Transcript Initial and Continued Teacher Preparation Approval

REVISION OF INITIAL AND
CONTINUED APPROVAL STANDARD
GUIDELINES FOR INITIAL TEACHER
PREPARATION
Elayne Colón, Tom Dana, & Theresa Vernetson
University of Florida
Project sponsored by the Florida Department of Education,
Bureau of Educator Recruitment, Development & Retention
OUTLINE

Project Overview

Methods and Timeline

Findings

Recommendations and Implications
2
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT CHARGE



Prompted by recent legislation (SB 1664), Initial
and Continued Program Approval Guidelines for
Initial Teacher Preparation programs needed to
be revisited.
Project included eliciting feedback and
suggestions from ITP stakeholders concerning
Program Approval Guidelines for ITP programs
and making recommendations.
Duration of project: approximately 10 weeks
during Summer 2013
3
PURPOSE
From SB 1664:
employ varied and innovative teacher preparation
techniques while being held accountable for
producing program completers with the
competencies and skills necessary to achieve the
state education goals; help all students in the
state’s diverse student population meet high
standards for academic achievement; maintain
safe, secure classroom learning environments; and
sustain the state system of school improvement
and accountability
4
METHODS USED TO COLLECT
STAKEHOLDER INPUT

conversation with Teacher and Leader
Preparation and Implementation Committee
(TLPIC)

web-based survey (51 respondents)

conversations with FLDOE staff throughout
project

face-to-face meetings: Rollins College (5/17), FAU (5/22)

webinar (59 participants)

(58 participants)
follow up with sample of stakeholders
(14 solicited, 8 respondents)
5
TIMELINE OF EVENTS…

TLPIC Phone Conference (5/8/13)

Reactions to recent passage of SB 1664

Lessons learned from TLPIC work since March 2011

Recommendations from Site Visit Subcommittee
(two-phase site visit process)

Relationship between Annual Program Performance
Report Card and eIPEP
6
TIMELINE OF EVENTS CONTINUED…

Web-based Survey
Available 5/7 – 5/28/13
 51 respondents
 Questions focused on:

Extent to which stakeholder values particular data
elements in making decisions about readiness of a program
completer to enter the field
 Extent to which stakeholder values particular data
elements in making decisions about improving their ITP
program
 Extent to which stakeholder relies on data from FLDOE to
improve their teacher preparation programs

7
TIMELINE OF EVENTS CONTINUED…

Face-to-Face Meetings
Rollins College – 5/17/13
 Florida Atlantic University – 5/22/13
 58 participants in all
 Discussions focused on:

Revisions to Continued Approval Guidelines
 Annual Reporting to the FLDOE
 Site Visit Process
 Initial Approval Guidelines

8
TIMELINE OF EVENTS CONTINUED…
 Webinar
Held 6/14/13
 59 participants


Presentation and discussion included:
key themes from F2F meetings regarding initial and
continued approval
 possible standards and indicators based on stakeholder
input to that point
 site visit processes and reporting for continued approval

9
FINDINGS: SURVEY

To what extent do you value this information in
making decisions about readiness of a program
completer to enter the field?

Highest number of respondents reported
“Can’t do without it:”
Candidate performance on all FEAPs/indicators during
culminating field experience (second demonstration)
 FTCE Subject Area Exam results
 Grades in subject specific education courses (e.g. specialized
methods)
 Performance on capstone measure (e.g. culminating
portfolio)
 Ability to differentiate instruction for students with
disabilities
 Ability to differentiate instruction for English language
students

10
FINDINGS: SURVEY

To what extent do you value this information in
making decisions about improving your ITP
program?
 Highest number of respondents reported
“Can’t do without it:”
Candidate performance on all FEAPs/indicators
during culminating field experience (second
demonstration)
 FTCE Professional Education Exam results
 FTCE Subject Area Exam results
 Ability to differentiate instruction for students with
disabilities
 Ability to differentiate instruction for English
language students

11
FINDINGS: F2F AND WEBINAR

Continued Approval Standards

Small Group Activity: examine current
standards/indicators and determine keep/remove/revise
Majority Keep: Program faculty/school district personnel meet
state mandated requirements for supervision of field/clinical
experiences (i.e., old 1.3 &1.4)
 None had majority vote to remove entirely
 All others had majority vote to revise


Themes of Feedback:
Consider different organizational structure for standards
 Separate compliance from continuous improvement
 … not helpful to continuous improvement, significant amount of
data is irrelevant to ITP program… (e.g., old 2.2)
 Focus on how programs use data to make changes
 Align with national accreditation (i.e., CAEP)

12
FINDINGS: F2F AND WEBINAR CONTINUED

Site Visits

The standards should be the same for Initial and
Continued Program Approval.


The application folios should be the same for
institutions with other already-approved programs as
for institutions with no approved programs.


58% YES
86% NO
There should be an onsite visit for institutions with
no other already-approved programs.

92% YES
13
14
KEY THEMES ACROSS STAKEHOLDER INPUT









Focus on demonstration of program completer competence
and not candidate progress
Attend to outcomes, not inputs
Reduce reporting burden on programs whenever possible
Streamline annual reporting requirements in the eIPEP
and site visit process for each approved program
Separate compliance requirements from continuous
program improvement processes
Allow innovation and creativity within institutions to learn
and promote best practices
Support continuous improvement and avoid “gotcha”
mentality or need to find weaknesses in reviews
Align Continued Program Approval processes with national
accrediting bodies (e.g., NCATE/CAEP, SACS)
Align all documents and recommendations with SB 1664
15
RECOMMENDATIONS: STANDARDS
Initial Approval
1.
2.
3.
4.
Continued Approval
Program Administration
and Candidate Selectivity
1.
Program Completer Quality
2.
Field/Clinical Practices
3.
Program Effectiveness
Program Completer Quality
Field/Clinical Practices
Program Effectiveness
16
RECOMMENDATIONS: SITE VISIT PROCESS
Two-phased* review:
Off-Site Phase
 On-Site Visit

*design based primarily on TLPIC Subcommittee’s recommendations
17
OFF-SITE PHASE OF REVIEW PROCESS
1.
Site visit team reviews the institution’s program reports
and electronic exhibits posted on line via the Electronic
Institutional Program Evaluation Plan (eIPEP)
2.
Off Site Reports for Each Program – team identify any
“areas of concern” that could be cited as weaknesses in
the final program approval recommendations
3.
Preliminary findings shared with programs
4.
In response to the off-site reports, the programs prepare
addenda to their program reports, if necessary, and
update their exhibits in the eIPEP as needed
18
ON-SITE VISIT AS PART OF REVIEW PROCESS


On-site Review Team members include a subset
of the off-site review team, with the Team Chair
remaining in that role for both reviews
On-site visit will span three days consisting of:
Day 1 - Team meeting to set priorities and participate
in the institutional orientation
 Day 2 – Focus on (1) the “areas of concern” identified
during the off-site review, and (2) exemplars from
select programs that highlight “continuous
improvement.”
 Day 3 – On-site review team meets to write final
program report(s).

19
IMPLICATIONS AND WORK TO BE DONE



Revisions to eIPEP to integrate reporting
features
Training and materials for program leaders
preparing reports
Training and materials for reviewers to increase
consistency
20
21