Teacher Preparation Program Accountability :
Kansas

Analysis of Kansas's policies

Kansas's approval process for its traditional and alternate route teacher preparation programs does not hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.

Most importantly, Kansas does not collect value-added data that connect student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs.

The state also fails to collect other objective, meaningful data to measure the performance of teacher preparation programs, and it does not apply any transparent, measurable criteria for conferring program approval. Kansas requires "performance-based evidence" as part of the preparation program's review process for approval; however, none of the listed requirements focuses on the quality of the teachers coming out of the program.

Further, in the past three years, no programs in the state have been identified as low performing—an additional indicator that programs lack accountability.

Finally, Kansas's website no longer includes a report card that allows the public to review and compare program performance; it merely provides a link to the information posted by Title II. 

Citation

Institutional Handbook for Program Approval http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=295#ER Title II State Reports https://title2.ed.gov

Recommendations for Kansas

Collect data that connect student achievement gains to teacher preparation programs.
To ensure that programs are producing effective classroom teachers, Kansas should consider academic achievement gains of students taught by the programs' graduates, averaged over the first three years of teaching.

Gather other meaningful data that reflect program performance.
In addition to knowing whether programs are producing effective teachers, other objective, meaningful data can also indicate whether programs are appropriately screening applicants and whether they are delivering essential academic and professional knowledge. Kansas should gather data such as the following: average raw scores of graduates on licensing tests, including basic skills, subject matter and professional knowledge tests; satisfaction ratings by school principals and teacher supervisors of programs' student teachers, using a standardized form to permit program comparison; evaluation results from the first and/or second year of teaching; and five-year retention rates of graduates in the teaching profession.

Establish the minimum standard of performance for each category of data.
Programs should be held accountable for meeting these standards, with articulated consequences for failing to do so, including loss of program approval after appropriate due process. 

Publish an annual report card on the state's website.
To inform the public with meaningful, readily understandable indicators of how well programs are doing, Kansas should present all the data it collects on individual teacher preparation programs.  

State response to our analysis

Kansas noted that it is currently in the process of creating a public data glimpse across preparation programs. The data being shared are allowable under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).