Reviewer Training 5/18/2012

Welcome & Introductions Co-Chairs: NHDOE Representative:Bob McLaughlin

 IHE and P12 educators  Two members of the NH Council for Teacher Education serving as team co-chairs  One representative from the NHDOE

 Support continuous program improvement  Ensure NH’s IHEs are effectively preparing future educators

 Purposeful  Supportive  Collegial  Interactive  Demonstrating integrity  Focused on evidence  Identifying continuous improvement  Confidential

 General Education (Ed )  Professional Education (Ed )  “Unit” Standards (C-I-A-R) ◦ Curriculum ◦ Instruction ◦ Assessment (Program & Candidate) ◦ Resources These standards are reviewed by co-chairs with input from reviewers.

Individual Endorsements for INSERT IHE NAME HERE ◦ Elementary Education K-8 (Ed ) ◦ Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities (Ed ) ◦ Specific Learning Disabilities (Ed ) ◦ Special Education (Ed ) ◦ English Language Arts 5-12 (Ed ) ◦ Life Sciences 7-12 (Ed ) ◦ Social Studies 5-12 (Ed )  These standards are reviewed by individual program reviewers with support from co-chairs.

Standards are Developed by the Professional Standards Board Approved by the State Board of Education Monitored by the Council for Teacher EducationProfessional Standards BoardState Board of Education Ed 61X.XX NAME OF ENDORSEMENT RATING:Either: On Standard or Approaching Standard or Standard Not Met RATIONALE (Required) Describe the reviewed evidence that led to this rating. RECOMMENDATION (Required if standard is “approaching” or “not met.”) COMMENDATIONS (Optional)

 Review Evidence of Teaching and Learning (e.g.) ◦ Candidate work samples ◦ Course materials ◦ Direct observations ◦ Records and documents ◦ Testimony from interviews ◦ Alumni and/or employer surveys of graduates’ preparedness

 essays  journal entries  lesson plans  notes  performances  portfolios  reflections  reports  test responses  etc.

 assignments  handouts  notes  lectures/lecture outlines  tests, quizzes  Samples of assessed candidate work  evaluation rubrics  etc.

 advising materials  contracts  s  handbooks  organizational charts  meeting agendas  meeting minutes  meeting notes  procedures  policy statements/ booklets  program descriptions and requirements  reports from other program reviews: local, regional, state, national  schedules  student records  etc.

 administrators  candidates  faculty  staff  graduates/alums  cooperating professionals  others, as appropriate

On Standard  Review of the evidence indicates that the overall standard is met  Usually requires a mix of types of evidence  Look at the whole, not the individual sub-items within a standard  Consider the Institution’s understanding and interpretation of the standard  Consult with co-chairs & team if uncertain

Approaching Standard  Although some evidence is provided, this evidence does not indicate overall compliance with the standard.  Request additional information from the IHE during the review process about potentially unmet standards  Consult with co-chairs if uncertain

Standard Not Met  Evidence of overall compliance with standard is not available, even when requested.  Consult with co-chairs if uncertain

 Rationale ◦ List evidence to be reviewed for the rating ◦ Required to explain Approaching or Standard Not Met rating ◦ WRITE COMMENT TO EXPLAIN RATIONALE FOR EACH STANDARD  Recommendation ◦ “Institution will need to provide evidence that …” (complete sentence using language in standard)  Commendations (OPTIONAL) ◦ Only if something is exemplary and goes well beyond the expectations of the standard

 Serves as the ‘abstract’ for your program  Provides a brief explanation of program  Provides narrative summary for final program report to complement data from matrix  Informs Council members to support their decision regarding approval  Note: This is not the place for personal congratulations or appreciation to the program; this is a formal report.  Also, please use no individual’s name, and state “the reviewer” rather than “I”.

 Comment on sources and quality of evidence  Summarize the program’s strengths  If all standards were met, say so!  Identify any areas of concern  Summarize approaching or unmet standards (if any) and the related recommendations  Highlight commendations (if any)  Keep it brief (< 1 page is fine)

 Institutional Mission  Core Values  Governance structures  Faculty style or personality  Delivery models  Activities not related to PEPP standards

 Provide advice as to how to change the program  Compare their program to another program  Critique the readings, assignments, or syllabi  Make recommendations that aren't related to standards

Completed by each reviewer  Summary Findings for each program  Individual Program Matrix with documentation for each standard  Program Recommendation  Approval Options: ◦ Full Approval ◦ Approval with Conditions ◦ Not Approved ◦ Provisional Approval ( new programs only) Save Everything!

Completed by co-chairs  Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment & Resources matrices  Ed 609 and ED 610 matrices  Summary Findings from each reviewer  All matrices submitted to provide documentation of each standard and the review process  Program Approval Recommendations

 Before you leave, submit to co-chairs :  Electronic and signed paper copies of Ed 612/614 and Ed 610 matrices and summary findings  Your flash drive  Program Approval Recommendation form [signed]  Keep copies of documents  Maintain confidentiality

 Team report is shared with Institution for factual errors.  Council for Teacher Education reviews report.  Institution attends Council meeting and responds to questions from reactors.  CTE makes a recommendation to the State Board of Education.