Reviewer Training

2011

WelcomeWelcome& Introductions& Introductions

Co-Chairs

Purposeful Supportive Collegial Interactive Demonstrating integrity Focused on evidence Identifying continuous improvement Confidential

General Education (Ed 609.01) Professional Education (Ed 610.02) “Unit” Standards (C-I-A-R)

◦ Curriculum◦ Instruction (Including Student Teaching)◦ Assessment (Program & Candidate)◦ Resources

Reviewed by co-chairs w. input from team

Individual Endorsements◦ Early Childhood (Ed 612.03)◦ Elementary Education K-8 (Ed 612.04)◦ Life Science gr. 7-12 (Ed 612.25)

plus Science “General” Requirements (Ed 612.23)◦ Middle Level Science gr. 5-9 (Ed. 612.22)◦ School Principal (Ed. 614.04)

Reviewed by individual program reviewers w. support from co-chairs

Standards are developed by the Professional Standards Board and approved by the State Board of Education.

Ed 61X.XX NAME OF ENDORSEMENT RATING: On Standard Or Standard Not Met

RATIONALE (Required)Describe the reviewed evidence that led to this rating.

RECOMMENDATION(Required if standard is “not met.”)

COMMENDATIONS (Optional)

Review Evidence of Teaching and Learning

◦Candidate work samples◦Course materials◦Direct observations◦Records and documents◦Testimony from interviews

essays journal entries

lesson plans notes performances

portfolios reflections reports test responses etc.

assignments handouts notes lectures/lecture outlines tests, quizzes evaluation rubrics etc.

college class sessions candidates’ field experience settings

communications/interactions

performances etc.

advising materials contracts e-mails Handbooks organizational

charts meeting agendas meeting minutes meeting notes procedures

policy statements/ booklets

program descriptions and requirements

reports from other program reviews: local, regional, state, national

schedules student records etc.

administrators candidates faculty staff graduates/alums cooperating professionals others, as appropriate

On Standard◦ Review of the evidence indicates that the

overall standard is met◦ Usually requires a mix of types of evidence◦ Look at the whole, not the individual sub-

items within a standard◦ Consider the Institution’s understanding and

interpretation of the standard◦ Consult with co-chairs & team if uncertain

Not on Standard◦ Evidence of overall compliance w. standard

is not available

Commendations (OPTIONAL)◦ Only if something is exemplary and

goes well beyond the expectations of the standard

Recommendations◦ Required to explain Not on Standard

rating◦ Institution will need to provide

evidence that … (complete sentence w. language in standard)

Serves as the ‘abstract’ for your review of the program

Provides a brief explanation of program Provides narrative summary for final

program report to compliment data from matrix

Informs Council members to support their decision regarding approval

Note: this is not the place for personal congratulations or appreciation to the program; this is a formal report.

Summarize the program’s strengths If all standards were met, say so! Comment on sources and quality of

evidence Identify any areas of concern Summarize recommendations and

unmet standards (if any) Highlight commendations (if any) Keep it brief (< 1 page is fine)

Institutional Mission Core Values Governance structures Faculty style or personality Delivery models Activities not related to PEPP standards

Provide advice as to how to change the program

Compare their program to another program

Critique the readings, assignments, or syllabi

Make recommendations that aren't related to standards

Summary Findings for each program Matrix with documentation for each

standard and review process Program Recommendation Approval Options:

◦ Full Approval◦ Approval with Conditions◦ Not Approved◦ Provisional Approval ( new programs only)

Save Everything!Save Everything!

Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment & Resources matrices

Ed 609 and ED 610 matrices Summary Findings from each reviewer All matrices submitted to provide

documentation of each standard and the review process

Program Approval Recommendations

Submit electronic copy of matrix and summary findings to co-chairs before you leave.

Keep copies of documents Maintain confidentiality

Team report is shared with Institution for factual errors.

Council of TE reviews report. Institution attends Council meeting and responds to questions from reactors.

CTE makes a recommendation to the State Board of Education.