Teac powerpoint 1

392 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
392
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Teac powerpoint 1

  1. 1. Teacher Education Accreditation Council One Dupont Circle, Suite 320 Washington DC www.teac.org 202-466-7236 Nov 12, 2010
  2. 2. Two Key Questions <ul><li>Do the program’s graduates understand what the faculty claim they know and can do? </li></ul><ul><li>What have the faculty learned from their monitoring and inquiry into the program’s quality? </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  3. 3. Logic of TEAC Accreditation <ul><li>Evidence of Capacity for Program Quality </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence of Candidate Competence </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence of a System of Quality Control and Monitoring </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  4. 4. Overall TEAC Goal Nov 12, 2010 Overall TEAC Goal <ul><li>Public assurance that the program’s graduates are </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- competent </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Public assurance that the faculty </li></ul><ul><li>monitors and improves program quality </li></ul>- qualified <ul><ul><li>- caring </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Assurance based on evidence <ul><li>Upon what evidence does the program faculty rely </li></ul><ul><ul><li>to support their claims that the program’s graduates are competent ? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>to convince themselves that their interpretations of the assessments results are valid? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>to convince themselves that program changes & requirements they impose actually improve the program’s quality? </li></ul></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  6. 6. What would be bad news? <ul><li>What change in evidence would be taken as a real, not just a public relations problem? Downturns in -- </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Student satisfaction with the program </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Grades </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>License test results </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Employer satisfaction, hiring rates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What? (New developments in scholarship) </li></ul></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  7. 7. Generally available indicators of program quality <ul><li>Grades (major, pedagogy, & clinical) </li></ul><ul><li>Scores on Standardized tests </li></ul><ul><li>(candidates’ entrance, exit, and license scores and perhaps graduates’ own students’ scores) </li></ul><ul><li>Surveys – students, alumni, employers </li></ul><ul><li>Ratings – portfolios, work samples, cases </li></ul><ul><li>Basis for Rates – hiring/tenure, certification, graduate study, awards, publications, NBPTS, etc. </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  8. 8. Criteria for TEAC Candidate Status <ul><li>0.1 Regional accreditation (or equivalent) </li></ul><ul><li>0.2 Graduates’ eligibility for a professional license </li></ul><ul><li>0.3 Commitment to comply with TEAC's standards </li></ul><ul><li>0.4 Disclosure of accreditation status </li></ul><ul><li>0.5 Willingness to provide information to TEAC </li></ul><ul><li>0.6 Payment of annual indexed fees </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  9. 9. Answer to Key Question 1 <ul><li>1.0 Evidence of Candidate Acquisition of </li></ul><ul><li>1.1 Subject Matter Knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>1.2 Pedagogical Knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>1.3 Caring & Effective Teaching Skill </li></ul><ul><li>1.4 Each includes evidence of three cross-cutting themes & evidence of validity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1.4.1 Learning how to learn (critical reflection) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1.4.2 Multicultural perspectives & accuracy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1.4.3 Technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1.5 Valid interpretations of the assessment evidence </li></ul></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  10. 10. Answer to Question 1 for Educational Leadership <ul><li>1.0 Evidence of Candidate Acquisition of </li></ul><ul><li>1.1 Professional Knowledge (organizational theory & development, resource management, school finance & law, instructional supervision, policy & politics, data analysis & interpretation) </li></ul><ul><li>1.2 Strategic decision-making (make decisions fairly, collaboratively and informed by evidence, </li></ul><ul><li>formulate strategy, articulate a vision) </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  11. 11. Answer to Question 1 for Educational Leadership <ul><li>1.3 Caring & Effective Leadership Skill (ethical culture, effective program, staff development, safe environment, collaboration with families & community, serve diverse needs, mobilize community resources) </li></ul><ul><li>1.4 Each includes evidence of three cross-cutting themes & evidence of validity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1.4.1 Learning how to learn (critical reflection) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1.4.2 Multicultural perspectives & accuracy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1.4.3 Technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1.5 Valid interpretations of the assessment evidence </li></ul></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  12. 12. Answer to Key Question 2 <ul><li>2.0 Faculty Learning, Inquiry, & Quality Control </li></ul><ul><li>2.1 Rationale for the assessments showing why they were selected, how they are expected to be valid and the faculty’s pass/fail criterion for each </li></ul><ul><li>2.2 A record that some faculty decisions are based on inquiry and evidence </li></ul><ul><li>2.3 A quality control and monitoring system for the curriculum, faculty, students, and resources that yields evidence of quality, influences decision-making and promotes inquiry. </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  13. 