Upload
ami-mccormick
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Slide 1Slide 1
Educator Preparation Advisory Council (EPAC)
Subcommittee Reports and 2015 Action Plan
December 5, 2014
Welcome and Introductions
Sarah Barzee, Chief Talent Officer, CSDE
Elsa Nunez, President, Eastern CT State University
Slide 2
Slide 3
Purpose
Purpose of the meeting is to report progress to date and seek your feedback on:
EPAC Progress Report to the State Board on Nov 5
EPAC Subcommittee preliminary recommendations
CEEDAR IHE Team progress report
Action plan for 2015
Non-Purpose
Approve final recommendations because:
All three subcommittees are not yet at the final recommendation stage
Other factors to impact our final design of data & accountability system and program review process:
New procedures for accreditation yet to be released by the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP)
Proposed Title II Higher Education Act regulations just released by US Dept of Education
Slide 4
Slide 5Slide 5
EPAC Principles for Transformation of Teacher and
School Leader Preparation
1. Program Entry Standards
2. Staffing & Support of Clinical Experiences
3. Clinical Experience Requirements
4. District-Program Partnerships & Shared Responsibility
5. Program Completion & Candidate Assessment Standards
6. Program Effectiveness & Accountability
Slide 6Slide 6
Principles were based on EPAC Recommendations
Identified need for more rigorous and relevant:
Preparation of teachers and school leaders aligned with the needs of students, schools and districts
Standards for entry through exit from preparation programs
Data/Accountability systems
Reform of state program approval system for continuing and new programs
BeliefsThe EPAC Principles were developed and synthesized within the context of three beliefs:
Do No Harm. The policies governing and requirements for teacher preparation programs must be based on practices that are demonstrated to have a positive impact on teacher effectiveness and student learning.
Encourage Innovation. Where there is a reasonable expectation of positive outcomes but limited evidence or data exists, Connecticut should further explore the practice and encourage innovation by preparation programs, districts and other stakeholders.
Be Aspirational. The CSDE should lead with high aspirations for the state’s educator preparation programs, setting rigorous standards and expectations for all educators to ensure every student has an excellent teacher.
Slide 7
2014 Activities
3 working subcommittees in 3 areas: Program Review Data and Accountability System Assessment Development
Subcommittees met between Feb-Nov 2014 and included EPAC members and additional K-12/IHE representatives: Data – 7 meetings Program Review – 4 meetings Assessment Development – 2 meetings
Slide 8
PresentersPresenters Role
Irv Richardson, Consultant
Facilitation of Q & A following each subcommittee report out
Ken Di PietroSuperintendent, Plainfield
Report out on Program Review
Colleen PalmerSuperintendent, Weston
Report out on Data & Accountability
Nancy HoffmanCCSU Professor
Report out on Assessment Development
Suzanne RobinsonCEEDAR Center FacilitatorUniversity of Kansas
Report out on CEEDAR
Irv Richardson Action Plan Development
Slide 9
Slide 11
Slide 11
SBE PROGRAM APPROVAL DECISIONBased on evaluation of qualitative and quantitative data
Quantitative Review
Collection, analysis and reporting of multiple data sources to monitor individual program quality and improve program effectiveness.
Qualitative Review
Review of programs based on qualitative criteria and evidence (curricula/syllabi, program reports, interview data, etc. ) with focused review of individual programs if accountability data indicates performance issues.
Model Guiding Work of EPAC Subcommittees
Slide 12
Proposed recommendations:Standards for Program Review: Adopt the five broad standards of Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) standards
Review Process: Adopt some or most of the CAEP visit process with state teams participating in joint process with national team members. Awaiting December 2014 release of CAEP accreditation and visit process details.
Additional State Process: State team will conduct “focused review” of programs identified as at-risk or low-performing based on accountability data and issue an addendum to CAEP report with their findings.
