Presentation on theme: "The Education Professional Standards Board KATE Conference September 26, 2014."— Presentation transcript:
The Education Professional Standards Board KATE Conference September 26, 2014
EPSB Mission Statement The Education Professional Standards Board, in full collaboration and cooperation with its education partners, promotes high levels of student achievement by establishing and enforcing rigorous professional standards for preparation, certification, and responsible and ethical behavior of all professional educators in Kentucky. 1
Pilot States Kentucky Connecticut Georgia Idaho Louisiana Massachusetts Washington The states will work individually and collectively to support transformation of educator preparation and entrance to the profession. 3
Four Major Buckets State licensure systems State program approval standards State data systems Partnerships 4
Licensure 1.States will revise and enforce their licensure standards for teachers and principals to support the teaching of more demanding content aligned to college- and career- readiness and critical thinking skills to a diverse range of students. 2.States will work together to influence the development of innovative licensure performance assessments that are aligned to the revised licensure standards and include multiple measures of educators’ ability to perform, including the potential to impact student achievement and growth. 3.States will create multi-tiered licensure systems aligned to a coherent developmental continuum that reflects new performance expectations for educators and their implementation in the learning environment and to assessments that are linked to evidence of student achievement and growth. 4.States will reform current state licensure systems so they are more efficient, have true reciprocity across states, and so that their credentialing structures support effective teaching and leading toward student college- and career-readiness. 5
Program Approval 5.States will hold preparation programs accountable by exercising the state’s authority to determine which programs should operate and recommend candidates for licensure in the state, including establishing a clear and fair performance rating system to guide continuous improvement. States will act to close programs that continually receive the lowest rating and will provide incentives for programs whose ratings indicate exemplary performance. 6.States will adopt and implement rigorous program approval standards to assure that educator preparation programs recruit candidates based on supply and demand data, have highly selective admissions and exit criteria including mastery of content, provide high quality clinical practice throughout a candidate’s preparation that includes experiences with the responsibilities of a school year from beginning to end, and that produce quality candidates capable of positively impacting student achievement. 7.States will require alignment of preparation content standards to PK-12 college- and career-ready standards for all licensure areas. 8.States will provide feedback, data, support, and resources to preparation programs to assist them with continuous improvement and to act on any program approval or national accreditation recommendations. 6
Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting 9.States will develop and support state-level governance structures to guide confidential and secure data collection, analysis, and reporting of PK-20 data and how it informs educator preparation programs, hiring practices, and professional learning. Using stakeholder input, states will address and take appropriate action, individually and collectively, on the need for unique educator identifiers, links to non-traditional preparation providers, and the sharing of candidate data among organizations and across states. 10.States will use data collection, analysis, and reporting of multiple measures for continuous improvement and accountability of preparation programs. 7
First Year Priorities Development of a continuous assessment model for shared educator preparation accountability. Alignment of the Kentucky’s educator growth and effectiveness system with the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program. Adopt/Align the Kentucky Teacher Standards with the InTASC Standards Field testing teacher performance assessments within educator preparation programs Adopting CAEP Standards for teacher preparation accountability. 8
Priority: KTIP/PGES Kentucky Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (TPGES) / Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (KTIP) 9
KTIP Pilot Background KACI-worked past year to align KTIP to PGES (based on Framework for Teaching) 22 districts involved in KTIP pilot this school year New KTIP will be used state-wide 11
No Changes to… Committee Structure (Principal, Resource Teacher, Teacher Educator) Cycle Structure (3 cycles, days are same) Number of hours Resource Teacher spends with Intern is same (20 in class; 40 out of class) Data/signatures entered in Intern Management System (IMS) the same 12
Biggest Change KTIP tasks for pilot called KTIP Sources of Evidence 13
Kentucky Teacher Internship Program Lesson Plan Self ReflectionStudent Voice Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System Observation Peer Observation Professional Growth Student Growth Collaborative Leadership Sources of Evidence 14
Sources of Evidence/Framework For Teaching Alignment
Sources of Evidence Self-Assessment and Reflection Lesson Plan Collaborative Leadership Professional Growth Plan Think and Plan Tool (Student Growth) Student Voice Observation/Post-Observation 16
KTIP Assessment Interns will be rated on every component of every Danielson domain at the end of all 3 cycles, using the new Professional Practice Ratings documents. These ratings will be used formatively to guide discussions with the intern, and will help inform scoring of the KY Teacher Standards. Principals will enter KTS scores for all committee members on the RTIY in IMS (same process as before). For IMS will be revised. 17
Stakeholder Involvement EPSB Board Directive Survey of District/School Personnel Focus Groups Kentucky Advisory Council for Internship KACI Work Team Kentucky Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (KACTE) presentations/discussions Feedback from Prichard Committee 18
Priority: Proportional Accountability Model EPSB Directive Part of the Kentucky Educator Preparation Accountability System (KEPAS) 19
Can we measure the impact of all that? We can measure all sorts of things, but how will we tease out the impact of A and the impact of B and the impact of C? And what happens when we add D and E and F and so on? We don’t want to create even a perception of system limitations. Kentucky decided to take a comprehensive approach to accountability for EPPs. Fairness Informative feedback Time-sensitive shared accountability shared between P-12 schools/districts and EPPs Three-part “accountability suite” was developed, presented to the board, and adopted in principle. 20
Can we measure the impact of all that? Kentucky Teacher Distribution, Chart used by permission of the authors. Kukla-Acevedo S, Streams M & Toma E (2012). Can a single performance metric do it all? A Case Study in Education Accountability. The American Review of Public Administration 42(3) 303–319. Case Study in Education Accountability.
