Revision of Initial and Continued Approval Standard Guidelines for Educational Leadership Programs

1. Revision of Initial and Continued Approval Standard Guidelines for Educational Leadership Programs Presentation to FAPEL Winter Meeting Tallahassee, FL January 13, 2014

2. AGENDA • Progress of Project to Date • Initial Recommendations • Questions and Discussion

3. Data Gathering Steps • Review of Statutes, Rules, and Other Literature • On-line Survey of Educational Leadership Faculty in September • Focus Groups at Fall FAPEL Meeting • On-line Focus Group in November • Site Visits to Job-embedded Principal Preparation Programs in November

4. Data Gathering Steps, Continued • On-Line Review of Tentative Conclusions and Recommendations in December • Submission of Initial Report – December • Review of Report with FLDOE in January

5. QUESTION 1 The Race to the Top initiative requires that the FLDOE set outcome-based performance standards, building on the State's new student growth model to be used for continued approval of principal preparation programs. • How would you incorporate this new requirement into a revised standard, with regard to the following?   • Viable and reasonable performance measures for graduates (related to program effectiveness) and weight of importance for each • Before appointment to an administrative position • After appointment to an administrative position

6. Question 1 Recommendations • The FLDOE is to be commended for sponsoring this study to seek feedback from educational leadership faculty on the Standard Guidelines for Educational Leadership programs. • If current statute remains requiring a student performance measure as a component for educational leadership program approval, more study and deliberation is needed to develop a model that is workable and acceptable to the State Board of Education and educational leadership programs. Perhaps a committee similar to the Student Growth Implementation Committee could make workable recommendations on this issue.

7. QUESTION 2 A recent report to the FLDOE reported that institutions following national standards, such as NCATE, ISLLC, and ELCC, need to be considered for state approval without having to meet additional standards or requirements, • Should programs that are already aligned with national standards also have to align with FPLS and FELE competences and skills?

8. Question 2 Recommendations • The question for this study was a general question with somewhat conflicting results. The FLDOE should consult with a representative group of educational leadership program stakeholders to seek ways of integrating the national standards more seamlessly into Florida’s state standards. • The FLDOE should explore ways to make the data collection for standards more streamlined and less burdensome on programs while maintaining necessary oversight of programs.

9. QUESTION 3 The same report said that Educational Leadership programs reported that Standard 2 – Candidate Performance and Standard 3 – Continuous Improvement should be emphasized over Standard 1 – Core Curriculum Content. • How much do you agree with this statement? What should be the relative weighting?

10. Question 3 Recommendations • Consideration should be given to the recommendation by both survey respondents and the FAPEL focus group to weight Standards 2 and 3 more heavily, perhaps using the recommended weights of 40% for Standards 2 and 3 and 20% for Standard 1. • If this weighting is applied to the standards, consideration should be given to renumbering the standards, with the higher-weighted standards listed first, although the current numbering follows a logical sequence.

11. QUESTION 4 Standard 1. Core Curriculum Content. The curriculum content delivered in each approved program is based on competencies aligned with the Florida Principal Leadership Standards and includes all other state-mandated requirements. • What modifications do you think are needed in this standard and the indicators for initial and continued approval?

12. Question 4 Recommendations • The FLDOE should give serious consideration to removing Criterion 1.3 including Indicators 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 from the required standards. There was very little support for them (Wm. Cecil Golden) in either the survey or focus groups. The materials should however remain available for districts and educational leadership programs to include as they deem appropriate.

13. Question 4 Additional Recommendations • The FLDOE should consider modifying Indicator 1.1.1 to state, “As course work or professional development offerings are modified, based on the existing and emerging knowledge base of successful leadership, documentation is maintained that indicates…” • The FLDOE should consider rewording Indicator 1.1.3 to state, “The overall course program design continues to place the greatest emphasis on the school leader’s role in improving curriculum, instruction, and student achievement, and building operations.” • The FLDOE should consider clarifying the wording of Indicator 1.4.2 regarding the supervisors and their qualifications.

14. QUESTION 5 Standard 2. Candidate Performance. Each candidate in the approved program will demonstrate all competencies identified in statute and rule. • What modifications do you think are needed in this standard and indicators? (Indicate whether referring to the initial or continued criteria.)

15. Question 5 Recommendations • The FLDOE should consider deleting Criterion 2.3 and its associated indicators.

16. Question 5 Additional Recommendations • The FLDOE should consider simplifying the wording of Criterion 2.1. • The FLDOE should consider deleting Indicator 2.1.1 as institutions have admission requirements, not the state. • The FLDOE should consider rewording Indicator 2.1.2 to read, “Assessments are used to collect data on candidates’ progress in meeting outcomes of the program competencies aligned with each program’s required curriculum competencies in individual courses in the program.

17. Question 5 Additional Recommendations • The FLDOE should consider rewording Indicator 2.1.3 to read, “Candidates are provided feedback on their mastery of competenciesassessments given throughout each program and a remediation plan is developed if mastery is not achieved.” • The FLDOE should consider rewording Indicator 2.1.4 to read, “University faculty orand district staff use anthe assessment system to evaluate the candidates’ adequate progress in meeting outcomes of each program’s competencies.

18. QUESTION 6 Standard 3. Continuous Improvement The approved program implements processes to ensure continuous program improvement. • What modifications do you think are needed in this standard and indicators? (Indicate whether you are referring to the initial or continued criteria.) .

19. Question 6 Recommendations • The FLDOE should clarify the wording of Criterion 3.3, regarding “faculty.” Does it mean university faculty? • The FLDOE should review its procedures and reporting requirements with the intent of reducing compliance costs while maintaining the necessary level of oversight and compliance. • Comments throughout this section related to the burden of obtaining documentation to the standard rather than the wording of the criteria and indicators themselves. The burden involves time, effort, and money required for compliance.

20. CLOSING Thank you for your participation in the process, especially the generous time allocated to the FAPEL agendas. Your time is very much appreciated and your comments throughout the process have been very helpful. • Questions?

21. If you have any questions about this project, please contact Lee Baldwin through E-mail at Lee.Baldwin@ucf.edu