Program Review
CAEP Standards
Standard 1: Content and Pedagogical Knowledge
Standard 2: Clinical Partnerships and Practice
Standard 3: Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and Selectivity
Standard 4: Program Impact
Standard 5: Provider Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement
Slide 13
Program ReviewProposed recommendations:
Commence drafting new program approval regulations outlining:
Definitions Minimum requirements such as admission and exit, clinical
experiences, etc. Approval Cycle Decision rules that combine qualitative & quantitative data and
recommendation to the State Review Committee Approval decisions by the Board and procedural requirements
by level of approval Just cause to conduct off-cycle review Other policies concerning new program approval, low
enrollment programs, etc.Slide
14
Slide 16
Design of Data SystemTo serve three purposes:
Public Profile Data
Program Improvement Data
Accountability Data
Profile Data
Slide 17
https://title2.ed.gov/Public/Report/StateHome.aspx
Profile DataProfile of completers/graduates by program
Completers in shortage areas
Completers by race/ethnicity
Employment data
Slide 18
2013 Profile Data (2011-12 Academic Year)
Total Enrollment 5716 Female/Male 75%/25%
Total Completers 2092
Race/Ethnicity Enrollments Hispanic 290
Am Indian/Alaska Native
15
Asian 88
Black/Af Am 222
White Enrollment 4606
Other 54
N FTE Faculty Supv Clin Exp 249.56
N FTE Adjunct Supv Clin Exp
956
N Candidates in Supv Clin Exp
2811 Slide 19
4 Categories and 12 indicators of accountability:o Program selectivity, entry and completion o Candidate pre-service performance o Candidate employment, persistence, in-service performance o District Partnership Leadership (institutional level data)NOTE: Some indicators require measures yet to be developed, piloted,
implemented (see assessment subcommittee).
Accountability decision rules will result in:o Program designation as Effective, At-Risk or Low-performingo Focused qualitative program review by state team
Slide 23
Accountability System
Accountability SystemDecision rules ultimately will lead to identifying a
program (not institution) as: Effective At-Risk or Low-performing Recommendations to include high level designation Proposed federal Title II Regulations require 4 rating levels:
the three listed above + Exceptional
Link with the qualitative review of educator preparation programs (EPPs) through the state program review process
Link indicators with new Title II Higher Education Act
Slide 24
*Proposed Title II Teacher Prep Regs
Key Indicators to be reported annually by states must minimally include:
Employment outcomes: New teacher placement and three-year retention rates, including in high-need schools
Teacher and employer feedback: Surveys on the effectiveness of prep
Student learning outcomes: Effectiveness of new teachers as demonstrated through measures of student growth, performance on state or local teacher evaluation measures that include data on student growth, or both, during their first three teaching years
Assurance of specialized accreditation, or evidence that a program produces candidates with content and pedagogical knowledge and quality clinical preparation, who have met rigorous entry and exit requirements.
*60-day public comment period with the final rules to be published in mid-2015.Slide
25
Accountability Categories, Indicators, Weights and Decision Rules
Category Indicator1. Program
selectivity, entry and completion
completer/graduation rates (CAEP)
admission selectivity criteria and goals
2. Candidate pre-service
performance
pass rates by program for external assessments (including Praxis II, ACTFL, Foundations of Reading, CAT, etc.) (CAEP)
pre-service performance assessments (CAEP)
3. Candidate employment,
persistence and in-service
performance
numbers initial employed in CT schools (of those candidates residing in CT using Dept of Labor data using occupational code) (CAEP)
employment of completers in hard to staff or high-need schools persistence rate: years in field after 1st and 3rd year of teaching or school leadership/admin/special service (CAEP)surveys of candidates 1-3 years from program completion and feedback on readiness for service (identify how many years out of preparation/distance away from completion date and how many/% stay in CT) (CAEP)
surveys of employers about candidates readiness 1-3 years from program completion (Supt will identify who is to receive these surveys supt or designees) (CAEP)
summative teacher level educator evaluation data (CAEP)
4. District Partnership Leadership
(institutional level data)
surveys of superintendents regarding shared responsibility and shared accountability with preparing institution partners surveys of deans of education regarding shared responsibility and shared accountability with district partners
Slide 28
Assessment Development
Proposed recommendations:
1. Develop/consider of the following assessment measures: New Teacher and Employer Feedback Surveys (CSDE
administered)
New School Leader and Employer Feedback Surveys (CSDE administered)
Pre-Service Performance Assessment Measure of IHE/District Partnership Quality
2. Do not develop a statewide student teaching instrument with required training for cooperating teachers and univ supervisors due to time, cost and capacity issues,
