1 / 42

Accreditation 101

Accreditation 101. Commission on Teacher Credentialing. February 2009. Ensuring Educator Excellence. Accreditation. The process by which an organization recognizes a program of study or an institution as meeting predetermined standards. ... www.plexisweb.com/glossary/words/a.html

micheal
Download Presentation

Accreditation 101

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Accreditation 101 Commission on Teacher Credentialing February 2009 Ensuring Educator Excellence

  2. Accreditation • The process by which an organization recognizes a program of study or an institution as meeting predetermined standards. ...www.plexisweb.com/glossary/words/a.html • Procedure by which an authoritative body formally recognizes that a body or person is competent to carry out specific tasks.www.peercenter.net/glossary/

  3. Institution • College, university, school district, county office of education, or other entity that offers one or more educator preparation programs • CSU—23 campuses • UC—8 campuses • AICCU—57 institutions • Other Sponsors—30 sponsors • Induction Programs—170 sponsors

  4. Program • Approved educator preparation program • e.g., multiple/single subject, education specialist, administrative services, pupil personnel services, school nurse • Completion of an approved program leads to a credential or authorization • Approximately 1,000 approved educator preparation programs in California

  5. Commission on Teacher Credentialing • Responsible for the accreditation of all educator preparation institutions and the programs the institutions offer in California • Completion of an approved educator preparation program allows a program sponsor to recommend the candidate for a credential

  6. Governance EC 44371 (a) The system for accreditation of educator preparation shall do all of the following: (1) Concentrate on the overall quality of educator preparation in credential programs. (2) Hold professional elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educators responsible for quality in the preparation of professional practitioners. (3) Contribute to improvements in educator preparation and recognize excellence in preparation programs and institutions.

  7. Commission on Teacher Credentialing • 14 individuals appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate • 6 teacher representatives • 1 administrative services representative • 1 services, non administrative services • 4 public representatives • 1 school board representative • 1 faculty representative • Superintendent of Public Instruction or designee • 4 ex officio members (nonvoting members) • CSU • UC • AICCU • CPEC

  8. Committee on Accreditation Tasks the COA must complete: (1)Make decisions about the accreditation of educators’ preparation. The Committee's decision making process shall be in accordance with the Accreditation Framework. (2) Make decisions about the initial accreditation of new programs of educator preparation in accordance with procedures established by the Committee.

  9. COA Tasks (continued) (3) Determine the comparability of standards submitted by applicants with those adopted by the Commission, in accordance with the Accreditation Framework. (4) Determine the comparability of standards submitted by applicants with those adopted by the Commission, in accordance with the Accreditation Framework. (5) Adopt guidelines for accreditation reviews, and monitor the performance of accreditation teams and other aspects of the accreditation system.

  10. COA Members Postsecondary Members Ellen Curtis-Pierce Associate Vice Chancellor, ChapmanLynne Cook Dean, CSU Northridge Gary Kinsey Associate Dean, Cal Poly Pomona Reyes Quezada Professor, University of San Diego Ruth Sandlin Chair, Educational Psychology, CSU San Bernardino Sue TeeleDirector, Extension, UC Riverside K-12 Members Joyce Abrams Retired Teacher, Chula Vista Unified Dana Griggs San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Joseph Jimenez BTSA Induction Cluster Region Director Carol Leighty Superintendent, Temecula Valley Unified Karen O'Connor Teacher, Poway Unified Nancy Watkins Teacher, Placentia-Yorba Linda

  11. Purposes of the Commission’s Accreditation System • Accountability-public and profession • Adherence to Standards • High quality preparation for educators • On-going program improvement

  12. Common StandardsInstitutional Capacity • 1: Educational Leadership • 2: Unit and Program Assessment and Evaluation • 3: Resources • 4: Faculty and Instructional Personnel • 5: Admission • 6: Advice and Assistance • 7: Field Experience and Clinical Practice • 8: District-Employed Supervisors • 9: Assessment of Candidate Competence Common Standards and Glossary

  13. Program Standards • Specific to each credential program e.g. multiple/single subject, administrative services, school nurse, school psychology… • Program Design • Curriculum • Field Experience • Candidate Competency

  14. Commission’s Accreditation System • …includes a series of activities that, over time, give a picture of how the program and institution is meeting the adopted standards. Overview of Accreditation System

  15. Accreditation Cycle Site Visit (Yr 6) Collect and Analyze Data Annually Biennial Report (Yr 5) Biennial Report (Yr 3)

  16. CTC Administrator of Accreditation is responsible for • implementing the Commission’s accreditation system, • preparation of materials for the COA, and • guiding consultant staff related to accreditation activities.

