ERIC ED506677: State Teacher Policy Yearbook: Progress on Teacher Quality, 2007. Kansas State Summary

2007·2 MB·English

by  ERIC

Kansas State Summary
2007
State Teacher
Policy Yearbook
Progress on Teacher Quality
National Council on Teacher Quality
Acknowledgments
STATeS
Our most important partners in this effort have been state education agencies, whose extensive experience
has helped to ensure the factual accuracy of the final product. Every state formally received two different
drafts of the Yearbook for comment and correction, first in spring 2006 and again in December 2006.
States also received a final draft of their reports a month prior to release. All but three states graciously
responded to our many, many inquiries. While states have not always agreed with our approaches, most
have exhibited a remarkable willingness to reflect upon the impact of their current policies—and to
acknowledge that the system needs fixing.
FuNderS
NCTQ owes a great debt of gratitude to the pioneer funders for this first edition of the State Teacher
Policy Yearbook:
n Achelis Foundation n Koret Foundation
n Bodman Foundation n The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
n Daniels Fund n Martha Holden Jennings Foundation
n Fisher Family Foundation n Milken Family Foundation
n Gleason Foundation n The Teaching Commission
n The Joyce Foundation n Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
n Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
The National Council on Teacher Quality does not accept any direct funding from the federal government.
STAFF
NCTQ acknowledges the following individuals for their involvement in preparing this report. Our
principal staff was Jess Castle and Sandi Jacobs. Area analysts were Andrew Campanella, Carl Cole,
Nicole Fernandez, Catherine Kelliher, Whitney Miller, Emma Snyder, and Danielle Wilcox. Research
analysts included Emily Cohen, Eric Dang, Paige Donehower, Elizabeth McCorry, Tess Mullen and
Nathan Sheely. Thank you to Colleen Hale at Summerhouse Studios who designed the print and web
versions of the Yearbook.
About the Yearbook
The State Teacher Policy Yearbook examines what is arguably the single most powerful authority over the
teaching profession: state government. State authority over the profession—whether through regulation
approved by state boards of education or professional standards boards or by laws passed by legisla-
tures—is far reaching. These policies have an impact on who decides to enter teaching, who stays—and
everything in between.
The Yearbook provides an unprecedented analysis of the full range of each state’s teacher policies, measured
against a realistic blueprint for reform. It identifies six key areas in urgent need of policy attention, along with
specific policy goals within these areas. To develop these goals, three years ago, we began to work with our
own nationally respected advisory board, eventually widening the scope to consult with over 150 different
policy groups, academics, education think tanks, and national education organizations, some of which have
quite different perspectives than ours. The best advice we received came from the states themselves.
The teacher quality goals in this volume all meet four critical benchmarks:
1. They are supported by a strong rationale, grounded in responsible research. (A full list of the citations
to support each goal can be found at www.nctq.org.)
2. Where applicable, they rely on meaningful inputs shown to improve student achievement and measur-
able outputs.
3. They are designed to make the teaching profession more responsive to the current labor market
4. They can work in all 50 states.
While a national summary report is available, we have customized the Yearbook so that each state has its
own report, with its own analyses and data. Users can download any one of our 51 state reports (includ-
ing the District of Columbia) from our website (www.nctq.org). Since some national perspective is always
helpful, each state report contains charts and graphs showing how the state performed compared to all
other states. We also point to states that offer a “Best Practice” for other states to emulate.
There is no overall grade for a state. Instead, we capture the bird’s-eye view of each state’s performance
though a descriptive term such as “weak but progressing” or “needs major improvement.” In order to
provide a useful and instantly recognizable standard of performance, we have issued grades to states in
each of the six areas. Because there are so many individual goals, we rely on a familiar and useful graphic
symbol—circles filled in to various degrees—to reflect progress being made toward meeting these
goals. Although somewhat complex, we chose this rating system as the fairest and most easily discern-
ible way to depict the effectiveness of current state educational policies.
Finally, let me emphasize that we view the Yearbook as the beginning of a conversation. Not for a moment
do we think that the blueprint presented here solves, once and for all, this tricky and complicated business
of regulating the teaching profession. But what we have done is put forward a well-informed view of how
states might improve, one which we believe is worthy of consideration.
We fully anticipate that the content of the Yearbook will evolve from year to year, responding to new
information, a lot more feedback, and renewed research.
