Transcript NCATE Update

Streamlining &
Redesign of the
Accreditation Process:
Preliminary Discussions
Donna M. Gollnick
Online Institutional Report

Tested in fall 2008 & spring 2009 visits

Characteristics
– Prompts for each element
– 11 required tables
– Ability to upload key links, tables, & figures

Institutions to have option of Online IR in
fall 2009 and spring 2010 visits
Data from national
program review
 Accepted
for Std. 1
–Content knowledge for teachers
–Pedagogical content knowledge for
teachers
–Professional knowledge & skills for
other school professionals
–Student learning for teachers & other
school professionals
Streamlining Options in Spring
2009 & Fall 2009 Visits


Previsit conducted electronically
Visit to begin on Sunday afternoon &
finish by noon on Wednesday

School visits eliminated

Poster sessions eliminated

Virtual focused visits
Exhibits



Electronic exhibits should be used when
possible (not required, but most institutions
now have most of the exhibits available
electronically).
Exhibits should be available for each
standard
List of key exhibits are available on
NCATE’s website
Future Goals
Who is involved in these
discussions?



Selected deans, NCATE coordinators, & state
agency representatives have participated (or will)
with senior staff to discuss program review, unit
accreditation, and continuous improvement visits.
Executive directors of member organizations
Input from institutions and other NCATE
constituents being sought at
– Annual conferences
– Special meetings
– Website
Next Steps



Recommendations being shared with NCATE
board members as they are developed.
UAB will consider & refine recommendations
at its April 2009 meeting.
Executive board will adopt recommendations
at its May 2009 meeting.
Continuing to Streamline



Shorter visits being tested in 2009
Smaller teams, especially for continuing
visits
Better use of technology before, during, &
after the visit

Less burdensome self-study process

Less burdensome program review process
Continuous Improvement


How can accreditation be used to support
continuous improvement in teacher
education?
How could NCATE determine that standards
continue to be met, allowing a different
type of self-study & visit?
How can data be used to
determine if stds are met?


Part B of AACTE/NCATE annual report
currently under revision
Part C (NCATE portion) now includes
– substantive changes
– Progress made on eliminating areas for
improvement
What key criteria would
suggest a conventional visit?


Assessment system no longer exists, data
are not collected systematically & regularly,
or data are not used to evaluate candidates
& programs.
Major changes have occurred.
– Majority of programs offered online
– Number of off-campus programs, especially
outside the state, increased dramatically
Considering a brief report 3
years before visit

Address key standards elements

Report would be reviewed by BOE members
– Identify any concerns
– Indicate the type of visit needed

If evidence suggest that standards continue
to be met, the unit could work with NCATE
to identify the focus of the next visit.
What might this
continuous visit look like?
 Self-study would focus on
–Specific standard, especially 3 or 4
–Transformational project in teacher
education
–Further development of valid &
reliable assessments
What would be involved?




Data would have to show that standards
continue to be met.
Unit would submit a proposal & negotiate
the nature of the next visit with NCATE
The IR would include data on the work
being done
Some BOE team members would have
expertise in area of unit’s self-study