Transcript NCATE - Missouri State University

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 institutions that
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
Respond to the challenge.
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.
4
VALUES AND GOALS
UNDERGIRDING
REDESIGN & TRANSFORMATION
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
Overview of
Major Proposed
Changes
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
Comparisons
Current vs. Proposed
Comparisons
Process
Current Process
Proposed Process
Annual
Reports
• Reviewed by the BOE team at  Primary documentation for
visit for progress on areas
Previsit BOE Committee review of
cited at previous visit.
mid-cycle or institutional reports
• Substantive changes reviewed
to help determine that standards
annually to determine whether
continue to be met.
additional information needs to
 Substantive changes continue to
be reviewed by the Annual
be reviewed by staff and ARPA
Report & Preconditions Audit
Committee as needed.
Board of
Examiners
(BOE)
• Option to ask that team
 Formal process for shared input
member be replaced for cause.
on selection of BOE team
members.
 Previsit BOE Committee drawn
from the BOE plus from partner
state.
Comparisons
Process
Current Process
Proposed Process
Exhibits
List of exhibits for each
element of the standards.
Reduced number of exhibits
organized around standards.
Includes documentation previously
submitted by units in national
program reports, annual reports,
and Title II submissions.
Comparisons
Process
Current Process
Institutional • 50-75 page document
written in an online
Report
template with prompts
for each element of
standards.
• Submitted 60 days
before visit.
Proposed Process
 Organize around (1) the standards or (2)
each element of the standards.
 Program report for units with only one
program such as educational leadership,
school psychology, or music to be
supplemented by data and descriptions
for Standards 2-6.
 Submitted 1 year before visit.
 Reviewed by Previsit BOE Committee to
provide feedback & identify areas of
concern
 Focus on changes since the previous visit
& progress toward the target level of one
or more standards.
Comparisons
Process
Current Process
On-site Visit • 5-day visit conducted by 38-member BOE team plus
state representatives.
• Evidence sought through
documentation & interviews
to determine how each
element of the standards is
addressed & whether
standards are met.
Proposed Process
 3-day visit
 Conducted by a 3-5 member BOE
team plus state representatives.
 Focus on areas of concern raised by
the Previsit BOE Committee and
validation that standards continue to
be met.
Comparisons—Unit Review
Process
Current Process
Proposed Process
Option 1: Continuous
Improvement
• Not applicable.
 Self-study against the target level
of one or more standards.
 Details for annual reports, IR,
exhibits, & on-site visit outlined in
general process section above.
Option 1: Institutional
Report for Continuous
Improvement
• Covered in
previous section
Focus on changes since the previous
visit and progress toward the target
level of one or more standards.
Comparisons—Unit Review
Process
Current Process
Option 2:
•Not applicable.
Transformation Initiative
(TI)
Proposed Process
Focus on initiative related to
one or more standards that
both improves educator
preparation at the institution
and provides leadership for
the field.
Comparisons-Transformation Initiative
Process
Current Process
Proposed Process
Mid-cycle Report • Not applicable
for
Transformation
Initiative (TI)
 Eligibility for Transformation Initiative (TI)
option established by submitting at mid-cycle
(1) a report that describes continuous
improvement efforts since the previous visit
with a cross-walk to standards and (2) a
proposal for the Transformation Initiative (TI)
 Mid-cycle report reviewed by Previsit BOE
Committee.
 TI proposal reviewed by Committee on
Transformation Initiatives (CTI) for approval.
• Not applicable
 In consultation with the unit, a consultant
identified to work with the unit on its initiative.
Consultant may join BOE team for on-site visit.
Support for
Transformation
Initiative
Comparisons-Transformation Initiative
Process
Current Process
Proposed Process
Institutional
Report for TI
• As outlined in
 No additional report required for the visit..
General Section  Option to respond by the visit to the
concerns raised by the Previsit BOE
Committee.
Completion of TI • Not applicable
 Findings of TI shared on NCATE’s website
and at conferences.
Comparisons- National Program Reviews
Process
General
Current Process
Proposed Process
• Submitted 1-2 years
before on-site visit for
national review.
• State program review
accepted for elements
of Standard 1 if state
review requires
assessments, scoring
guides, and edits.
Submitted at mid-cycle (3 years
before visit) for national review.
Discussions initiated with states
that do their own program review
about compatible expectations.
Comparisons- National Program Reviews
Process
Current Process
Proposed Process
Evidence for
First
Accreditation
• 6-8 assessments,
scoring guides, and
data with 5 required
types of assessments
for national review.
 Option 1: Current requirement.
 Option 2: Program selects its own assessments
to make the case that national standards are
met.
 Future: Program uses model assessments
developed and tested for validity & reliability
by SPAs.
Evidence for
Continuing
Accreditation
Option 1: Current requirement.
Option 2: Program submits only
new assessments and minimal data.
Option 3: Program conducts
validity studies of assessments and
data..
Comparisons- National Program Reviews
Process
Current Process
Proposed Process
Contextual
Information
• 9 sources of contextual  4-6 sources of contextual
information
information (Questions 3, 4 and 5
may be eliminated)
Data Requirements
• 3 years of data.
MAT-like Programs
for Secondary
Teachers
Separate reports for each One report focused on professional &
secondary content area
pedagogical knowledge & skills.
Low Enrollment
Programs
A report for each
program no matter the
enrollment.
SPA Standards
Variation across program Common principles across programs.
standards.
1-2 years of data.
Another approach being considered for
programs with low enrollments.
Options for Continuing Accreditation
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
More Details
Unit Review
and
National Review
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
Kinds of Initiatives









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
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)
National Program Review--Proposed Changes
8. Simplified processes are being
developed for MAT-like secondary
education programs
9. Different approach to review program
with low enrollments.
Provide Feedback
http://www.ncate.org/public/proposedRedesign.asp
Or
http://tinyurl.com/msuncate