Sincerely,
Kate Walsh, President

Executive Summary: Kansas
Welcome to the Kansas edition of the National Council on Teacher Quality’s State Teacher Policy
Yearbook. This analysis is the first of what will be an annual look at the status of state policies im-
pacting the teaching profession. It is our hope that this report will help focus attention on areas
where state policymakers could make improvements to benefit both students and teachers.
Our policy evaluation is broken down into six areas that include a total of 27 goals. Broadly, these goals ex-
amine the impact of state policy on the preparation, certification, licensure, compensation and effective-
ness of teachers across the elementary, secondary and special education spectra. Kansas’ progress toward
meeting these goals is summarized on the following page.
Overall, Kansas lags behind most other states in implementing teacher-related policy. Kansas completely
missed 11 goals, met a small portion of seven, partially met six, nearly met two and fully met only one.
Kansas’ best performance is in Area 1, “Meeting NCLB Teacher Quality Objectives;” however, there is still
significant room for improvement in that area. The state has considerable work to do in all other areas.
The state deserves credit for its policy requiring elementary special education teachers to be dually certi-
fied in elementary education. Kansas, however, should articulate more explicit standards for special edu-
cation preparation programs and ensure they provide an efficient program of study.
The body of the report provides a more detailed breakdown of the state’s strengths and weaknesses in
each area.

Overall Performance: unsatisfactory
State Policy yearbook 2007 : 
Executive Summary: How is Kansas Faring?
GRADE STATE ANAlYSIS
c AreA 1 – Meeting NClB Teacher Quality Objectives
Kansas needs to improve its data policies, which can help it ameliorate inequities in teacher assign-
ments. The state’s subject matter preparation policies for future elementary teachers are better than
those of many states, and, for the most part, its policies for future secondary teachers are good. The state
has not entirely phased out its use of the HOUSSE route, however, and it has not defined a subject
matter major..
d AreA 2 – Teacher licensure
Kansas’ standards lack specificity and do not clearly refer to new teachers. Reading instruction is only
addressed in student curricular standards, which do not ensure that teachers are prepared in this criti-
cal area before entering the classroom. New teachers may teach for two years before passing licensure
exams. While the state has taken a good first step toward licensure reciprocity, its policies in this area
could still be improved. Kansas does not recognize the distinct levels of academic caliber for teachers
at initial certification.
d AreA 3 – Teacher Evaluation and Compensation
Kansas’ minimal teacher evaluation guidelines call for evidence of teacher effectiveness, but they are
too vague to guarantee districts use objective evidence as the preponderant criterion. Moreover, these
evaluations only occur every three years. Efforts to promote teacher effectiveness are further hampered
by a lack of value-added data and by granting teachers tenure after only three years. While the state
does not burden districts with a minimum salary schedule, it also does not promote differential or per-
formance pay.
d AreA 4 – State Approval of Teacher Preparation Programs
Kansas does not do enough to hold its programs accountable for the quality of their preparation. In ad-
dition, it has failed to address their tendency to require excessive amounts of professional coursework.
Furthermore, Kansas does not require aspiring teachers to demonstrate basic skills before entering a
teacher preparation program. The state appropriately separates accreditation from state approval.
d AreA 5 – Alternate Routes to Certification
Kansas does not currently provide a genuine alternate route into the teaching profession. The alternate
route the state offers has serious structural flaws combined with low and inflexible admissions stan-
dards. Kansas does not ensure that programs do not require excessive coursework, and it does not en-
sure that adequate support is provided to new teachers. The state collects some objective performance
data from alternate route programs, although it does not use the data to hold programs accountable for
the quality of their teachers. Kansas has a restrictive policy regarding licensure reciprocity for teachers
from out of state who were prepared in an alternate route program, making it difficult for some teach-
ers to transfer their licenses.
d AreA 6 – Preparation of Special Education Teachers
Kansas’ standards for special education teachers do not adequately prepare them to work with students
with disabilities. The state places no limit on the amount of professional education coursework that
its teacher preparation programs can require of special education candidates, resulting in program
excesses. While its general education requirements for special education candidates are better than
those found in many states, the state’s policy does not ensure that teachers will receive all the subject
matter preparation relevant to the topics taught in the PK-6 classroom. Kansas requires secondary spe-
cial education candidates to obtain a major or the equivalent in a subject area; however, the state has
not developed a streamlined HOUSSE route specifically to help them meet additional subject matter
requirements once they are in the classroom.
