Download
1 / 52
520 likes | 684 Views
NCATE. Proposed Redesign and Transformation. 4.24.09 W. Agnew. MSU Leadership Team. Goals of Redesign and Transformation. Develop a streamlined , more collegial process which institutions see as valuable and aligned with their work.
E N D
NCATE Proposed Redesign and Transformation 4.24.09 W. Agnew MSU Leadership Team
Goals of Redesign and Transformation • Develop a streamlined, more collegial process which institutions see as valuable and aligned with their work. • Focus on continuous improvement as well as transformation initiatives, which provide an impetus for educator preparation to better meet the critical needs of P-12 schools.
Challenges of Educator Prep Programs Respond to the challenge. The diversification of institutionsthat prepare educators include increasing numbers of non-traditional providers which are responding very specifically to school and district needs, and often emphasize clinical experiences and recruitment in ways that could serve as models.
Challenges of Educator Prep Programs Recognition that educator preparation and school reform are inextricably bound together. Therefore, educators must be prepared both as individually skilled practitioners as well as professionals oriented toward ongoing school improvement. Respond to the challenge.
Values and Goals Excellence as defined by high standards and the relevance in meeting the needs of stakeholders and the public.
Values and Goals Inclusivity of institutions that meet high standards, including educator preparation programs outside of colleges and universities.
Values and Goals Collegiality in the accreditation process to be perceived as user friendly and helpful in improving programs.
Values and Goals Cost-Effectiveness in the accreditation process to reduce effort, time and cost. Continuous Process = Continuous Improvement
Proposal Includes. . . • Better use of technology before, during, and after • Less burdensome self-study process • Less burdensome program review process
Unit Review • Two options for continuing accreditation • Changes to the Institutional Report (IR) with focus on continuous improvement • IR only report changes since previous visit • Electronic review a year before the visit • 3 days; 3 to 5 people Overview of Major Changes
National Program Review • Options for evidence to be submitted • Program reports submitted at mid-cycle • Greater consistency across SPA standards • One report for MAT-like programs • Different approach to review programs with low enrollments • Reduce required contextual information Overview of Major Changes
Proposal Redesign and Transformation NCATE Board Meeting to adopt final recommendations Provide input on each section: http://www.ncate.org/public/proposedRedesign.asp or http://tinyurl.com/msuncate
Two Options for Unit Review Option 1 Continuous Improvement Option 2 Transformation Initiative
Unit Review—Continuous Improvement Focuses is on changes since the previous visit and the unit’s assessment against the target level of the Standards’ rubrics
Unit Review—Continuous Improvement Data for the Review • Institutional Report one year prior to visit • Part B and C of the AACTE/NCATE annual reports • Title II data reviewed electronically a year before the visit for a more formative process that provides feedback to the unit (Title II Report is changing—will no longer just report completers) • National Program report data
Unit Review—Continuous Improvement Institutional Report • Focus on continuous improvement and report on changes since the previous visit • Option to write to standard or to the specific elements • Submit electronically 1 year before the visit • Report reviewed by pre-visit BOE committee • Feedback provided to the unit allowing time to focus on area of concerns
Unit Review—Continuous Improvement The Visit • Shorter visit (3 days; Sun.-Tues.) • Conducted by a smaller team of 3-5 people • Focuses on areas of concern from the previsit review by the committee • Validates that standards continue to be met by checking evidence in a holistic way • Provides feedback on movement to target levels
The Visit—Continuous Improvement Units cannot plan for the visit in the same way as the last visit—different information will be required.
Unit Review—Transformation Initiative Focus-- Improvement in educator preparation that can provide leadership to the field.
Unit Review--Transformation Initiative Supports Improvement through-- • Efforts to improve the institution’s own programs. • Efforts of leadership for transforming educator preparation to improve P-12 student learning.
Unit Review--Transformation Initiative Overall-- • NCATE will encourage and support research-based initiatives and propagate the results for the benefit of the field. • Individual institution may apply for this option or a group of institutions may collaborate on an initiative. • Proposal designed to be as supportive and flexible as possible.
Unit Review--Transformation Initiative Initiative should be related to one or more of the NCATE standards and address major issues and challenges in educator preparation and quality. • Partnerships with P-12 schools for the transformation of student learning and conditions that support learning • Improving P-16 systems (e.g., college readiness, access, & completion)
Unit Review--Transformation Initiative • Partnership with P-12 schools to improve student learning • Clinical practice and moving educator preparation into school settings. • Evidence of the value-added of accreditation in improving P-12 student learning. • Candidate recruitment or Educator retention • Induction & mentoring • Diversity-based skills • Follow-up performance data • Validity studies of assessment • Professional development Kinds of Initiatives
Unit Review--Transformation Initiative The Process-- Establish Eligibility • Submit mid-cycle report (3 years before visit) • Submit proposal for the Transformation Initiative with the mid-cycle report • Unit is accredited without qualifications • Evidence suggests unit will continue to meet standards through next scheduled on-site visit
Unit Review--Transformation Initiative The Process—Mid-cycle report • Organized around continuous improvement efforts • Identifies changes since last accreditation visit • Report will include some form of crosswalk or indexing between the discussion and NCATE standards for the Previst BOE Committee to determine that the unit continues to meet all standards
Unit Review--Transformation Initiative The Process—Transformation Initiative Proposal • Limit 25 pages submitted with the mid-cycle report • Report includes • Problem(s) to be addressed • Goals • Beliefs • Plan
Unit Review--Transformation Initiative The Process—Previsit BOE Committee Review • Committee and representative from the state partnership review unit reports, annual reports, Title II data and national or state program reports • Feedback to unit on concerns • Committee decides eligibility based on likelihood of continuing to meet standards
Unit Review--Transformation Initiative The Process--After Approval of TI • Committee on Transformation Initiatives (CTI) formed • review proposal • consult with institution on modification of proposal • recommend approval to Unit Accreditation Board (UAB) • NCATE identifies consultant to review unit’s implementation. Consultant expenses covered by unit • No additional institution report required • Transformation Initiative Visit (7th year)
Unit Review--Transformation Initiative The Process--Unit engages and finishes Initiative • Submit final report, including evaluation of results • Designated consultant review final report • Consultant report submitted to CTI and UAB and recommends whether results should be propagated to the field • Results of Initiatives will be propagated by NCATE through website, conferences, and other technologies • Unit receives a Commendation for Leadership in the Field
Unit Review--Transformation Initiative The Process--Transformation Initiative Visit • Visit still 7th year • No institutional report • Visit to focus on concerns raised in mid-cycle review • Unit provides evidence standards are being met • Visit (Sunday to Tuesday) • Team of 3 to 5
National Program Review--Proposed Changes 1. Options for evidence to be submitted allows greater flexibility. 2. Program reports submit a mid-cycle (3 years before visit)
National Program Review--Proposed Changes 3. Common principles for program standards will provide greater consistency across SPA standards 4. Board of Examiner teams can determine where units regularly and systematically collect and use assessment data during the previsit review and on-site visits.
National Program Review--Proposed Changes 5. Number of years of data reported reduced to one to two years of data, 6. Some items required as contextual information will be eliminated. (Questions 3, 4, and 5)
National Program Review--Proposed Changes 7. Data for program reviews– three options for data: • Current Streamlined Option (6-8 assessments) • Continuous Improvement Option (only new assessments and data—focus on how the program used data to improve its program) • Validity Studies Option (validity studies of the program’s assessments and data)
