State Board grants Franklin Pierce University full approval, expects dispositions and background checks by Sept. 1

The State Board of Education voted to grant Franklin Pierce University full approval for its education preparation programs through Aug. 30, 2029, while requiring the university to meet outstanding dispositional-assessment and criminal-history fingerprinting requirements by Sept. 1.

The board acted after a multi-member review team and the department presented findings from a 2025 focused review that identified administrative-rule gaps and implementation discrepancies, particularly around candidate dispositional assessments and the timing of criminal history record checks.

The focused review team and the Council for Teacher Education reached somewhat different recommendations; the council recommended adding one year to the approval window to allow the program three data cycles. Laura Stemking, administrator for the Bureau of Educator Preparation and Higher Education, told the board the department and the review team recommended full approval because the programs had met the previously unmet standards, but flagged the criminal-history and dispositions items as areas requiring specific guidance and follow-up. "When the team was there, there were a couple of things that had popped up that through documentation were of concern," Stemking said, citing changes in state law on criminal-history checks and the need for clear disposition assessment evidence.

Representatives from Franklin Pierce described steps already under way. Dr. Joan Swanson, director of education at Franklin Pierce, described new weekly focus-point reviews during student teaching and a dispositional checklist covering 14 items such as respect, appearance and promptness. She said the institution does not place student teachers without successful criminal-history checks, including fingerprinting, and has moved that check earlier in its gateway process for the 2025–26 catalog. "We do not place students in student teaching without a successful criminal history records checks, including fingerprinting," Swanson said.

Board members debated whether to issue conditional approval (up to three years) or full approval with an expectation the outstanding items be resolved. Some members voiced hesitation about full approval before the department's administrative rules are clarified to govern outcomes of focused reviews. Ultimately, the board approved the council's recommendation that extended the approval period to allow the university to collect and report multiple cycles of data while meeting the flagged items by Sept. 1.

The board motion recorded the action as granting full approval for the listed programs through Aug. 30, 2029, with the expectation that unmet disposition requirements and criminal background checks be completed by Sept. 1. The university and the department agreed that the department would receive evidence that the items were addressed; the board asked that the evidence be provided to the department rather than brought back to the full board unless further action is required.

The discussion documented both the board’s authority options (full approval, conditional approval, or nonapproval) and the department’s plan to update administrative rules to better define outcomes following focused reviews.