-up actions for programs failing to meet standards, it has not set minimum standards it can use to implement this accountability process. As Kansas further develops its accountability system, it should ensure that the system is sufficient to differentiate performance among programs, including alternate route programs, and that it is clear at what point a program's approval will be revoked. For programs exceeding minimum standards, Kansas should consider finding effective ways to disseminate best practices.
Publish an annual report card on the state's website.
Rather than merely linking to its Title II State Report, Kansas should produce its own annual report card that clearly displays program-level data the state collects on individual teacher preparation programs. This report card should be publicly available on the state's website, at a minimum. Data should be presented in a manner that transparently conveys whether programs have met performance standards.
Kansas did not respond to NCTQ's request to review this analysis for accuracy.
1D: Program Reporting Requirements
The state should examine a number of factors when measuring the performance of and approving teacher preparation programs. Although the quality of both the subject-matter preparation and professional sequence is crucial, there are also additional measures that can provide the state and the public with meaningful, readily understandable indicators of how well programs are doing when it comes to preparing teachers to be successful in the classroom.
States have made great strides in building data systems with the capacity to provide evidence of teacher performance. These same data systems can be used to link teacher effectiveness to the teacher preparation programs from which they came. States should make such data, as well as other objective measures that go beyond licensure test pass rates, central components of their teacher preparation program approval processes, and they should establish precise standards for performance that are more useful for accountability purposes.
National accrediting bodies, such as CAEP, are raising the bar, but are no substitute for states' own policy. A number of states now have somewhat more rigorous academic standards for admission by virtue of requiring that programs meet CAEP's accreditation standards. However, whether CAEP will uniformly uphold its standards (especially as they have already backtracked on the GPA requirement) and deny accreditation to programs that fall short of these admission requirements remains to be seen. Clear state policy would eliminate this uncertainty and send an unequivocal message to programs about the state's expectations.