1 Educator Preparation Advisory Council (EPAC) September, 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
WV High Quality Standards for Schools
Advertisements

The Readiness Centers Initiative Early Education and Care Board Meeting Tuesday, May 11, 2010.
Transforming Teacher Education through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers - Dr. Dwight C. Watson - University of Northern.
STRATEGIC PLAN Community Unit School District 300 7/29/
A relentless commitment to academic achievement and personal growth for every student. Redmond School District Graduates are fully prepared for the demands.
The Education Professional Standards Board KATE Conference September 26, 2014.
Continuum of Teacher Development and Shared Accountability Leading to Increased Student Performance Teaching Quality Policy Center Education Commission.
April 6, 2011 DRAFT Educator Evaluation Project. Teacher Education and Licensure DRAFT The ultimate goal of all educator evaluation should be… TO IMPROVE.
NJDOE TALENT DIVISION OVERVIEW prepared for: NJPSA ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE CONFRENCE AND MEMBERSHIP MEETING March 30,
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.
Knows and performs Illinois Professional Teaching Standards including working with diverse learners Demonstrates basic competency in planning, instruction,
New York State Workforce Investment Board Healthcare Workforce Development Subcommittee Planning Grant Overview.
Estándares claves para líderes educativos publicados por
Transforming Education in Kentucky EPSB and TEK 1.
Teacher Preparation Presentation to the Higher Education Coordinating Council May 2, 2012 Kathy Hebda, Deputy Chancellor for Educator Quality.
Ensuring Quality and Effective Staff Professional Development to Increase Learning for ALL Students.
NTEP – Network for Transforming Teacher Preparation A presentation to the State Board TAC on Tiered Licensure and Career Ladders April 6, 2014.
1 GENERAL OVERVIEW. “…if this work is approached systematically and strategically, it has the potential to dramatically change how teachers think about.
Principal Evaluation in Massachusetts: Where we are now National Summit on Educator Effectiveness Principal Evaluation Breakout Session #2 Claudia Bach,
Shared Decision Making: Moving Forward Together
Meeting SB 290 District Evaluation Requirements
Strategic Planning Board Update February 27, 2012 Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only.
1. 2 Why is the Core important? To set high expectations –for all students –for educators To attend to the learning needs of students To break through.
Virginia Foundation for Educational Leadership Virginia Department of Education Webinar Series 2012 Welcome to Webinar 7.
Learner-Ready Teachers  More specifically, learner-ready teachers have deep knowledge of their content and how to teach it;  they understand the differing.
Iowa’s Teacher Quality Program. Intent of the General Assembly To create a student achievement and teacher quality program that acknowledges that outstanding.
1 Educator Preparation Advisory Council (EPAC) July 31, 2013 A New Framework to Strengthen School Leader Preparation in Connecticut.
Connecticut Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Grant.
Leadership: Connecting Vision With Action Presented by: Jan Stanley Spring 2010 Title I Directors’ Meeting.
College and Career Ready Standards (a.k.a. Common Core Standards) and Educator Effectiveness Systems Kutztown University College of Education Faculty Retreat.
CONNECT WITH CAEP | Transitioning from NCATE and TEAC to CAEP: How? Patty Garvin, Senior Director,
Mission The faculty and staff of Pittman Elementary School are committed to providing every student with adequate time, effective teaching, and a positive.
Hillsdale County Intermediate School District Oral Exit Report Quality Assurance Review Team Education Service Agency Accreditation ESA
 This prepares educators to work in P-12 schools (1)  It provides direction (1)  It is knowledge-based, articulated, shared, coherent, consistent with.
HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation.
NCATE Standard 3: Field Experiences & Clinical Practice Monica Y. Minor, NCATE Jeri A. Carroll, BOE Chair Professor, Wichita State University.
1. Housekeeping Items June 8 th and 9 th put on calendar for 2 nd round of Iowa Core ***Shenandoah participants*** Module 6 training on March 24 th will.
Standard Two: Understanding the Assessment System and its Relationship to the Conceptual Framework and the Other Standards Robert Lawrence, Ph.D., Director.
TPEP Teacher & Principal Evaluation System Prepared from resources from WEA & AWSP & ESD 112.
C ollaboration for E ffective E ducator D evelopment, A ccountability, and R eform (CEEDAR) Center U.S. Department of Education, H325A
The Conceptual Framework: What It Is and How It Works Linda Bradley, James Madison University Monica Minor, NCATE April 2008.
BISD Update Teacher & Principal Evaluation Update Board of Directors October 27,
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.
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.
APRIL 2, 2012 EDUCATOR PREPARATION POLICY & PRACTICE UPDATE.
Presented at the OSPA Summit 2012 January 9, 2012.
CCSSO Task Force Recommendations on Educator Preparation Idaho State Department of Education December 14, 2013 Webinar.
About District Accreditation Mrs. Sanchez & Mrs. Bethell Rickards Middle School
Office of Service Quality
Office of Service Quality
Helping Teachers Help All Students: The Imperative for High-Quality Professional Development Report of the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Advisory.
CAREER PATHWAYS THE NEW WAY OF DOING BUSINESS. Agenda for our Discussion Today we’ll discuss: Career Pathways Systems and Programs Where we’ve been and.
SEA Strategies for Promoting Equity: SEA/IHE Collaboration on Teacher Preparation Lynn Holdheide, Center on Great Teachers and Leaders & Collaboration.
Achieve OER State Policy Recommendations July 30, 2015 CC BYCC BY Achieve 2015.
CHB Conference 2007 Planning for and Promoting Healthy Communities Roles and Responsibilities of Community Health Boards Presented by Carla Anglehart Director,
Outcomes By the end of our sessions, participants will have…  an understanding of how VAL-ED is used as a data point in developing professional development.
External Review Exit Report Campbell County Schools November 15-18, 2015.
Principles of Good Governance
Janice why don’t you take the first seven slides as an introduction, I will take 8-11 I think in my section. We should make the presentation more interactive.
Nancy Burstein Sue Sears California State University, Northridge
Clinical Practice evaluations and Performance Review
Partnership for Practice
Phyllis Lynch, PhD Director, Instruction, Assessment and Curriculum
Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
NCATE Standard 3: Field Experiences & Clinical Practice
Implementation Guide for Linking Adults to Opportunity
February 21-22, 2018.
Standard one: revisions
Size, Scope, and Quality Definition Perkins V Town Hall Meeting
Presentation transcript:

