Revision of Initial and Continued Approval Standard Guidelines for initial teacher preparation

1. Revision of Initial and Continued Approval Standard Guidelines for initial teacher preparation Elayne Colón, Tom Dana, & Theresa Vernetson University of Florida Project sponsored by the Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Educator Recruitment, Development & Retention

2. outline • Project Overview • Methods and Timeline • Findings • Recommendations and Implications

3. Overview of Project Charge • Prompted by recent legislation (SB 1664), Initial and Continued Program Approval Guidelines for Initial Teacher Preparation programs needed to be revisited. • Project included eliciting feedback and suggestions from ITP stakeholders concerning Program Approval Guidelines for ITP programs and making recommendations. • Duration of project: approximately 10 weeks during Summer 2013

4. Purpose From SB 1664: employ varied and innovative teacher preparation techniques while being held accountable for producing program completers with the competencies and skills necessary to achieve the state education goals; help all students in the state’s diverse student population meet high standards for academic achievement; maintain safe, secure classroom learning environments; and sustain the state system of school improvement and accountability

5. Methods Used to Collect Stakeholder Input • conversation with Teacher and Leader Preparation and Implementation Committee (TLPIC) • web-based survey (51 respondents) • conversations with FLDOE staff throughout project • face-to-face meetings: Rollins College (5/17), FAU (5/22) (58 participants) • webinar(59 participants) • follow up with sample of stakeholders (14 solicited, 8 respondents)

6. Timeline of events… • TLPIC Phone Conference (5/8/13) • Reactions to recent passage of SB 1664 • Lessons learned from TLPIC work since March 2011 • Recommendations from Site Visit Subcommittee (two-phase site visit process) • Relationship between Annual Program Performance Report Card and eIPEP

7. Timeline of events Continued… • Web-based Survey • Available 5/7 – 5/28/13 • 51 respondents • Questions focused on: • Extent to which stakeholder values particular data elements in making decisions about readiness of a program completer to enter the field • Extent to which stakeholder values particular data elements in making decisions about improving their ITP program • Extent to which stakeholder relies on data from FLDOE to improve their teacher preparation programs

8. Timeline of events continued… • Face-to-Face Meetings • Rollins College – 5/17/13 • Florida Atlantic University – 5/22/13 • 58 participants in all • Discussions focused on: • Revisions to Continued Approval Guidelines • Annual Reporting to the FLDOE • Site Visit Process • Initial Approval Guidelines

9. Timeline of Events continued… • Webinar • Held 6/14/13 • 59 participants • Presentation and discussion included: • key themes from F2F meetings regarding initial and continued approval • possible standards and indicators based on stakeholder input to that point • site visit processes and reporting for continued approval

10. Findings: Survey • To what extent do you value this information in making decisions about readiness of a program completer to enter the field? • Highest number of respondents reported “Can’t do without it:” • Candidate performance on all FEAPs/indicators during culminating field experience (second demonstration) • FTCE Subject Area Exam results • Grades in subject specific education courses (e.g. specialized methods) • Performance on capstone measure (e.g. culminating portfolio) • Ability to differentiate instruction for students with disabilities • Ability to differentiate instruction for English language students

11. Findings: Survey • To what extent do you value this information in making decisions about improving your ITP program? • Highest number of respondents reported “Can’t do without it:” • Candidate performance on all FEAPs/indicators during culminating field experience (second demonstration) • FTCE Professional Education Exam results • FTCE Subject Area Exam results • Ability to differentiate instruction for students with disabilities • Ability to differentiate instruction for English language students

12. Findings: F2F and Webinar • Continued Approval Standards • Small Group Activity: examine current standards/indicators and determine keep/remove/revise • Majority Keep: Program faculty/school district personnel meet state mandated requirements for supervision of field/clinical experiences (i.e., old 1.3 &1.4) • None had majority vote to remove entirely • All others had majority vote to revise • Themes of Feedback: • Consider different organizational structure for standards • Separate compliance from continuous improvement • … not helpful to continuous improvement, significant amount of data is irrelevant to ITP program… (e.g., old 2.2) • Focus on how programs use data to make changes • Align with national accreditation (i.e., CAEP)

13. Findings: F2F and Webinar Continued • Site Visits • The standards should be the same for Initial and Continued Program Approval. • 58% YES • The application folios should be the same for institutions with other already-approved programs as for institutions with no approved programs. • 86% NO • There should be an onsite visit for institutions with no other already-approved programs. • 92% YES

15. Key Themes across Stakeholder input • Focus on demonstration of program completer competence and not candidate progress • Attend to outcomes, not inputs • Reduce reporting burden on programs whenever possible • Streamline annual reporting requirements in the eIPEP and site visit process for each approved program • Separate compliance requirements from continuous program improvement processes • Allow innovation and creativity within institutions to learn and promote best practices • Support continuous improvement and avoid “gotcha” mentality or need to find weaknesses in reviews • Align Continued Program Approval processes with national accrediting bodies (e.g., NCATE/CAEP, SACS) • Align all documents and recommendations with SB 1664

16. Recommendations: Standards Initial Approval Continued Approval • Program Administration and Candidate Selectivity • Program Completer Quality • Field/Clinical Practices • Program Effectiveness • Program Completer Quality • Field/Clinical Practices • Program Effectiveness

17. Recommendations: Site visit process Two-phased* review: • Off-Site Phase • On-Site Visit *design based primarily on TLPIC Subcommittee’s recommendations

18. Off-site phase of review process • Site visit team reviews the institution’s program reports and electronic exhibits posted on line via the Electronic Institutional Program Evaluation Plan (eIPEP) • Off Site Reports for Each Program – team identify any “areas of concern” that could be cited as weaknesses in the final program approval recommendations • Preliminary findings shared with programs • In response to the off-site reports, the programs prepare addenda to their program reports, if necessary, and update their exhibits in the eIPEP as needed

19. On-site Visit as part of Review process • On-site Review Team members include a subset of the off-site review team, with the Team Chair remaining in that role for both reviews • On-site visit will span three days consisting of: • Day 1 - Team meeting to set priorities and participate in the institutional orientation • Day 2 – Focus on (1) the “areas of concern” identified during the off-site review, and (2) exemplars from select programs that highlight “continuous improvement.” • Day 3 – On-site review team meets to write final program report(s).

20. Implications and work to be done • Revisions to eIPEP to integrate reporting features • Training and materials for program leaders preparing reports • Training and materials for reviewers to increase consistency