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: Kentucky does not set meaningful minimum standards of performance for the categories of data that programs must report. The state does require a summary pass rate on state licensure examinations of 80%. This 80% pass-rate standard, while common among states, sets the bar quite low and is not a meaningful measure of program performance.
Program Accountability: Kentucky articulates consequences for programs that fail to meet specific criteria, although the 80% pass rate is not a meaningful minimum standard. Institutions go through a continuing accreditation process and receive one of four accreditation ratings: accreditation, accreditation with conditions, accreditation with probation or revocation of accreditation. Institutions that fail to meet standards after given time to remediate any deficiencies have their accreditation revoked. As part of the continuing accreditation process programs are given one of three recommendations: approval, approval with conditions, denial of approval.
State Report Cards: Kentucky publishes annual report cards showing the data the state has collected on individual teacher preparation programs. The state also publishes institutional ratings on the report cards.
Program Approval Process: Kentucky maintains full authority over approval of educator preparation providers. Educator preparation providers have the option of obtaining CAEP accreditation or state accreditation, but accreditation is only part of a larger state program approval process.
16 KAR 5:010 Kentucky Educator Preparation Program (KEPP) Report Card https://wd.kyepsb.net/EPSB.WebApps/KEPPReportCard/Public/default.aspx Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB) Emergency Review of Certification Programs Procedure
Establish the minimum standards of performance for each category of data.
Kentucky should establish precise and rigorous minimum standards for teacher preparation program performance for each category of data it collects to help clarify expectations regarding program quality. The 80% pass rate standard is too low to be meaningful.
Kentucky was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts necessary for this analysis.
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.