Standard one: revisions February 11, 2016

Agenda for Today Context for Reviews Context regarding Standards Overview of Standard One Requirements Requirements for Standard One (Program Level) Requirements for Standard One (EPP Level) Standard Two Overview

Context for REVIEWS

Where are we with CAEP? Regardless of the decision about a CAEP/GA partnership agreement, there will always be two types of continuing reviews in Georgia: CAEP/GaPSC joint review GaPSC-only review (for those who do not seek national accreditation)

Provider Reporting System So…we built PRS-II Acronym now stands for: Provider Reporting System PRS-II has the capability to contain both types of reviews (GaPSC-only and CAEP/GaPSC joint)

PRS-II This system allows for one place where all data will be housed. There is no need for a separate electronic evidence room. Providers will enter all evidence, and site visitors will be able to see all evidence.

Where will data be placed? Standards CAEP Non-CAEP

Where will data be placed? Standards CAEP Non-CAEP 1-5 (EPP level) AIMS

Where will data be placed? Standards CAEP Non-CAEP 1-5 (EPP level) AIMS 1 (Program level) PRS-II

Where will data be placed? Standards CAEP Non-CAEP 1-5 (EPP level) AIMS 1 (Program level) PRS-II 6

Where will data be placed? Standards CAEP Non-CAEP 1-5 (EPP level) PRS-II (EPP)

Where will data be placed? Standards CAEP Non-CAEP 1-5 (EPP level) PRS-II (EPP) 1 (Program level) PRS-II

Where will data be placed? Standards CAEP Non-CAEP 1-5 (EPP level) PRS-II (EPP) 1 (Program level) PRS-II 6

Where will data be placed? Standards CAEP Non-CAEP 1-5 (EPP level) AIMS PRS-II (EPP) 1 (Program level) PRS-II 6

Context regarding Standards

Consider Standards One through Five The first pilot for the new standards showed us that while all of the standards inform the review of the programs, EPPs should only provide evidence for one of these standards at the program level. Standard One (Content and Pedagogical Knowledge) All other standards will be addressed at the EPP level Consider Standard Six (Mother Rule) Standard that is addressed by program only

After Standard One Webinar I want to explain the original thinking and share how we got where we are today…

The Original Thinking EPP-Level Data for Standard One ECE Standard One Secondary Math Standard One Music Standard One ECE Standard One

Today’s Thinking: Two “Layers” of Standard One Describes evidence for meeting standard at the unit level Is informed by Standard One data from individual programs Contains key assessments that are required across all programs Standard One: EPP Describes evidence for meeting the standard at the program level (for each individual program) Informed by Standards Two through Five Contains key assessments by individual program Standard One: Program

Assessments for Those Layers Program-Level: Six required assessments that are program specific. Four of those would be related to the four InTASC domains: The Learner and Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility The other two assessments are specified by the program: 2 Program Assessments

Key Program Assessments The Learner and Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practices Professional Responsibility Program Assessment

The Learner and Learning Standard #1 Learner Development Standard #2 Learning Differences Standard #3 Learning Environments

Application of Content Content Knowledge Standard #4 Content Knowledge Standard #5 Application of Content

Instructional Practice Standard #6 Assessment Standard #7 Planning for Instruction Standard #8 Instructional Strategies

Professional Responsibility Standard #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Standard #10 Leadership and Collaboration

Two Additional Program Assessments Remember that you are considering the totality of evidence to address Standard One for programs. Therefore, programs might want to consider a technology assessment, a dispositions assessment, an assessment that further demonstrates candidates’ ability to plan, instruct, or assess their students’ learning.

Program Assessments The Learner and Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Program Assessment

PROGRAM ONE PROGRAM TWO The Learner and Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Program Assessment The Learner and Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Program Assessment PROGRAM THREE PROGRAM FOUR The Learner and Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Program Assessment The Learner and Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Program Assessment

Let’s take a look at PRS-II

Questions: Key Program Assessments

Key EPP Assessments Key EPP Assessments

Key EPP Assessments Key EPP Assessments GACE

Key EPP Assessments Key EPP Assessments GACE edTPA

Key EPP Assessments Key EPP Assessments GACE edTPA EPP Assessment

Key EPP Assessments Key EPP Assessments GACE edTPA EPP Assessment

Standard One Language The provider ensures that candidates develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their discipline and, by completion, are able to use discipline-specific practices flexibly to advance the learning of all students toward attainment of college- and career-readiness standards.

Bringing it together…

Standard One EPP-Level Data Program-Level Data GACE Content Data edTPA EPP Assessment The Learner and Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility Program Assessment

Let’s look at PRS-II

Questions: Key EPP Assessments

STANDARD TWO OVERVIEW

Standard Two The provider ensures that effective partnerships and high-quality clinical practice are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to demonstrate positive impact on all P-12 students’ learning and development.

Component 2.1 Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 school and community arrangements, including technology-based collaborations, for clinical preparation and share responsibility for continuous improvement of candidate preparation. Partnerships have mutually agreeable expectations for candidate entry, preparation, and exit; ensure that theory and practice are linked; maintain coherence across clinical and academic components of preparation; and share accountability for candidate outcomes. QUESTIONS FOR YOU: Describe what “mutually beneficial” means to you. Provide an example of how your institution will include technology-based collaborations for clinical preparation.

Component 2.2 Partners co-select, prepare, evaluate, support, and retain high-quality clinical educators, both provider- and school-based, who demonstrate a positive impact on candidates' development and P-12 student learning and development. In collaboration with their partners, providers use multiple indicators and appropriate technology-based applications to establish, maintain, and refine criteria for selection, professional development, performance evaluation, continuous improvement, and retention of clinical educators in all clinical placement settings. SOMETHING TO PONDER: What data do partners need in order to make key decisions about the clinical experience process? How will your institution assure that clinical educators have an understanding of both provider- and school –based expectations?

Component 2.3 The provider works with partners to design clinical experiences of sufficient depth, breadth, diversity, coherence, and duration to ensure that candidates demonstrate their developing effectiveness and positive impact on all students' learning and development. Clinical experiences, including technology-enhanced learning opportunities, structured to have multiple performance-based assessments at key points within the program to demonstrate candidates' development of the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions (as delineated in Standard 1), that are associated with a positive impact on the learning and development of all P-12 students. Attributes (depth, breath, diversity, coherence, and duration) are linked to student outcomes and candidate/completer performance. Technology-enhanced learning opportunities are associated with the candidate and student. Candidates should be assessed throughout the program with data supporting increasing levels of candidate competency.

Upcoming sessions

Standard Two Webinar March 10, 2016 1:30-3:00

April 19 Workshop April19: 8:30-3:45 Middle GA State University Complimentary Registration Finishing the agenda now. It will be “theme-based” to address specific topics that are concerning providers.