Web Seminar for Institutions with Visits in Fall 2008

1. Web Seminar for Institutions with Visits in Fall 2008 Donna M. Gollnick Senior Vice President April 5, 2007

2. NCATE Web Conference – Fall 2008 Visits 1:45 – 2:00 Audio Checks 2:00 – 2:05 Introductions and Review of Elluminate Software 2:05 – 2:10 Objectives of the Web Seminar 2:10 – 2:25 The Revised Standards 2:25 – 2:40 The National Program Review Process 2:40 – 3:00 Streamlining the Continuing Accreditation Process 3:00 – 3:15 Planning for the Visit - Timeline for Appointing the BOE Team - 3rd Party Testimony - NCATE’s Website - BOE Updates

3. Icon Review To participate in this web conference, use these icons: Raise hand Yes, No Mic

4. More Icons Clapping Happy face Sad face

5. Instructions • Click in the rectangular box to key in a text message. • Text message us if you experience technical difficulties. • Reminder: All messages and NCATE responses can be viewed by all participants.

6. NCATE staff on the webconference • Donna M. Gollnick, Senior Vice President • Patty Garvin, Accreditation Associate • Julien Goichot, Webmaster • Marsha Russell, Database Manager • Khadija Jordan, Assistant to Donna

7. Introductions • Click the green check-mark if you are, in NCATE jargon, the unit head (i.e., the dean or department chair). • Click the smiley-face if you are the NCATE coordinator. • Raise your hand if you have attended an AACTE/NCATE Institutional Orientation. • Click the clapping hands if you have a microphone. Welcome to everyone!

8. Objectives of the Web Seminar • To become familiar with NCATE’s revised unit standards. • To understand the program review process. • To introduce a streamlined process for continuing visits. • To review next steps in preparing for the NCATE visit.

9. Revision of NCATE 2001 Standards Adapted from a presentation by UAB Members Ana Maria Schuhmann & Barbara Chesler Buckner, Coastal Carolina University

10. Purpose of Revision • Simplify, • Clarify, • Remove ambiguity, • Promote consistency, and • “Tweak” the current standards.

11. Process • Surveyed Deans, NCATE Coordinators, Heads of Units, Dept. Chairs, BOE Members, States, & all NCATE Boards. • Drafted First Revision based on outcome of the surveys. • Held hearings at 2006 & 2007 AACTE and ATE meetings. • Called for Written Comments, Spring and Summer 2006. • Drafted Second Revision in October 2006 • Called for Written Comments, Winter 2007

12. April 2007 May 2007 2007-2008 Visits Fall 2008 Visits UAB reviews comments, makes changes as needed, & adopts standards Executive Board ratifies revised standards Standards optional Standards required Calendar

13. Conceptual Framework • Eliminated Evidence of the Conceptual Framework (pg. 13) and consolidated the information in the Structural Elements (pg. 12). • vision and mission of the institution and unit; • philosophy, purposes, goals, and institutional standards of the unit; • knowledge bases, including theories, research, the wisdom of practice, and educational policies that drive the work of the unit; • candidate proficiencies related to expected knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions, including proficiencies associated with diversity and technology, that are aligned with the expectations in professional, state, and institutional standards; and a • summarized description of the unit’s assessment system • Made the Conceptual Framework more pronounced in the Standards. • Standards 1, 3, and 5.

14. Introduction • Standards are based on significant emergent research. • Meeting the Target Level is inclusive of what is expected at the Acceptable Level.

15. NCATE Standards • Candidate Knowledge, Skills, & Dispositions • Assessment System and Unit Evaluation • Field Experiences and Clinical Practice • Diversity • Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development • Unit Governance and Resources

16. Standard I • Added clearer expectations to the acceptable and target levels for advanced level programs. • Clarified distinction between Initial Teacher Preparation and Advanced Programs. • Added the disposition of “fairness and the belief that all students can learn,” to the disposition element. • Changed “Other School Personnel” to “Other School Professionals” • Eliminated “Content for Other School Professionals”

17. StandardII • Adjusted the statements in the Supporting Explanation of Standard 2 to be clearer about the connection between the unit and program review. • Element 2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation • Acceptable: The unit can disaggregate candidate assessment data when candidates are in alternate route, off-campus, and distance learning programs.

18. Standard II, continued • 2c: Use of Data for Program Improvement • Acceptable: Faculty have access to candidate assessment data and/or data systems.

19. Standard III • Element 3b:Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical Practice: • Acceptable: Candidates in advanced programsfor teachers participate in field experiences that require them to apply course work in classroom settings, analyze P-12 student learning and reflect on their practice in context of theories on teaching and learning. Candidates in programs for other school professionals participate in field experiences and clinical practice that require them to engage in structured activities related to the roles for which they are preparing.

20. Standard III:Supporting Explanation • Licensed teachers who are continuing their education in advanced programs are expected to complete structured field experiences in settings that 1) deepen their understanding of the K,S, and professional dispositions that foster student learning and 2) broaden their ability to apply those K, S, and professional dispositions so that they are able to help all students learn.

21. These structured field experiences can take place in multiple settings such as neighboring schools or school districts, day care centers and after school programs, alternate youth centers, and in the schools and classrooms in which candidates work.

22. Standard IV • Made it more performance/outcomes based by adding to the standard: • Assessments indicate that candidates can demonstrate and apply proficiencies related to diversity. Experiences provided for candidates include working with diverse populations, including higher education and P-12 school faculty, candidates, and students in P-12 schools.

