Teacher Preparation Policy
The state should collect and publicly report key data on the quality of teacher preparation programs. This goal was reorganized in 2021.
Student Growth Data: Kentucky does not collect data that connect student growth to teacher preparation programs. Nor is there state policy requiring all programs to publicly report this data.
Licensure Exam Pass Rates: Kentucky publishes the top 25% and first-time pass rates of program completers at the institutional level on its teacher preparation dashboard.
16 Kentucky Administrative Rules 5:010 Teacher Preparation Dashboard https://wd.kyepsb.net/EPSB.WebApps/Dashboard/DashbrdWeb/TeacherEducatorDashbrd1.aspx?sID=1
Collect data that connect student growth to teacher preparation programs, when those programs are large enough for the data to be meaningful and reliable.
Kentucky should consider collecting the academic achievement gains of students taught by programs' graduates, averaged over the first three years of teaching, when the programs produce enough graduates for those data to be meaningful and reliable. Data that are aggregated at the institution level (e.g., combining elementary and secondary programs), rather than disaggregated by the specific preparation program, have less utility for accountability and continuous improvement purposes than more specific data because institution-level data aggregation can mask significant differences in performance among programs.
Publish first-time and final pass rate data at the program level for all test takers.
Kentucky should publicly report first-time and final pass rate data for all test takers at the program level. Doing so allows the state, programs, and prospective teacher candidates to analyze the strength of programs' ability to prepare teachers in core content areas. Prospective teacher candidates deserve access to relevant information to determine which programs are most likely to enable them to earn a standard teaching license.
Kentucky noted that while it is not reported publicly, the state uses pass rates of all content assessments to inform its Emergency Review Board policy. Every year, the pass rates for all programs at all EPPs are analyzed, no matter the "N" - to determine if they are "at risk of low performing" or if an "emergency review" is needed. This data is also used to specifically target in-depth program review as part of the continuing review/pre-accreditation visit review process.
Additionally, the state noted that all EPPs in accordance with national and state accreditation standards have to post publicly 7 Annual Report Measures of Student Achievement. These measures include:
1) impact that completers' teaching has on P-12 learning and development;
2) indicators of teaching effectiveness;
3) results of employer surveys, and including retention and employment milestones;
4) results of completer surveys;
5) graduation rates from preparation programs;
6) ability of completers to meet licensing (certification) and additional state requirements; and
7) ability of completers to be hired in education positions for which they were prepared.
1C: Program Performance Measures
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.