2: State Policy yearbook 2007
Table of Contents
AreA 1 Meeting NClB Teacher Quality Objectives AreA 4 State Approval of Teacher
Goal A Equitable Distribution of Teachers page 5 Preparation Programs
The state should contribute to the equitable Goal A Entry Into Preparation Programs page 61
distribution of quality teachers by means of The state should require undergraduate
good reporting and sound policies. teacher preparation programs to administer
Goal B Elementary Teacher Preparation 9 a basic skills test as a criterion for admission.
The state should ensure that its teacher prepara- Goal B Program Accountability 64
tion programs provide elementary teacher candi- The state should base its approval of teacher
dates with a broad liberal arts education. preparation programs on measures that focus
Goal C Secondary Teacher Preparation 14 on the quality of the teachers coming out of the
The state should require its teacher preparation programs.
programs to graduate secondary teachers who are Goal C Program Approval and Accreditation 69
highly qualified. The state should keep its program approval
Goal d Veteran Teachers Path to HQT 17 process wholly separate from accreditation.
The state should phase out its alternative Goal d Controlling Coursework Creep 72
“HOUSSE” route to becoming highly qualified. The state should regularly review the professional
Goal e Standardizing Credentials 20 coursework that teacher candidates are required to
The state should adopt the national standard defin- take, in order to ensure an efficient and
ing the amount of coursework necessary balanced program of study.
to earn a major or minor.
AreA 5 Alternate Routes to Certification
AreA 2 Teacher licensure
Goal A Genuine Alternatives 77
Goal A Defining Professional Knowledge 25 The state should ensure its alternate routes to
Through teaching standards, the state should ar- certification are well structured, meeting the needs
ticulate and assess the professional knowledge of of new teachers.
teaching and learning that new teachers need, but Goal B limiting Alternate Routes 84
steer clear of “soft” areas that are hard to measure. to Teachers with Strong Credentials
Goal B Meaningful licenses 29 The state should require all of its alternate route
The state should require that all teachers pass programs to be both academically selective and ac-
required licensing tests before they begin their commodating to the nontraditional candidate.
second year of teaching. Goal C Program Accountability 87
Goal C Interstate Portability 32 The state should hold alternate route programs ac-
The state should help to make teacher licenses countable for the performance of their teachers.
fully portable among states—with appropriate Goal d Interstate Portability 90
safeguards. The state should treat out-of-state teachers who
Goal d Teacher Prep in Reading Instruction 36 completed an approved alternate route program
The state should ensure that new teachers know no differently than out-of-state teachers who com-
the science of reading instruction. pleted a traditional program.
Goal e Distinguishing Promising Teachers 39
The state license should distinguish promising AreA 6 Preparation of Special Education Teachers
new teachers.
Goal A Special Education Teacher Preparation 95
The state should articulate the professional knowl-
AreA 3 Teacher Evaluation and Compensation
edge needed by the special education teacher
Goal A Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness 43
and monitor teacher preparation programs for
The state should require instructional effectiveness
efficiency of delivery.
to be the preponderant criterion of any teacher
Goal B Elementary Special Education Teachers 99
evaluation.
The state should require that teacher preparation
Goal B Using Value-Added 47
programs provide a broad liberal arts program of
The state should install strong value-added instru-
study to elementary special education candidates.
ments to add to schools’ knowledge of teacher
Goal C Secondary Special Education Teachers 102
effectiveness.
The state should require that teacher preparation
Goal C Teacher Evaluation 51
programs graduate secondary special education
The state should require that schools formally
teacher candidates who are “highly qualified” in
evaluate teachers on an annual basis.
at least two subjects.
Goal d Compensation Reform 54
Goal d Special Education Teacher and HQT 105
The state should encourage, not block, efforts
The state should customize a “HOUSSE” route
at compensation reform.
for new secondary special education teachers to
Goal e Tenure 58
help them achieve highly qualified status in all the
The state should not give teachers permanent
subjects they teach.
status (tenure) until they have been teaching
for five years.
