Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Program Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TEA reviews five‑year program dataset, flags programs with low graduates and low wages
Summary
Director Chambers presented a five‑year program review dataset covering 185 programs (100 in the provided excerpt). The data combine multiple sources (KTIP, Department of Labor wages, job postings) and identify programs with low graduation counts and average wages below a 280% poverty threshold for follow‑up.
Director Chambers presented the final issue paper and dataset for the authority’s five‑year program review, describing methodology and key findings.
Chambers said staff reviewed 185 programs in total and provided a dataset excerpt of 100 programs sorted by ZIP code. The data combine KTIP program records (declared majors, graduates, concentrators), Kansas Department of Labor wage survey data (entry wages and occupational alignment), an occupational employment demand document (ranking occupations by demand and wage levels) and one year of Lightcast job‑posting data. Chambers said the packet separates programs into four categories: programs with 10 or fewer graduates over the review period, programs with 11–15 graduates, programs that may warrant a ZIP‑code review, and programs where earned wages are below 280% of the poverty level.
Chambers noted the 280% poverty threshold was chosen because universities use a similar metric in their reviews. The dataset identifies 34 programs with 10 or fewer graduates, 11 programs with 11–15 graduates, 8 programs that may warrant a ZIP code review, and 47 programs where wages for graduates fall below the 280% poverty benchmark. Chambers asked members to review the materials and request additional information as needed; staff offered to provide wider, printed copies to aid review.
Why it matters: the review is a step in statutory program eligibility oversight (KSA 71‑18o2) and provides a data foundation for potential program alignment, consolidation, or further investigation. The authority did not take action but was invited to follow up and ask for additional analysis.
Next steps: staff will accept questions and requests for further data; the packet and full dataset will remain available for member review and potential action at a later meeting.
