2017 General Teacher Prep Programs 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 2017.
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 percent. This 80 percent pass-rate standard, while common among states, sets the bar quite low and is not a meaningful measure of program performance.
Program Accountability: Kentucky does not articulate clear consequences for programs that fail to meet specific criteria. A certification program is subject to emergency review if the pass rate is below 80 percent on one of the Praxis or state assessments required, and the program is required to submit an improvement plan, although consequences for programs that fail to improve are unclear.
State Report Cards: Kentucky publishes annual report cards showing the data the state has collected on individual teacher preparation programs. The website does not include data for alternate route programs that are not based in universities.
Program Approval Process: Kentucky maintains full authority over teacher preparation program approval.
16 KAR 5:010 Data Dashboard https://wd.kyepsb.net/EPSB.WebApps/Dashboard/DashbrdWeb/TeacherEducatorDashbrd1.aspx?sID=1 Title II Report https://title2.ed.gov/Public/Report/FullReport/FullReport.aspx?p=3_30.
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 percent pass rate standard is too low to be meaningful.
Ensure that criteria for program approval result in greater accountability.
Kentucky should ensure that programs are held accountable for meeting minimum standards of performance, and that the state's accountability system is sufficient to differentiate performance among programs, including alternate route programs. The state should establish clear follow-up actions for programs failing to meet these standards, including remediation or loss of program approval as appropriate. For programs exceeding minimum standards, Kentucky should consider finding effective ways to disseminate best practices.
Report data for alternate route programs that are run by entities other than institutions of higher education.
Kentucky should consider reporting data for non-university alternate route programs in its annual report cards.
Kentucky was helpful in providing NCTQ with information that enhanced this analysis.
Kentucky added that it is currently working on the development of a new program review system and an accountability system utilizing data from programs to determine effectiveness.
NCTQ looks forward to reviewing the state's progress in future editions of the Yearbook.
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.