13. Answer to Question 2 <ul><li>What has the faculty learned about – </li></ul><ul><li>1. Whether its quality control system works as designed </li></ul><ul><li>2. Whether the faculty’s interpretations of its assessments are valid </li></ul><ul><li>3. Whether the assessments support the claims </li></ul><ul><li>4. Whether program requirements positively influence candidate learning </li></ul><ul><li>5. Whether more inquiry is needed </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  14. 14. An argument that the program has the capacity for quality <ul><li>Parity on common program features with other units at the institution – curriculum, faculty, facilities, fiscal & administrative resources, candidate support and candidate complaints. </li></ul><ul><li>Sufficiency of capacity – curriculum, faculty, facilities, fiscal & administrative resources, support services and policies & practices </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  15. 15. Accuracy of Brief: Audit Opinions <ul><li>Clean Opinion : At least 90% targets verified </li></ul><ul><li>Qualified Opinion : At least 75% targets verified and/or more than 25% have errors of any kind (trivial and consequential) </li></ul><ul><li>Adverse Opinion : More than 25% of the targets are not verified </li></ul><ul><li>Disclaimer Opinion : More than 25% of the targets could not be audited </li></ul><ul><li>Disclaimer + Not Verified is more than 25% </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  16. 16. TEAC standard of evidence <ul><li>Evidence is reliable : chance is not a credible explanation for them </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence is valid : rival explanations are not credible & evidence is consistent with claims </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence is of sufficient magnitude : 75% guideline or heuristic is applied to the empirical maximum (the mean of the top ten percent) when no other guidance is available. </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  17. 17. Accreditation Outcomes Nov 12, 2010 Candidate Learning Faculty Learning Capacity Accreditation Status Above Above Above Accreditation (5-10yrs) Above Below Above Accreditation (2 years) Below Above Above Accreditation (2 years) IBP Above Above Initial Accred. (5 years) IBP Above Below Initial Accred. (2 years) Above Above Below Accreditation (2 years) Below Below Below Above Above Below Deny Deny
  18. 18. Anatomy of an Inquiry Brief <ul><li>An Inquiry Brief is a </li></ul><ul><li>Research article or monograph (50 pages) </li></ul><ul><li>Scholarly work </li></ul><ul><li>Persuasive case of the program’s claims </li></ul><ul><li>New standard for accreditation self-study </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  19. 19. Inquiry Brief : main sections <ul><li>1. Introduction (demographics & values) </li></ul><ul><li>2. Claims and rationale for assessments </li></ul><ul><li>3. Methods of assessing </li></ul><ul><li>4. Results </li></ul><ul><li>5. Discussion of results and plan of inquiry </li></ul><ul><li>6. References </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  20. 20. Inquiry Brief Proposal <ul><li>1. Introduction (demographics & values) </li></ul><ul><li>2. Claims and rationale for the proposed assessments </li></ul><ul><li>3. Proposed methods of assessing </li></ul><ul><li>4. Proposed results ( only pilot or historical evidence actually presented ) </li></ul><ul><li>5. Plan for further inquiry </li></ul><ul><li>6. References </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  21. 21. Inquiry Brief for Re-accreditation <ul><li>1. Introduction (demographics & values) </li></ul><ul><li>2. Claims and rationale for assessments </li></ul><ul><li>3. Methods of assessing </li></ul><ul><li>4. Results (including prior Appendix E promises) </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion of results </li></ul><ul><li>Results from prior plan of inquiry </li></ul><ul><li>7. References </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  22. 22. Inquiry Brief : Appendices <ul><li>A. Internal audit of quality control system – it works as designed and makes things better </li></ul><ul><li>B. Evidence of capacity and parity (commitment) </li></ul><ul><li>C. Qualifications of the program faculty </li></ul><ul><li>D. Program requirements & alignments with state and/or professional association standards </li></ul><ul><li>E. Inventory: analysis of available measures </li></ul><ul><li>F. Copies of locally developed assessments </li></ul><ul><li>G. Programs accredited by other agencies </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  23. 23. Program Quality Audit Report (PQAR) <ul><li>Demographics and Claims </li></ul><ul><li>Description of the Quality Control System </li></ul><ul><li>Method of Conducting Internal Audit </li></ul><ul><li>Findings from the Internal Audit with regard to each part of the TEAC system (1.1 to 3.2.6) </li></ul><ul><li>Interpretation of the Findings </li></ul><ul><li>Plans for modifications and further inquiry </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  24. 24. Another Format for the Inquiry Brief: An Expanded Appendix B <ul><li>Each numbered element, component, subcomponent of the TEAC system is serially and fully addressed (1.1-3.2.6) </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  25. 25. Case Study Format of an Inquiry Brief <ul><li>A demonstrably representative case is fully described that covers each element , component, and subcomponent of the TEAC system and each program option </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  26. 26. What is a single program? <ul><li>Program structure . Essentially the same requirements, rationale, logic, and faculty </li></ul><ul><li>Quality control system . Share the same quality control system </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence . The evidence can be aggregated honestly (disaggregation) </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010
  27. 27. TEAC accreditation process at a glance <ul><li>Application  & Candidate status </li></ul><ul><li>Formative evaluation (optional) </li></ul><ul><li>Inquiry Brief submitted and declared auditable </li></ul><ul><li>Call-for-comment & Electronic Survey of Faculty, Students and Cooperating Teachers </li></ul><ul><li>Audit visit and Audit Report </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis of the case by panelists & staff </li></ul><ul><li>Accreditation Panel recommendation </li></ul><ul><li>Accreditation Committee decision </li></ul><ul><li>Acceptance or appeal of the decision </li></ul><ul><li>Annual Report (Appendix E and data update) </li></ul>Nov 12, 2010

×