Back Appendix A: Student Achievement in KentuckyBy Stephen Clements
From Kentucky's Teachers: Charting a Course for KERA's Second Decade
pp. 65-70, published 1999
The next few pages provide basic data about teacher training programs in Kentucky. This is institution-level information that does not reveal the contours of each specific program. Such a summary and analysis would indeed be useful, in that it would provide quality indicators of teacher training efforts at 26 different Kentucky institutions of higher learning. It would also provide Kentucky policymakers with a better sense of the strengths and weaknesses of the teacher training enterprise in the state. But such an inquiry is beyond the scope of this report and will perhaps be included in subsequent NCTAF follow-up activities in the Commonwealth.
Most of Kentucky’s teachers are trained through education departments and colleges of education at 26 public and private postsecondary institutions around the state. The lion’s share of new teachers—around four fifths of the approximately 2,800 teacher education graduates produced each year—are prepared at the state’s major and regional universities. But the other fifth are supplied by more than a dozen private colleges in Kentucky, whose graduates also fan out to take teaching posts in many states of the Midwest. Several hundred of the new teachers hired each year in Kentucky are prepared in other states. The tables below contain some basic data for 1995 and 1996 on teachers produced by this teacher training system.
Table 1: Data on Teacher Education Students in Kentucky, 1995 and 1996
Based on teacher preparation and employment data from 1996 and on reports of similar trends over recent decades, it appears that Kentucky institutions have been producing more teacher education graduates than there are available new teaching positions in the state, at least in some areas. This point was made earlier in the discussion of supply and demand data on teaching in the Commonwealth, but this point is reinforced by the above data. As a result, Kentucky’s teacher training institutions have contributed significantly to the supply of teachers not just in the Commonwealth, but also throughout the Ohio Valley, at least in part because of this overproduction.
Table 2: Teacher Training Institutions in Kentucky by Bachelor Program Completions
Currently no comprehensive method is available, however, to assess the quality of the students who enter and complete teacher training programs or the programs themselves. In terms of ACT scores, as discussed in Indicators of Teacher Quality, students entering teacher training programs in Kentucky had an average score of 21.6 on the most recent "enhanced" version of the ACT exam. The statewide average score for all Kentucky ACT-takers was 20 over the course of the last several years, which means that teacher education students in the Commonwealth consistently scored above the average of the "typical" college-bound Kentucky high school senior. The ACT average for program entrants in 1995-96 is even slightly above the national average ACT score. Hence, it appears from this particular indicator that Kentucky’s prospective teachers are competent students.
Interestingly, there are only slight aggregate differences in the ACT profiles of individuals in Kentucky’s private colleges as compared with those in the public universities, which produce most trained teachers. An analysis of OTEC data shows the ACT Enhanced scores of admitted candidates in 1995-96 for private colleges was 22.04, with an aggregate GPA of 3.18. The public universities in the same period admitted candidates with an ACT Enhanced average of 21.86, and a GPA of 3.14. The institutions with the highest aggregate ACT scores from both categories included Asbury College (23.1), Centre College (25.9), Georgetown College (23.9), Alice Lloyd College (23.5), Transylvania University (24.5), and Western Kentucky University (24.0).
Praxis exams—also discussed in Indicators of Teacher Quality—are given to teacher education students each year to test their general knowledge, professional knowledge, communication skills, and subject area knowledge. Those who score below a certain point on these tests fail them, and if they continue to score below the cutoff level during a set number of subsequent retakes, they are prohibited from receiving certification.
However, the earlier discussion of Praxis scores did not include information about the failure rate on the subject area exams. The failure rate for students in many of these subject areas is very low, which raises the question of how meaningful the cut-off levels used to disqualify aspiring teachers are. According to the document that reports the 1993-94 and 1994-95 Praxis II scores:
The passing scores for most assessments in Kentucky are set very low. A very small percentage of students nationally have scores lower than the passing scores set in Kentucky. The perception is that Kentucky’s teacher candidates are not competitive nationally because the passing scores are low. The good news is that this perception does not accurately match reality. For the Core Battery (Professional Knowledge, Communication Skills, and General Knowledge) preservice teachers’ median is at or above the national median for both years of this report. The bad news is that some students fail these general skills tests after completing approved programs. The average failure rate reported for both years of this report is 4.6% for Communication Skills, 5.2% for General Knowledge and 3.5% for Professional Knowledge.(
1)
Additional information about teacher education student Praxis II scores appears in Kentucky’s Performance Indicators for Teacher Education Programs, 1992 Through 1996, cited earlier. Disaggregated score results show, among other things, that a substantial score gap still exists between white and minority teacher education students in Kentucky in most subject areas. They also show that students with additional graduate education and master’s degrees tend to outscore those with only bachelor’s degrees. These findings, together with the fact that persons successfully completing teacher preparation programs are nevertheless failing the core battery tests, suggest areas needing further study.