Slide 30
Assessment DevelopmentOn Nov 20, the subcommittee heard presentations
on the following pre-service performance assessments:
National Observational Teacher Exam (NOTE), which includes a performance assessment component and content knowledge for teaching items
edTPA, a portfolio assessment that includes 5 parts assessed against 15 rubrics
Pre-Service Performance Assessment (PPAT) which includes 5 parts but only 3 assessed against rubrics
Slide 31
Assessment DevelopmentProposed recommendations:
3. At this point, the subcommittee recommends further review of edTPA and other supporting policies: Review of the 15 rubrics Review of assessment handbooks and training
outlines Consider adoption for a set period of time, including a
pilot study Develop a fund to pay for this assessment for low-
income candidates (20-25%) Reduce other testing requirements once adopted
Note: Data from edTPA will meet requirements for CAEP accreditation and the Accountability System
Slide 32
Collaboration for Effective Educator Development,
Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR)
Report
Slide 33
Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform
CEEDAR
Funded by the US Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) with goal of improving outcomes for students with disabilities as a technical assistance grant to support states engaged in:
Reforming teacher and leadership preparation programs to embed evidence based practices
Revising licensure standards to align with reforms in teacher and leader preparation
Refining personnel evaluation systems in teacher and leader preparation programs
Realigning policy structures and professional learning systems
Slide 34
CEEDAR
Slide 35
• Connecticut’s state goal is to focus on the design and implementation of pre-service curricula for all TEACHER candidates (special education and non-special education) in order to provide opportunities to learn and demonstrate competency in evidence-based practices to improve core and specialized instruction to support SWD, ELLs and struggling learners reach college- and career-ready (CCR) standards in reading, writing and comprehension skills in argumentation.
• Faculty teams collaborate to evaluate and revise syllabi based on national research and identified essential elements contained in the innovation configurations in literacy, writing and culturally responsive practice.
• Revised curricula evaluated by external experts and provide feedback
• Scale up with other Connecticut IHEs
Syllabi reviews require identification of gaps, redundancies and priorities in program curricula relative to the CEEDAR Innovation Configurations (ICs) and evidence-based practices (EBPs)
Faculty must review the content taught relative to ICs and the level of practice/competency expected of candidates in current courses
Program syllabi are revised based on goals for preparing candidates to teach students to achieve core standards in literacy and argumentation
Slide 36
Level 1:
reading, test, lecture/presentation, discussion, modeling/demonstration, or quiz
Level 2:
observation, projects/activity, case study, lesson plan study
Level 3:
tutoring, small group student teaching, whole group internship
CEEDAR
CEEDARExcerpt from IC for Literacy Grades 6-12
37
Content Area Literacy & Disciplinary Literacy
RS 5.1English/Language Arts: Author’s purpose, point of view, theme
RS 5.2 English/Language Arts: Literal & implied meaning of textRS 5.3 Social Studies/History: Sourcing of primary documentsRS 5.4 Social Studies/History: ContextualizationRS 5.5 Social Studies/History: SummarizationRS 5.6 Social Studies/History: CorroborationRS 5.7 Science: Scientific meaning of vocabularyRS 5.8 Science: Relationships among conceptsRS 5.9 Science: Interpretation of graphs, charts, & formulasRS 5.10 Mathematics: Vocabulary of mathematics, Greek symbolsRS 5.11 Mathematics: Mathematical communication
RS 5.12Mathematics: Alignment of mathematical representations with text explanations
Timeline BenchmarksWork within and towards implementation dates of:
CAEP Implementation of new data-based accreditation process – Fall 2016
Federal Title II Report Requirements, Starting in 2016-17, reporting of all new data on 2015-
16 completers, for earliest first year of teaching in 2016-17, for the April 2018 pilot Title II report by U.S. Secretary of Education in
Begin reporting 4-level program performance ratings in 2017-18
Slide 39
2015 NTEP Implementation Plan
Proposed plan for Nov – Oct 2015 for:
Stakeholder Engagement
Program Approval Development
Data Collection, Analysis and Reporting
Licensure/Certification
Slide 40
Action Plan DevelopmentPolicy Area Pilot /Review
DateImplementation Date
Data & Accountability System Design
Assessment Development
Program Review/ Approval andRelated Regulations
Certification Regulations
Supply & Demand Report
Meeting Dates (virtual or in-person)
Slide 41
Follow-up and Thank YouWe will follow-up with you about our final action
plan including future convenings of full EPAC
Subcommittees will continue to meet spring 2015
We will focus on strategies to increase stakeholder engagement and communication
THANKS to EPAC, subcommittees members and national and state colleagues for your support and contributions to the work of educator preparation reform
Slide 42