1. Standard one: revisions
February 11, 2016

2. 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

3. Context for REVIEWS

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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.

7. Where will data be placed?
Standards
CAEP
Non-CAEP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15. Context regarding Standards

16. 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

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

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

19. 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

20. 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

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

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

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

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

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

26. 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.

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

28. 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

29. Let’s take a look at PRS-II

35. Questions: Key Program Assessments

36. Key EPP Assessments
Key EPP Assessments

37. Key EPP Assessments
Key EPP Assessments
GACE

38. Key EPP Assessments
Key EPP Assessments
GACE
edTPA

39. Key EPP Assessments
Key EPP Assessments
GACE
edTPA
EPP Assessment

40. Key EPP Assessments
Key EPP Assessments
GACE
edTPA
EPP Assessment

41. 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.

42. Bringing it together…

43. 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

44. Let’s look at PRS-II

48. Questions: Key EPP Assessments

49. STANDARD TWO OVERVIEW

50. 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.

51. 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.

52. 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?

53. 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.

54. Upcoming sessions

55. Standard Two Webinar
March 10, :30-3:00

56. 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.