HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
What is District Wide Accreditation? Ensure Desired Results Improve Teaching & Learning Foster a Culture of Improvement A powerful systems approach to.
Advertisements

Tenure is awarded when the candidate successfully demonstrates meritorious performance in teaching, research/scholarly/creative accomplishment and service.
1 Quality Indicators for Device Demonstrations April 21, 2009 Lisa Kosh Diana Carl.
Develop and Validate Minimum Core Criteria and Competencies for AgrAbility Program Staff Bill Field, Ed.D., Professor National AgrAbility Project Director.
World’s Largest Educational Community
University of the Western Cape HEQC /Finnish Project October 2008 Vincent Morta Quality Manager.
Evidence, Ethics, and the Law Ronnie Detrich Wing Institute.
Campus Improvement Plans
April 6, 2011 DRAFT Educator Evaluation Project. Teacher Education and Licensure DRAFT The ultimate goal of all educator evaluation should be… TO IMPROVE.
August 2006 OSEP Project Director's Conference 1 Preparing Teachers to Teach All Children: The Impact of the Work of the Center for Improving Teacher Quality.
Funding Opportunities at the Institute of Education Sciences: Information for the Grants Administrator Elizabeth R. Albro, Ph.D. Acting Commissioner National.
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) Flex Activity March 1, 2012 Lassen Community College.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIVERSE LEARNERS Susan Brody Hasazi Katharine S. Furney National Institute of Leadership, Disability, and Students Placed.
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European
EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION UPDATE Michigan Association of School Personnel Administrators Conference December 3, 2010 Flora L. Jenkins, Director Office of.
How to Develop a Project Evaluation Plan Pat Gonzalez Office of Special Education Programs
The Role of Assessment in the EdD – The USC Approach.
 Description  The unit has a conceptual framework that defines how our programs prepare candidates to be well-rounded educators. Every course in the.
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Learner-Ready Teachers  More specifically, learner-ready teachers have deep knowledge of their content and how to teach it;  they understand the differing.
Applying the Principles of Prior Learning Assessment Debra A. Dagavarian Diane Holtzman Dennis Fotia.
Standard 5 - Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development Kate Steffens St. Cloud State University.
Prof. György BAZSA, former president Hungarian Accreditation Committee (HAC) CUBRIK Workshop IV Beograd, 13 March, 2012 European Standards and Guidelines.
ASSESSING CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE William Sharpton Richard Hall University of New Orleans Project Directors’ Meeting July 2007.
Hillsdale County Intermediate School District Oral Exit Report Quality Assurance Review Team Education Service Agency Accreditation ESA
Basic Workshop For Reviewers NQAAC Recognize the developmental engagements Ensure that they operate smoothly and effectively” Ensure that all team members.
NCATE Standard 3: Field Experiences & Clinical Practice Monica Y. Minor, NCATE Jeri A. Carroll, BOE Chair Professor, Wichita State University.
NSF IGERT proposals Yang Zhao Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Wayne State University.
WHO Global Standards. 5 Key Areas for Global Standards Program graduates Program graduates Program development and revision Program development and revision.
ANNUAL AND FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS 524B FORM REPORTING PERIOD BUDGET EXPENDITURES INDIRECT COST RATE PERFORMANCE MEASURES.
SACS-CASI Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement FAMU DRS – QAR Quality Assurance Review April 27-28,
Standard Two: Understanding the Assessment System and its Relationship to the Conceptual Framework and the Other Standards Robert Lawrence, Ph.D., Director.
Making Plans for the Future April 29, 2013 Brenda M. Tanner, Ed.D.
Using Individual Project and Program Evaluations to Improve the Part D Programs Dr. Herbert M. Baum.
POST-TENURE REVIEW: Report and Recommendations. 2 OVERVIEW Tenure Field Test Findings Recommendations This is a progress report. Implementation, assessment,
ABET is Coming! What I need to know about ABET, but was afraid to ask.
The University of Kentucky Program Review Process for Administrative Units April 18 & 20, 2006 JoLynn Noe, Assistant Director Office of Assessment
The Conceptual Framework: What It Is and How It Works Linda Bradley, James Madison University Monica Minor, NCATE April 2008.
ANNOOR ISLAMIC SCHOOL AdvancEd Survey PURPOSE AND DIRECTION.
1 Strategic Plan Review. 2 Process Planning and Evaluation Committee will be discussing 2 directions per meeting. October meeting- Finance and Governance.
Ohio Improvement Process (OIP) Facilitating District-wide Improvement in Instructional Practices and Student Performance.
Assessing Student Learning Workshop for Department Chairs & Program Directors Workshop for Department Chairs & Program Directors January 9, 2007.
Staff All Surveys Questions 1-27 n=45 surveys Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree The relative sizes of the colored bars in the chart.
About District Accreditation Mrs. Sanchez & Mrs. Bethell Rickards Middle School
Office of Service Quality
Quality Assurance Review Team Oral Exit Report School Accreditation Sugar Grove Elementary September 29, 2010.
Accreditation (AdvancED) STANDARD #4: RESOURCES & SUPPORT SYSTEMS
1 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO ENSURE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES RECEIVE A QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAM Performance Measurement, Program and Project Evaluation.
UPDATE ON EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS IN MICHIGAN Directors and Representatives of Teacher Education Programs April 22, 2016.
A Commitment to Continuous Improvement in Teaching and Learning Michaela Rome, Ph.D. NYU Assistant Vice Provost for Assessment.
Accountability & Program Assessment Governing Board Online Training Module.
Selection Criteria and Invitational Priorities School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.
325K: COMBINED PRIORITY FOR PERSONNEL PREPARATION Webinar on the Annual Performance Report for Continuation Funding Office of Special Education Programs.
325D: PREPARATION OF LEADERSHIP PERSONNEL Webinar on Project Objective and Performance Measures for the Annual Performance Report for Continuation Funding.
Grant Activities, Needs Assessments And other SPDG application Issues to Consider.
Standard 4: Faculty, Staff, & Students 1. Standard 4: Faculty, Staff, and Students Standard 4: Faculty, Staff, and Students (#82) INTENT STATEMENTS 4.1.
Last Updated: 5/12/2016 Goal Setting and Professional Development Plan Teacher Overview.
The Eugene T. Moore School of Education Working together to promote the growth, education, and social development of children and youth David E. Barrett.
Academic Program Review
Phyllis Lynch, PhD Director, Instruction, Assessment and Curriculum
Department of Political Science & Sociology North South University
NCATE Standard 3: Field Experiences & Clinical Practice
Annual Plan Earlier this week, the SNA Board reviewed the progress we have made to date on the new Strategic Plan that was introduced last year.
Early Childhood Leaders Ready to Change the World:
2018 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference
Auxiliary Rubrics Module 6 Activity Overview
February 21-22, 2018.
Introductions Introduction
Program Modification “Academic Year 2019” Assumption University
Presentation transcript:

HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation

About HECSE The Higher Education Consortium for Special Education (HECSE) is a national organization that represents major university programs that prepare personnel for special education leadership roles.

What does HECSE do? Together, HECSE members are engaged in a variety of ongoing advocacy, research, and service efforts designed to meet two primary goals: Appropriate educational opportunities and effective school outcomes for millions of American children and youth with disabilities; Support for recruitment, preparation, and retention of special education personnel at all levels (e.g., special education teachers, teacher educators, classroom researchers, program administrators).

HECSE’s Commitment to Quality in Personnel Preparation At the first conference of chairs of departments of special education in 1976, participants agreed to accomplish four purposes, including to “formulate standards for programs and to encourage enforcement of those standards.” (Blackhurst, 1976).

Previous Standards for Doctoral Preparation The “Indicators of Quality in Special Education Doctoral Programs” published by HECSE in 1984 was the first and only professional statement of doctoral program standard in the discipline ( HECSE members appointed by OSEP to serve as members of a Blue Ribbon Committee in 2003 developed recommendations for the application and evaluation process for the leadership personnel preparation competition funded under Part D.

Charge to the Quality Indicator Committee (1) Identify and analyze the current desired outcomes as well as prescribed outcomes from the personnel preparation projects (2) Identify and document the issues with current outcomes statements and analyze for common areas of concern (3) Secure input on what outcomes are desired from the personnel preparation projects, including current and projected future needs (4) Determine the relationship between the development of quality indicators with existing policy and the implications for projected policy

Charge to the QI Committee (5) Formulate a set of recommendations for quality indicators and measurable outcomes of personnel preparation projects (6) Develop a final report for adoption by the membership of HECSE to be forwarded for consideration by the Office of Special Education Programs and other appropriate agencies in the U.S. Department of Education (7) Consider whether additional resources and stakeholders should be involved in your work (8) Identify the impact of personnel preparation projects on recent graduates (9) Provide recommendations regarding the focus of future personnel preparation competitions from the Office of Special Education Programs.

