R EVISION OF I NITIAL AND C ONTINUED A PPROVAL S TANDARD G UIDELINES 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 Project Overview Methods and Timeline Findings Recommendations and Implications 2

O VERVIEW OF P ROJECT C HARGE 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

P URPOSE 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 4

M ETHODS U SED TO C OLLECT S TAKEHOLDER I NPUT  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) 5

T IMELINE 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 6

T IMELINE OF EVENTS C ONTINUED … 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 7

T IMELINE 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 8

T IMELINE OF E VENTS 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 9

F INDINGS : S URVEY 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 10

F INDINGS : S URVEY 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 11

F INDINGS : F2F AND W EBINAR 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) 12

F INDINGS : F2F AND W EBINAR C ONTINUED 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 13

14

K EY T HEMES ACROSS S TAKEHOLDER 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

R ECOMMENDATIONS : S TANDARDS 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 ApprovalContinued Approval

R ECOMMENDATIONS : S ITE VISIT PROCESS Two-phased * review: Off-Site Phase On-Site Visit *design based primarily on TLPIC Subcommittee’s recommendations 17

O FF - 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 18

O N - SITE V ISIT AS PART OF R EVIEW 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). 19

I MPLICATIONS 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 20

21