Revision of initial and continued approval standard guidelines for initial teacher preparation
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 21

Revision of Initial and Continued Approval Standard Guidelines for initial teacher preparation PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 87 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Revision of Initial and Continued Approval Standard Guidelines for initial teacher preparation. Elayne Colón, Tom Dana, & Theresa Vernetson University of Florida Project sponsored by the Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Educator Recruitment, Development & Retention. outline.

Download Presentation

Revision of Initial and Continued Approval Standard Guidelines for initial teacher preparation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Revision of initial and continued approval standard guidelines for initial teacher preparation

Revision of Initial and Continued Approval Standard Guidelines for initial teacher preparation

Elayne Colón, Tom Dana, & Theresa Vernetson

University of Florida

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


Outline

outline

  • Project Overview

  • Methods and Timeline

  • Findings

  • Recommendations and Implications


Overview of project charge

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


Purpose

Purpose

From 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


Methods used to collect stakeholder input

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)


Timeline of events

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


Timeline of events continued

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


Timeline of events continued1

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


Timeline of events continued2

Timeline of Events continued…

  • Webinar

    • Held 6/14/13

    • 59 participants

    • Presentation 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


Findings survey

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


Findings survey1

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


  • Findings f2f and webinar

    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)


    Findings f2f and webinar continued

    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


    Key themes across stakeholder input

    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


    Recommendations standards

    Recommendations: Standards

    Initial Approval

    Continued Approval

    • Program Administration and Candidate Selectivity

    • Program Completer Quality

    • Field/Clinical Practices

    • Program Effectiveness

    • Program Completer Quality

    • Field/Clinical Practices

    • Program Effectiveness


    Recommendations site visit process

    Recommendations: Site visit process

    Two-phased* review:

    • Off-Site Phase

    • On-Site Visit

      *design based primarily on TLPIC Subcommittee’s recommendations


    Off site phase of review process

    Off-site phase of review process

    • Site visit team reviews the institution’s program reports and electronic exhibits posted on line via the Electronic Institutional Program Evaluation Plan (eIPEP)

    • Off Site Reports for Each Program – team identify any “areas of concern” that could be cited as weaknesses in the final program approval recommendations

    • Preliminary findings shared with programs

    • 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


    On site visit as part of review process

    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).


    Implications and work to be done

    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


  • Login