HECSE QI Committee Activities Document reviews: 1984 Quality Indicators 2003 Blue Ribbon Panel Recommendations SEFNA Findings OSEP Personnel Preparation Goals and Outcomes Input from the field Plans presented at 2013 Project Directors’ Meeting Initial draft presented at 2013 TED Conference Updated draft sent to HECSE members for review Draft submitted at 2014 HECSE Winter Summit Draft finalized and published April 1, 2014

Purpose of the 2014 HECSE Quality Indicators for Preparation of Leadership Personnel The Quality Indicators for Doctoral Programs in Special Education were developed by HECSE for use by individual programs to meet their own needs and purposes. HECSE’s intent is to provide measurable indicators that might be useful for special education doctoral programs to implement for purposes of self- assessment and program improvement. Any use of these indicators by HECSE member institutions is strictly voluntary and should not imply any evaluative role for HECSE.

2014 HECSE Quality Indicators 1.The program has a mission statement that addresses both process and product elements. 2.The roles and functions of program graduates are clearly defined and meet an identified need in the field. 3. The program has a clearly defined set of competencies related to teaching and/or administration, research, and service, as well as measurable instructional objectives for each of those competencies.

2014 HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation in Special Education

2014 HECSE Quality Indicators (1-3) 1.Identify and analyze the current desired outcomes as well as prescribed outcomes from the personnel preparation projects. 2.Identify and document the issues with current outcomes statements and analyze for common areas of concern. 3.Secure input on what outcomes are desired from the personnel preparation projects, including current and projected future needs.

2014 HECSE Quality Indicators (4-6) 4.The program content is grounded in foundational literature of the field, reflects state of the art research and evidence-based practice, and is related to the mission and identified competencies of the program. 5.Syllabi, program descriptions, and doctoral experiences include best practices related to research and evaluation methods and use of data. 6.Scholars in the program participate in an array of professional experiences that progress from mentored to independent, and that align to expectations for research, teaching/administration, and service.

2014 HECSE Quality Indicators (7-9) 7.Program faculty are productive scholars, researchers and practitioners who serve as models and mentors and whose skills contribute to the mission of the program. 8.The program demonstrates commitment to recruiting, sustaining, and matriculating students from under- represented populations. 9.The resources necessary to maintain and assure a high quality program over time are available at the program level and at the institutional level.

2014 HECSE Quality Indicators (10-11) 10.The program has a mechanism for ongoing assessment and evaluation of the progress of individual doctoral scholars. 11. The program has a system for keeping track of graduate outcomes that indicates alignment between the program’s mission and scholars’ subsequent employment.

2014 HECSE Quality Indicators (12-13) 12.The program has a system for keeping track of current and former student accomplishments throughout their program and for at least three years after graduation in the areas of teaching/administration, research, and service resulting in a clear alignment to the program’s mission. 13.The program’s evaluation plan is used to revise and refine the program as necessary to ensure continuous improvement.

Challenges and Considerations From the outset, members expressed concern that HECSE might plan to evaluate individual doctoral programs. While this was a stated purpose of the 1976 charter group, HECSE has no intent of evaluating any programs. The Quality Indicators are intended to serve as a potential tool for individual programs to use in self-assessment and program improvement.

Challenges and Considerations Part 1 Special education doctoral programs consist of a wide variety of experiences, types of coursework, and foci. They prepare scholars for a wide variety of roles including policy development, research, administration, preparation of future generations of teachers, and leadership as direct service providers in early intervention through adult services. The Committee’s intent was to acknowledge and value this diversity.

Challenges and Considerations Part 2 Today, there are calls for use of evidence-based practices at every level of education. While there is a body of literature on what should constitute doctoral preparation in education, and case examples of program efficacy, there are no universally accepted (or research-derived) standards for how future leadership personnel in special education should be prepared.

Challenges and Considerations Part 3 Many current assessment and evaluation efforts focus on the impact that educator preparation programs have on preK-12 students; however, graduates of doctoral programs in special education fulfill a variety of leadership roles that have an important, but indirect, impact on student achievement. As such, the HECSE Quality Indicators focus on the preparation and success of leadership program graduates who will prepare future educators, conduct research, develop policy, and/or provide programmatic leadership that, in turn, leads to student success.

Questions and Challenges for the Future? To what extent do you see the Quality Indicators as compatible or incompatible with OSEP Leadership grant selection criteria? What constitutes success for a program graduate? Job placement? Tenure? Publications? How might we use the HECSE Quality Indicators to begin building a body of evidence-based practices for leadership preparation?