1 / 15

Accreditation: The State Policy Perspective March 2008

Accreditation: The State Policy Perspective March 2008. Ensuring Educator Excellence. Accreditation—California’s Past. Prior to 1993, California utilized a Program Evaluation process to review educator preparation programs—each approved program reviewed individually (implemented through 1997)

tahlia
Download Presentation

Accreditation: The State Policy Perspective March 2008

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:The State Policy PerspectiveMarch 2008 Ensuring Educator Excellence

  2. Accreditation—California’s Past • Prior to 1993, California utilized a Program Evaluation process to review educator preparation programs—each approved program reviewed individually (implemented through 1997) • 1993: Accreditation Framework is adopted by the Commission leading to a single a Accreditation decision for an institution and all of its approved programs (implemented in 1998)

  3. Accreditation—Historical Info • Evaluation of the Accreditation System begins (1998)—report by AIR in 2002 • Accreditation hiatus—except for NCATE visits (Dec 2002) • Accreditation Study Work Group, with the Committee on Accreditation, reviews and proposes a revised accreditation system (2004-2006)

  4. Accreditation Review Process

  5. Accreditation Review Process Responsibilities

  6. Accreditation Commission Adopts • Recommendations (8/2006 and 9/2006) • Revised Common Standards (6/2007) • Revised Accreditation Framework (12/2007) COA begin to implement the Revised Accreditation System (2007-08)

  7. California Education Context • Accountability—Focus on accountability • Standards—K-12 Student Content and Educator Prep • SB 2042 (1998)—Revision of Teacher Preparation

  8. Recommendations to the Commission Purposes of accreditation system • Accountability-public and profession • Adherence to Standards • High quality preparation for educators • On-going program improvement

  9. Roles and Responsibilities of the Commission and the Committee on Accreditation: Maintain the current roles and responsibilities of the Commission and the Committee on Accreditation but improve the communication between COA and the Commission.

  10. Accreditation should be an On-Going Activity, not a snapshot every six years Accreditation should be an on-going cycle of activities focused on data-driven decision making, accountability, and meeting the standards.

  11. Establish consistency in the system by including all Credential and Certificate Programs in the Accreditation Process: All programs that lead to a credential or certificate in California should be reviewed on a periodic basis and that the review process should be implemented in a manner that recognizes program differences but maintains comparable rigor across program types.

  12. Program Standard Options: Provide three program standard options: 1) California Program Standards; 2) National or Professional Program Standards; or 3) Experimental Program Standards. If national standards are used, comparability must be established and programs must address the California specific standards in addition to the national standards.

  13. Maintain the Unit Accreditation Decision but enhance the information related to each approved programs National Unit or Program Accreditation require that all California programs must participate in the California accreditation system, but align activities with national accreditation where ever possible

  14. Accreditation System: Submit to CTC Year 1: Biennial Report Year 2: Year 3: Biennial Report Year 4: Program Assessment Year 5: Biennial Report Year 6: Site Visit Year 7: Site Visit Follow-up

  15. Next Steps • Align California’s accreditation activities with national accreditation (NCATE, TEAC, Professional Associations) where possible • Monitor the rollout of the first years of the revised system • Evaluate the system

More Related