Preview

368 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
368
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Preview

  1. 1. To TEAC or To NCATE: That is the Question! Presented by: Dr. Mark LaCelle-Peterson and Dr. Donna M. Gollnick
  2. 2. … but to CAEP—that is the answer! Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation <ul><li>GOALS </li></ul><ul><li>Raise the performance of candidates as practitioners in the nation’s P-12 schools. </li></ul><ul><li>Raise the stature of the profession by raising standards for the evidence the field relies on to support its claims of quality . </li></ul>
  3. 3. Common Standards for Educator Preparation Programs <ul><li>Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions for effective work in schools. </li></ul><ul><li>Data drive decisions about candidates and programs. </li></ul><ul><li>Resources and practices support candidate learning. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Evidence Required for Each CAEP Option <ul><li>The three CAEP standards are met. </li></ul><ul><li>There is a functioning quality control system used to collect and analyze valid and reliable evidence. </li></ul><ul><li>Program planning and decisions are based on evidence of student learning. </li></ul>
  5. 5. Two Accrediting Commissions <ul><li>Two Commissions will make accreditation recommendations to the CAEP board. </li></ul><ul><li>The Commissions will perform the functions currently performed by NCATE’s Unit Accreditation Board and TEAC’s Accreditation Panel & Committee. </li></ul>
  6. 6. State Partnerships <ul><li>New CAEP protocol for contents of state agreements a top priority for Interim Board. </li></ul><ul><li>Partnership agreements will be renegotiated with CAEP and will specify program-level review options (3 proposed). </li></ul><ul><li>Committee of CAEP Board to oversee and recommend policy for the state partnership agreements. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Finances <ul><li>Single fee and dues structure </li></ul><ul><li>No AACTE sustaining fee </li></ul><ul><li>Scaled by program enrollment & inflation adjustment </li></ul><ul><li>Reduced costs as a goal </li></ul><ul><li>Outside consultant built a finance model </li></ul>
  8. 8. Four Accreditation Options <ul><li>Continuous Improvement </li></ul><ul><li>Internal Academic Audit* </li></ul><ul><li>Transformation Initiative </li></ul><ul><li>Inquiry Brief* </li></ul><ul><li>* Options in the ‘Inquiry/Audit’ paradigm </li></ul>
  9. 9. Overview of the NCATE Accreditation Process <ul><li>TRADITIONALLY </li></ul><ul><li>For Initial and Continuing Accreditation, Institutions would: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Respond to Preconditions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prepare an Institutional Report (IR) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Respond to the 6 NCATE Unit Standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Seek individual Program Approval from all relevant SPAs (Specialized Professional Associations) for each offered Initial and relevant Advanced Programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participate in an Onsite Accreditation Visit </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Changes in the NCATE Accreditation Process <ul><li>In May 2009, NCATE announced the intent for - “Redesign and Transformation of Educator Preparation” in response to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NCATE IHEs desire for a significantly simplified process to assess their performance in a rapidly changing environment AND </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The larger need to transform educator preparation to better meet the urgent demands of the nations’s P-12 schools. </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Continuous Improvement <ul><li>The unit will engage in continuous improvement between on-site visits. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Submit annual reports </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Describe changes in the IR (beginning with fall 2010 visits) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Submit IR 6-12 months before visit for feedback </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The unit will assess itself against the target level of one or more standards. </li></ul><ul><li>The process is designed to be more collegial than in the past. </li></ul>
  12. 12. <ul><li>Assessment data key </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What has the unit learned from its data? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What changes have been made based on the data? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What differences have the changes made? </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Formative Process <ul><li>IR & exhibits submitted 6-12 months before visit. </li></ul><ul><li>Offsite BOE Team </li></ul><ul><ul><li>reviews IR & exhibits months before visit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>writes Offsite BOE Report </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Content of IR by Standard: Prompt #1 (“Big” question related to standard) <ul><li>What do candidate assessment data tell the unit about candidates’ meeting standards? </li></ul><ul><li>How does the unit use its assessment system to improve the performance of candidates and the unit and its programs? </li></ul><ul><li>How does the unit work with school partners to deliver field experiences and clinical practice to enable candidates to develop the K,S,PDs to help all students learn? </li></ul>