  17. CTC Consultants’ Role • Technical assistance to institutions • Review Biennial Reports • Facilitate review of Program Assessment documents • Facilitate site visits

  18. Board of Institutional Review • Members: • Educators (K-12 or IHE) who attend the 4 day BIR Training • Tasks: • Review Program Assessment documents • Serve on Site Visit Teams • Training Options: • June 2009, August 2009, or January 2010

  19. Institution Tasks and Documents Submitted to the CTC • Ongoing Data Gathering & Analysis • Biennial Report • Program Assessment • Site Visit • Follow Up

  20. Do these all happen at once? • Accreditation activities are spread out over a period of 7 years. • Each institution is completing at least one of the activities each year.

  21. Accreditation Activities across the Cycle

  22. What is due and when? • Each institution is assigned to a cohort that is color coded. • Each cohort has a sequence of activities to follow. Sample Cohort Charts

  23. YELLOW COHORT (18) Sample Cohort Map

  24. Data Collection and Analysis Annually • Collect data • Analyze data • Decide if program modifications are needed

  25. Biennial Reports • Focus on candidate outcomes • Each program sponsor will submit a report for each approved program that is offered that includes aggregated data, analysis, and program modification • Two sections of the report: A—for each program (see above) and B—for overall trends and action plan submitted by the Dean/Director.

  26. Biennial Reports • Submitted in years 1, 3 and 5 • CTC staff will review the reports • Aggregated data • Analysis of aggregated data • Program modifications, if appropriate • Dean/Director’s summary Biennial Report Web Page

  27. Program Assessment • Year 4 of cohort cycle • Focus on the adopted Program Standards • Thorough review of ALL approved preparation programs • Due date to CTC: October - January; institution’s option

  28. Program Assessment Document • Part I: Narrative, describing the program currently in place. • Part II: Current course syllabi (induction likely to submit professional development and formative assessment) • Part III: Assessments used to assure candidate competence • e.g. rubrics, training information, calibration activities.

  29. Program Assessment Review • CTC staff • Organize and facilitate the review of documentation • Two days of dedicated time • Two trained reviewers • Review for links; HOW the Biennial Report data relates to the programs • Key Questions: How does the program know it is preparing competent educators? Is the program meeting the adopted standards?

  30. Program Assessment Review • Program assessment is a process; a professional dialogue • Reviewers look for a description of HOW the program meets the standards • Each component of the standard is reviewed for supporting evidence narrative. Program Assessment Web Page

  31. Preliminary Report of Findings from Program Assessment • Submitted to COA • Six months prior to the site visit, example: Report of Findings to COA, fall 2011 for a site visit in spring 2012 • Findings from Program Assessment will “focus” the site visit.

  32. Site Visit • Year 6 • Team of trained Board of Institutional Reviewers: 3-10 individuals • Areas of Focus • Common Standards • Areas of question from Program Assessment • Confirmation of the Preliminary Program Assessment Report of Findings

  33. Site Visits • CTC staff will facilitate the site visit. • BIR team of reviewers will gather information to make a decision regarding each Common Standard and Program Standards • Biennial Reports • Program Assessment • Interviews with employers, graduates, candidates, field supervisors, and program personnel Institutions will receive a draft site visit report at the end of the site visit. Site Visit Web Page

  34. Decisions on Standards The site visit team must reach a decision on each Common Standard and Program Standard Met—All phrases of the standard are evident and effectively implemented. Met with concern (s)—One or more phrases of the standard are not evident or are ineffectively implemented. Not Met — Significant phrases of the standard are not evident or are so ineffectively implemented that it is not possible to see the standard in the program.

  35. Accreditation Options • Accreditation • Accreditation with Stipulations • Accreditation with Major Stipulations • Accreditation with Probationary Stipulations • Denial of Accreditation

  36. Stipulations • If the recommendation is not “Accreditation,” the team must draft proposed stipulations • If the COA decision is not “Accreditation,” the COA must take action on stipulations • Stipulations identify the specific area (s) where the institution/program is not meeting the standard (s)

  37. Findings and Follow up • Year 7 • Report on issues, concerns, questions or follow-up to the site visit • Information from each activity (Biennial Report, Program Assessment and Site Visits) will then be reported at Committee on Accreditation (COA) meetings • The COA, in turn, shares findings with the Commission

  38. Resources • www.ctc.ca.gov • Go to Program Sponsors • In the grey column on the right select Accreditation There you will find information and updates on all accreditation activities.

  39. Critical Resources • Accreditation Framework • http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/PDF/accreditation_framework.pdf • Accreditation Handbook • http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/accred-handbook.html • COA’s Annual Report Accreditation Handbook

  40. Technical AssistanceWebcastshttp://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/webcasts.html • Accreditation 101 • Biennial Reports • Program Assessment • Preparing for a Site Visit: Nuts and Bolts • Common Standards

More Related