In Kentucky, teacher education programs must be approved for accreditation by the EPSB, and the standards and procedures for the accreditation process are detailed in 704 KAR 20:696. The following are key facts about EPSB accreditation:
Institutions may obtain NCATE accreditation, but this is only mandatory for state universities. However, the EPSB uses NCATE standards in its own accreditation process. Currently 11 of Kentucky’s 26 teacher training institutions have formal NCATE and state approval. The rest have only state approval, although as noted these standards equate to those of NCATE.
EPSB provides an annual accreditation report to approved institutions and authorizes a site visit to institutions every five years.
Accredited institutions must provide annual reports to EPSB.
EPSB appoints a reading committee to review and assess portfolios and materials submitted by approved institutions.
EPSB also appoints a Board of Examiners, which supplies members for site-visit teams.
Before site visits, institutions must submit reports describing how their programs are meeting performance standards and what changes have been made since the previous visit.
Also, before site visits can occur institutions must submit program folios describing the teacher training programs, faculty, curriculum, and continuous assessment process.
After site visits, the Board of Examiners provides a report to the institutions reviewed, and institutions are allowed to respond to those reports.
The EPSB appoints an Accreditation Audit Committee that reviews materials generated through site visits and responses to reports submitted by institutions. If the Accreditation Audit Committee believes an institution warrants reapproval, it can recommend this to the Program and Technical Assistance Committee, which in turn can recommend accreditation to the full EPSB. If the EPSB assents, accreditation is granted or maintained.
It can elect to continue accreditation of the institution, but cite weaknesses in program areas and request that those problems be addressed by the institution in its next annual report to the EPSB.
It can continue accreditation with probation, meaning serious weaknesses exist within the program, and stipulate that EPSB examiners return to the institution within two years to determine if the problems have been dealt with (although this has recently been changed to one year of probation before a follow-up accreditation visit).
If an institution fails to make necessary corrections to its program deficiencies within the two- (or one-) year probation period, the EPSB can revoke accreditation.
Past performance reviews show that five institutions did not meet the state teacher education program standards. All five institutions were denied initial accreditation, and the EPSB ordered a review of specified weaknesses within one year. However, all institutions eventually satisfied EPSB accreditors, and all programs have been approved.
As noted, too little data is available to make informed judgments about the quality of teacher training programs at colleges or universities. At the moment, little can be said about these programs beyond that all are currently approved by KDE to instruct teachers according to standards that are essentially those of NCATE.
It might be possible to determine how much revenue is spent on colleges of education in Kentucky, and specifically for preparing teachers. But information would have to be gathered and assessed on an institution-by-institution basis. Colleges and universities tend to approach their budgets differently, and this makes inter-institutional comparisons difficult. Moreover, teacher education students typically receive only a portion of their training in education departments or colleges of education. This makes determining how much Kentucky spends to train teachers even more complex, and renders it all but impossible to determine if the state’s expenditures on teacher preparation are "adequate." Such an inquiry would be worthwhile, however, given the information it could yield to policymakers about teacher training in Kentucky.
One indicator of the effectiveness of teacher training programs, at least in terms of how they have prepared their students to meet the demands of KERA, can be seen in the results of a survey taken of teachers recently hired in Kentucky schools. This survey was commissioned by the Kentucky Institute for Education Research (KIER), and was conducted via telephone in July 1996 by Wilkinson and Associates of Louisville. The survey drew upon a sample of 1,066 first-, second-, and third-year teachers teaching in Kentucky elementary, middle, and high schools during 1995-96.
KIER’s report of the study had a range of findings:(2)
1. Overall preparation
About six out of ten teachers with one to three years’ experience said they were extremely or very well prepared to teach in Kentucky schools. About an additional one third said they were moderately prepared, while 6 percent said that their college or university had prepared them poorly.
