REVISION OF INITIAL AND CONTINUED APPROVAL STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR INITIAL TEACHER PREPARATION

Elayne Colón, Tom Dana, & Theresa VernetsonUniversity of Florida

Project sponsored by the Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Educator Recruitment, Development & Retention

2

OUTLINE Project Overview

Methods and Timeline

Findings

Recommendations and Implications

3

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

4

PURPOSEFrom 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

5

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) (58 participants)

webinar (59 participants)

follow up with sample of stakeholders (14 solicited, 8 respondents)

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

TIMELINE OF EVENTS CONTINUED… Webinar

Held 6/14/13 59 participantsPresentation 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

10

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

11

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

12

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)

13

FINDINGS: F2F AND WEBINAR CONTINUED Site Visits

The standards should be the same for Initial and Continued Program Approval. 58% YES

The application folios should be the same for institutions with other already-approved programs as for institutions with no approved programs. 86% NO

There should be an onsite visit for institutions with no other already-approved programs. 92% YES

14

15

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

16

RECOMMENDATIONS: STANDARDS

1. Program Administration and Candidate Selectivity

2. Program Completer Quality

3. Field/Clinical Practices

4. Program Effectiveness

1. Program Completer Quality

2. Field/Clinical Practices

3. Program Effectiveness

Initial Approval Continued Approval

17

RECOMMENDATIONS: SITE VISIT PROCESS

Two-phased* review:

Off-Site Phase On-Site Visit

*design based primarily on TLPIC Subcommittee’s recommendations

18

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

19

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).

20

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

21