  15. 15. “ Big” question related to standard (continued) <ul><li>How does the unit prepare candidates to work effectively with all students? </li></ul><ul><li>How does the unit ensure that its professional education faculty contributes to the preparation of effective educators? </li></ul><ul><li>How does the unit ensure that its governance system and resources are adequate to prepare candidates to meet professional, state, and institutional standards? </li></ul>
  16. 16. CI Process Timeline Activity 1½ -3 yrs. before visit (beginning in fall 2015) Programs submitted for national review 6-12 mos. before visit Institutional report submitted 1-2 mos. after IR is submitted Offsite review of IR & exhibits by Offsite BOE Team 1 mo. before visit IR addendum submitted Visit date Onsite visit by BOE Team 1 mo. after BOE report is received Rejoinder submitted April/October after visit Accreditation decision made
  17. 17. Offsite Review <ul><li>6-7 BOE national and state members, state consultant, & NCATE staff meet electronically for 3-4 hours to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Review the IR and electronic exhibits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prepare the Offsite BOE Report </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Statement of evidence </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Feedback on moving to the target level </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Areas of concern </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>List of evidence to be reviewed by the onsite team </li></ul></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Transformation Initiative <ul><li>The unit engages in an initiative for self-improvement and contribution to the improvement & reform of the profession, including learning in P-12 schools. </li></ul>
  19. 19. Inquiry/Audit Options <ul><li>Programs (defined by common aims, structure, rationale, and evidence) build cultures of inquiry and evidence; </li></ul><ul><li>Engage in inquiry & write an Inquiry Brief that: </li></ul><ul><li>- focuses on program’s goals for completers, </li></ul><ul><li>- relies on valid evidence that the faculty uses, </li></ul><ul><li>- fosters a cycle of continuous improvement, and - includes an internal audit of the quality controls; </li></ul><ul><li>Host an audit (site visit) of 2 to 3 days by a small team of auditors, including a staff member and a local practitioner, that verifies the IB . </li></ul>
  20. 20. Questions and Metaphors <ul><li>Three questions drive the inquiry/audit process: </li></ul><ul><li>What have candidates learned—do graduates’ knowledge and performance match faculty’s claims? </li></ul><ul><li>What has the faculty learned from the inquiry? </li></ul><ul><li>Does institutional capacity support quality? </li></ul>
  21. 21. Questions and Metaphors <ul><li>Empirical Research : research reports must meet the standards of scholarship via peer-review </li></ul><ul><li>Academic Audit : a quality control system is audited by following an ‘audit trail’ through its parts/processes </li></ul>
  22. 22. Inquiry/Audit Process Timeline Activity 1 to 2 years before anticipated audit Program faculty engage in self-study and participate in optional workshops 6 months prior to audit Inquiry Brief or Program Quality Audit Report submitted for formative feedback 8 weeks prior to audit IB or PQAR declared ‘auditable.’ Audit visit Two to three auditors, two to three days Following audit Audit report: agreed upon with program Semester following audit Accreditation Panel recommends (program representatives present) Three times per year Accreditation Committee decision
  23. 23. Inquiry Brief <ul><li>The Inquiry Brief is four things: </li></ul><ul><li>Scholarly monograph presenting valid, reliable evidence of student learning; </li></ul><ul><li>Documentation of institutional capacity and commitment (parity and sufficiency criteria); </li></ul><ul><li>Comprehensive investigation of the quality control system; </li></ul><ul><li>A plan for further inquiry by the faculty. </li></ul>
  24. 24. Program Quality Audit <ul><li>Comprehensive Internal Academic Audit of: </li></ul><ul><li>Student learning assessment system and results; </li></ul><ul><li>Reliability and validity of assessments; </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty use of evidence for program improvement; </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional capacity for and commitment to offer a quality program; </li></ul><ul><li>Comprehensive, effective quality control system. </li></ul>
  25. 25. Inquiry/Audit Evidence Subject Matter Knowledge Pedagogical Knowledge Caring and Effective Teaching Skill Valid evidence from reliable measures (validated locally) Including capacity for: Independent ongoing learning, Multicultural perspectives and competence, and Ability to use technology effectively
  26. 26. CAEP Goals <ul><li>Accreditation of all educator preparation programs to strengthen the field. </li></ul><ul><li>Accreditation processes that are: </li></ul><ul><li>data-driven, </li></ul><ul><li>inquiry-driven, </li></ul><ul><li>improvement-focused, and </li></ul><ul><li>useful because they generate empirical findings of local and general interest. </li></ul>
  27. 27. Questions and Answers

×