As a group, teachers who graduated from smaller private colleges and universities gave higher marks to their preparation programs than did teachers prepared in state institutions; however, there was considerable variation across both private and state-supported institutions.
In general, teachers prepared by Kentucky colleges and universities felt better prepared to teach in Kentucky’s schools than teachers prepared out of state.
Teachers in their third year felt that they were not as well prepared as were first or second year teachers.
2. Preparation for Kentucky’s new teacher standards
With regard to Kentucky’s new teacher standards, there was a wide variation in reported preparedness. Responses varied from 80 percent stating that they were extremely or very well prepared to establish a positive learning environment for students, while only 31 percent felt as prepared to use technology as an integral part of instruction.
In general, new teachers felt best prepared to design and plan for instruction, communicate high expectations, and use different teaching strategies; they felt least prepared to use technology in instruction, engage in professional development, provide for diversity among students, address discipline problems, and use a variety of student assessments.
3. Preparation of primary teachers for implementation of the seven attributes of Kentucky’s primary program
With regard to the seven attributes of Kentucky’s primary program, there were significant differences in reported preparedness. New teachers who taught kindergarten through fourth grades felt best prepared to design developmentally appropriate practices and engage in professional teamwork. They felt least prepared to use authentic assessment and qualitative reporting.
The teachers who were trained out of state, as did those who were trained at an in-state institution, felt as well prepared to implement these seven attributes of Kentucky’s primary program. The exception was multiage/multiability grouping for which 55 percent of Kentucky trained teachers felt extremely or very well prepared compared to only 37 percent of those trained out of state.
First- and second-year elementary teachers felt significantly better prepared to implement all seven attributes of the primary program than did teachers in their third year of teaching.
4 & 5. Preparation of middle and high school teachers for KERA instructional initiatives
Fewer than half of new teachers teaching fifth through twelfth grades stated that they felt extremely well prepared to implement or participate in key instructional practices initiated by KERA. Also, fewer than one in five felt well prepared to participate in school transformation planning required by all schools in Kentucky.
As was the case with kindergarten through fourth grade teachers, new middle school and high school teachers who graduated from in-state institutions reported better preparation for key instructional practices initiated by KERA than did teachers prepared out of state.
Also, teachers trained more recently (first- and second-year teachers) felt better prepared for KERA instructional practices than teachers who had completed their training in 1993 or earlier.
6. Preparation of new teachers for major KERA initiatives
All new teachers reported that they were much less prepared to implement or participate in the eight specific programs and practices initiated by Kentucky’s school reform law than they were to implement the traditional teaching skills of planning, implementing, and assessing instruction.
Only about one third of the new teachers stated that they were very well prepared to teach writing portfolios and use performance events, while about one fifth reported that they were very well prepared to make use of extended school services or the family resource and youth services centers and four out of ten were poorly prepared to implement Kentucky’s education technology system.
Teachers trained in Kentucky reported higher levels of preparedness than did new teachers prepared out of state. The same was true of the teachers who have been trained more recently as they reported that they were better prepared than were the teachers graduating in 1993 or earlier.
7. Influence of teacher preparation institutions on attitudes toward school reform
About three fourths of the new teachers reported that their preparation program had influenced them in a positive manner concerning KERA. The remaining one fourth reported that their college or university had either no influence or a negative influence on their attitudes toward KERA.
8. New teachers’ agreement with beliefs underlying KERA
New teachers were in high agreement with the following principles of operation underlying the design of KERA:
• We should set high standards for all children (94 percent agreement)
• All children can learn and most at a high level (84 percent)
• Schools should be held accountable for student learning (80 percent)
• Both rewards and sanctions are necessary incentives to encourage high performance in schools (59 percent)
9. Helpfulness of the Kentucky Teacher Internship Programs
New teachers gave high marks to the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program and to the members of their assistance and assessment team.
10. New teachers making a difference in their students’ lives
Nearly all new teachers (97 percent) reported they were certain that they were making a difference in the lives of the children they teach. However, the new teachers who are currently teaching at the elementary level were more certain about this than were the middle or high school teachers.
Back Appendix A: Student Achievement in Kentucky
Ahead to Appendix C: Professional Development Issues
Division of Teacher Education, OTEC, Kentucky’s Performance Indicators for Teacher Education Programs 1992 Through 1996 (Frankfort: KDE, 1997) section 2, 58. Return to text.