AppeNdix 109
Goals with this icon are especially important for attracting science and mathematics teachers. State Policy yearbook 2007 : 

Area 1: Goal A – Equitable Distribution of Teachers
The state should contribute to the equitable distribution of quality teachers by means of good
reporting and sound policies.
GoAl CompoNeNTS
Figure 1 Equitable Distribution of Teachers
The state should make the following data publicly
How States are Faring
available:
n The percentage of highly qualified teachers, disaggre-
gated both by individual school and by teaching area;
Best Practice
n The ratio of new teachers (first and second year) to the 0
full teaching staff, disaggregated by individual school,
reported for the previous three years;
n The annual teacher absenteeism rate reported for State Meets Goal
1
the previous three years, disaggregated by individual
school; Connecticut
n The average teacher turnover rate for the previous
three years, disaggregated by individual school and
State Nearly Meets Goal
school district in the state, and further disaggregated
3
by reasons that teachers leave.
New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina
The state should include measurable goals, timelines,
or other benchmarks to evaluate the success of strategies
aimed at improving the equitable distribution of quali-
State Partly Meets Goal
fied teachers. 8
Arizona, California, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada,
rATioNAle Rhode Island, Texas, Wisconsin
See appendix for detailed rationale.
n States need to report data at the level of the individual
State Meets a Small Part of Goal
school.
39
n Experience matters a lot at first, but quickly fades in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado,
importance. Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
n Sweeping policy changes may be needed.
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
n Teacher compensation is a critical carrot. Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
SupporTiNG reSeArCh New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Research citations to support this goal are available at Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee,
www.nctq.org/stpy/citations. Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wyoming
State Does Not Meet Goal
0
Goals with this icon are especially important for attracting science and mathematics teachers. State Policy yearbook 2007 : 
Area 1: Goal A – Kansas Analysis
State Meets a Small Part of Goal
ANAlySiS
Comprehensive reporting may be the state’s most important role for ensuring the equitable distribution of
teachers among schools. Although Kansas currently collects most of the data recommended by NCTQ,
it does not make most of this information publicly available. The state does not collect information on
teacher absenteeism, but it does collect information at the school level on annual teacher turnover rates
and the ratio of new hires to the full staff. However, these data are not publicly reported. Kansas does
publish the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers at each school.
In its Equity Plan submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, Kansas reported on the percentage of
classes taught by highly qualified teachers, comparing high- versus low-poverty districts and schools. The
state found that overall, 89 percent of classes were taught by highly qualified teachers, but that non-highly
qualified teachers were more likely to teach in high-poverty schools, especially on the secondary level.
When Kansas compared high- and low-poverty districts, the state identified little difference in the percent-
age of classes taught by highly qualified teachers. However, when the state disaggregated its data further to
the building level, it identified a significant disparity, particularly among secondary schools. By reporting
at the building level, the state is able to discern gaps in the equitable distribution of teacher talent that was
obviously masked by more aggregated reporting.
Kansas identified the subject areas of history, economics, foreign languages, and language arts as in partic-
ular need of highly qualified teachers, and, like many other states, noted that special education teachers as
a group are much less likely to be highly qualified than their regular education counterparts. For example,
using 2005-06 data, the state noted that approximately 70 percent of special education mathematics and
science classes were taught by non-highly qualified teachers. Moreover, Kansas does not report on teacher
distribution among high- and low-minority schools, nor does the state provide information on the per-
centage of inexperienced teachers. Without this information, it is not yet possible to determine whether
Kansas’ poor and minority children are being disproportionately assigned inexperienced, unqualified and
out-of-field teachers compared to other children.
n State initiatives play a limited role in remedying the systemic reasons for inequitable distribution of
teachers. Nevertheless state initiatives signal a state’s concern for this issue and have some capacity to
seed reform. Kansas has proposed: --Targeting loan forgiveness and financial incentives to qualified
teachers in high-need schools;
n Expanding alternative licensure routes to attract candidates who are well-prepared in their subject
areas; and
n Ensuring that districts do not pay teachers who are not licensed for their teaching assignments, as
required by law.
Kansas’ Equity Plan provides for limited monitoring of the equitable distribution gaps, but does not offer
meaningful benchmarks to indicate the effectiveness of its proposed strategies.
SupporTiNG reSeArCh
Kansas Highly Qualified Teacher Plan: http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/hqtplans/ks.doc
: State Policy yearbook 2007