Streamlining & Redesign of the Accreditation Process: Preliminary Discussions Donna M. Gollnick

1. Streamlining & Redesign of the Accreditation Process: Preliminary DiscussionsDonna M. Gollnick

2. Online Institutional Report • Tested in fall 2008 & spring 2009 visits • Characteristics • Prompts for each element • 11 required tables • Ability to upload key links, tables, & figures • Institutions to have option of Online IR in fall 2009 and spring 2010 visits

3. Data from national program review • Accepted for Std. 1 • Content knowledge for teachers • Pedagogical content knowledge for teachers • Professional knowledge & skills for other school professionals • Student learning for teachers & other school professionals

4. Streamlining Options in Spring 2009 & Fall 2009 Visits • Previsit conducted electronically • Visit to begin on Sunday afternoon & finish by noon on Wednesday • School visits eliminated • Poster sessions eliminated • Virtual focused visits

5. Exhibits • Electronic exhibits should be used when possible (not required, but most institutions now have most of the exhibits available electronically). • Exhibits should be available for each standard • List of key exhibits are available on NCATE’s website

6. Future Goals

7. Who is involved in these discussions? • Selected deans, NCATE coordinators, & state agency representatives have participated (or will) with senior staff to discuss program review, unit accreditation, and continuous improvement visits. • Executive directors of member organizations • Input from institutions and other NCATE constituents being sought at • Annual conferences • Special meetings • Website

8. Next Steps • Recommendations being shared with NCATE board members as they are developed. • UAB will consider & refine recommendations at its April 2009 meeting. • Executive board will adopt recommendations at its May 2009 meeting.

9. Continuing to Streamline • Shorter visits being tested in 2009 • Smaller teams, especially for continuing visits • Better use of technology before, during, & after the visit • Less burdensome self-study process • Less burdensome program review process

10. Continuous Improvement • How can accreditation be used to support continuous improvement in teacher education? • How could NCATE determine that standards continue to be met, allowing a different type of self-study & visit?

11. How can data be used to determine if stds are met? • Part B of AACTE/NCATE annual report currently under revision • Part C (NCATE portion) now includes • substantive changes • Progress made on eliminating areas for improvement

12. What key criteria would suggest a conventional visit? • Assessment system no longer exists, data are not collected systematically & regularly, or data are not used to evaluate candidates & programs. • Major changes have occurred. • Majority of programs offered online • Number of off-campus programs, especially outside the state, increased dramatically

13. Considering a brief report 3 years before visit • Address key standards elements • Report would be reviewed by BOE members • Identify any concerns • Indicate the type of visit needed • If evidence suggest that standards continue to be met, the unit could work with NCATE to identify the focus of the next visit.

14. What might this continuous visit look like? • Self-study would focus on • Specific standard, especially 3 or 4 • Transformational project in teacher education • Further development of valid & reliable assessments

15. What would be involved? • Data would have to show that standards continue to be met. • Unit would submit a proposal & negotiate the nature of the next visit with NCATE • The IR would include data on the work being done • Some BOE team members would have expertise in area of unit’s self-study