Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mentor Program Regs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews proposal to drop mentor‑program reporting now that state funding has ended
Summary
Kansas education staff proposed removing a requirement that districts submit mentor‑program applications and annual evaluations tied to state grant funds, arguing the reporting burden stems from an earlier funding condition; board members asked about accountability and licensure overlap.
TOPEKA, Kan. — State Department of Education staff asked the Kansas State Board of Education on Nov. 13 to consider removing a reporting requirement for district mentor‑teacher programs that is tied to state grant funding.
Under Article 41, KSD staff said, districts seeking state grant funds historically had to submit applications and annual evaluation reports to receive funding for mentor programs. Staff told the board that because the state funding stream for mentor programs no longer exists, they recommend removing the reporting requirement that is currently contingent on receiving state funds.
"Because there aren't state funds tied to this, let's take away the requirement that districts have to submit their applications and submit their evaluations," Dr. Renee Nugent said. Staff emphasized the change would not eliminate mentorship itself; licensing and professional‑standards regulations would still require mentor teachers as part of licensure practice. A Professional Standards Board representative noted that licensure rules continue to require mentor support for new teachers.
Board members asked where accountability would rest if the department stopped collecting those evaluations, whether the regulation as written (91‑41‑2) already ties reporting to the presence of funds, and how collected reports are used by the agency and legislature. Several members recommended not amending regulations now if the existing language already conditions reporting on funding; staff agreed to return with the regulation text and a refined proposal at a later meeting.
No formal vote was taken; staff said they will provide additional materials and bring a revised article back for further consideration.