23. Elements 4b, 4c, & 4d • Clarified that diversity for faculty, peers, P-12 students needs to be at least two ethnic/racial groups as reported in the US Census.

24. Elements 4b and 4d, added • Expectations that both faculty and candidates can work with English Language Learners.

25. Standard IV Supporting Explanations • Teachers in advanced programs are expected to complete field experience in educational settings with diverse populations.

26. Standard V • Collapsed two elements, service and collaboration into one: Service. • Element 5c: Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship • Faculty scholarly work is driven by the mission of their unit and institution.

27. Standard VSupporting Explanation • “All scholarly inquiry includes submission of one’s work for professional review and evaluation by peers outside one’s own institution.”

28. Standard VI • Element 6c:Personnel • Added class size to work load policies.

29. Glossary • Clarified • Advanced Programs • Distance Learning Programs • Unit • Professional Dispositions • Added fairness

30. Professional Dispositions • The professional behaviors educators are expected to demonstrate in their interactions with students, families, colleagues, and communities. Such behaviors support student learning and development and are consistent with ideas of fairness and the belief that all students can learn. Based on their mission, professional education units may determine additional professional dispositions they want candidates to develop. Institutions assess professional dispositions based on observable behavior in educational settings.

31. Fairness • The commitment demonstrated in striving to meet the educational needs of all students in a caring, non-discriminatory, and equitable manner.

32. Program Reviews as Evidence of Meeting Standard 1 National Reviews by SPAs (Specialized Professional Associations) State Reviews by the State Agency Responsible for Program Approval

33. Data from national (sometimes state) program reviews • State licensure exam for program area (if available—otherwise another content based assessment) • Content Assessment • Assessment of Planning (e.g., unit plan) • Student teaching/internship assessment • Assessment of candidate impact on student learning or providing a supporting learning environment

34. Content Rubric elements 1-2 Alignment of Program Review with Standard 1 Professional & Pedagogical Knowledge, Skills, & Dispositions • Rubric elements 3-5 P-12 Student Learning • Rubric elements 7-8

35. Summer 2007 August 2007 September 15, 2007 Web Seminars on Submitting Programs via NCATE’s PRS PRS open Programs must be submitted via PRS to NCATE Timeline for Program Submissions

36. Streamlining the Visit for Continuing Accreditation • Unit Accreditation Board will consider proposals for streamlining the process for continuing accreditation visits at its April 2007 meeting. • NCATE community will have opportunity to review proposals & make recommendations in Summer 07 • Institutions with spring 2008 visits can pilot test the new system

37. The IR Proposal • A briefer IR, which will be submitted via NCATE’s website, could focus on previous AFIs and changes since the last visit and be filled with data determined by NCATE. • Data prepared for national program reviews would not have to be repeated in Standard 1.

38. Length of Visit & Exhibits • Teams would access electronic exhibits before arriving for the on-site visit, reducing the length of the visit by 1-2 days. • The number of exhibits available to teams would be specific and limited in number.

39. BOE Report • reduced to approximately 10 pp. • provide feedback on whether the unit is at the target level • could be pilot tested in fall 2007 visits.

40. AACTE/NCATE Annual Report • The AACTE/NCATE annual report could be revised to collect data that would be helpful to teams in making performance-based judgments.

41. Spring 2008 April 2008 June/July 2008 60 days before visit Before previsit 1-2 months before visit 3rd Party Testimony Appointment of Team Chair Appointment of Team Members Dissemination of IR Organization of Exhibit Room Previsit The Visit Planning for the Visit:Timelines

42. The Institutional Report • Overview of the institution • Include table summarizing programs • Summary of conceptual framework • Description of how each of 6 standards are being met • Response to each element • Include tables as appropriate • Include links to key exhibits

43. Where do you find the tables?

44. Tables in the IR: Overview • Table 1: Program Review Status • Table 2: Academic Rank of Professional Education Faculty

45. Tables in the IR: Std. 1 • Table 3: Unit Pass Rate on Content Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation • Table 4: Unit Pass Rates on Content Tests for Other School Personnel • Others: • Data from follow-up studies • Data from assessments of dispositions • Data related to conceptual framework’s outcomes

46. Tables in the IR: Stds. 2 & 3 • Table 5: Unit Assessment System: Transition Point Assessments • Others for Std. 2: • Transition Points • Changes/Improvements made as result of data findings • Table 6: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program

47. Tables in the IR: Std. 4 • Table 7: Faculty Demographics • Table 8: Candidate Demographics • Table 9: Demographics on Clinical Sites for Initial and Advanced Programs

48. Guidelines for how much data are needed for the on-site visit? Program Reports Submitted Thru Spring 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Fall 2010 & afterwards Amount of Data Required Continuing 1 year 2 years 2 years 3 years 3 years 3 years First Visit 1 year 2 years 2 years 2 years 2 years 2 years

49. Use the website: www.ncate.org • Standards • Handbook for Accreditation Visits • Tables for the IR • BOE Updates • BOE Team Resources • Guidelines for Preparing Rejoinders • And much more

50. A Brief Survey • A = Extremely • B = Somewhat • C = Not at all • Overall, how helpful was this webconference? • How ready are you for your visit? • Would another webconference before your visit be helpful?