Can we measure the impact of all that? 21
We want to be fair to our programs. Looked to evaluation and improvement systems used in high-risk fields requiring high levels of expertise. Aviation Nursing Others “Just culture” emerged as a theme for promoting improvement vs. placing blame. Human error Risky Reckless Have to know about the why before determining an appropriate response. 22
We want to provide informative feedback. Campbell’s Law: “The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.” (Campbell, 1998) Instead of drawing brightline rules, this approach applies informed inference to multiple measures to encourage continuous improvement. Involves charts: LOTS of charts. As of now, around 40 per EPP. Trained analysts and the EPP review the data, chart by chart. Some measures may prove to be useless: abandon them. Some new measures may become available: consider them. Some measures may prove to be useful even beyond our expectations: leverage them. Some measures may be useful only in combination with other measures or under certain circumstances: use caution with them. 26
We want to promote shared accountability. 24 This is just a model of how we could apportion time-sensitive fault/credit to both the EPP and the P-12 context in which completers function. Subject to tinkering. Year of employment % of performance attributed to program % of performance attributed to the P-12 context
We want to promote shared accountability. This is just a model of how we could apportion time-sensitive fault/credit to both the EPP and the P-12 context in which completers function. Subject to tinkering. 25
What does fair, informative, shared accountability look like? Ask a series of questions. What do the data represent? What do the data suggest? What factors or decisions may have contributed? Who is responsible? To what extent? The goal is not to blame. Identify what we want, and work to get more of it. Identify what we don’t want, and work to avoid getting more of it. 26
What does fair, informative, shared accountability look like? Average GPA of Admitted Candidates: Institution C
What does fair, informative, shared accountability look like? Average ACT of Admitted Candidates: Institution C
What does fair, informative, shared accountability look like?
What does fair, informative, shared accountability look like? Institution B Summary Praxis Pass Rate Data Academic Years
What does fair, informative, shared accountability look like? Institution C New Teacher Survey: % of respondents endorsing Satisfied or Very Satisfied
What’s Next? 32 Keep our board and our EPPs informed as we learn more. Work on refinements. What should we dump? Do any of these measures tell us more than we expected? Are there research findings we should explore? Additional sources of data becoming available. KDE Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PGES) for teachers and administrators/TELL Survey Kentucky Center for Education and Workforce Statistics More and better in-house data collected through KFETS, admission/exit, cooperating teacher system, certification system, etc. EPPs have a lot of expertise: How can we use it?
Stakeholder Presentations 33 Presentations/discussions with education partners Kentucky Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (KACTE) presentations/discussions Kentucky Advisory Council for Internship (KACI) Commonwealth Collaborative of School Leadership Programs (CCSLP) Guiding Coalition (e.g., EPSB, CPE, KDE, Prichard Committee, IHE, KSBA, KASC, KEA, REL Appalachia, KASS, KASA, AIKCU)
34 To download a paper describing our accountability suite more fully, visit click on Data and Research, select Research Reviews, and select Design of an EPSB Preparation and Accountability System for Teacher Training Programs.
Next Steps Multi-Tiered Licensure Career-Pathways 35
Stakeholder Feedback Portal 36
37 To view all presentations and information regarding the grant, go to the following link: EPSB NTEP Stakeholder Portal. EPSB NTEP Stakeholder Portal We strongly encourage and welcome your feedback regarding the initiatives of NTEP. Feedback option will require log-in information.
New Teacher Survey stics/StateRptCard/2013_2014.asp stics/StateRptCard/2013_2014.asp 38