1 Educator Preparation Advisory Council (EPAC) September, 2013

2 Agenda Welcome, EPAC Updates & Purpose for Webinar CCSSO Report & NTEP Grant Overview NTEP/EPAC Implementation Plan Next Steps

3 Welcome, EPAC Updates & Purpose for Webinar EPAC Framework Updates Purpose of Today’s Webinar CSDE Update

4 Agenda Welcome, EPAC Updates & Purpose for Webinar CCSSO Report & NTEP Grant Overview NTEP/EPAC Implementation Plan Next Steps

5 CCSSO Report & NTEP Grant Overview: Our Responsibility, Our Promise Recommendations on Licensure 1. States will revise and enforce their licensure standards for teachers and principals to support the teaching of more demanding content aligned to college- and career-readiness and critical thinking skills to a diverse range of students. 2. States will work together to influence the development of innovative licensure performance assessments that are aligned to the revised licensure standards and include multiple measures of educators’ ability to perform, including the potential to impact student achievement and growth. 3. States will create multi-tiered licensure systems aligned to a coherent developmental continuum that reflects new performance expectations for educators and their implementation in the learning environment and to assessments that are linked to evidence of student achievement and growth. 4. States will reform current state licensure systems so they are more efficient, have true reciprocity across states, and so that their credentialing structures support effective teaching and leading toward student college- and career-readiness. Aligned EPAC Principles 1. Program Entry Standards 5. Program Completion & Candidate Assessment Standards

6 CCSSO Report & NTEP Grant Overview: Our Responsibility, Our Promise Recommendations on Program Approval 5. States will hold preparation programs accountable by exercising the state’s authority to determine which programs should operate and recommend candidates for licensure in the state, including establishing a clear and fair performance rating system to guide continuous improvement. States will act to close programs that continually receive the lowest rating and will provide incentives for programs whose ratings indicate exemplary performance. 6. States will adopt and implement rigorous program approval standards to assure that educator preparation programs recruit candidates based on supply and demand data, have highly selective admissions and exit criteria including mastery of content, provide high quality clinical practice throughout a candidate’s preparation that includes experiences with the responsibilities of a school year from beginning to end, and that produce quality candidates capable of positively impacting student achievement. 7. States will require alignment of preparation content standards to PK-12 college- and career- ready standards for all licensure areas. 8. States will provide feedback, data, support, and resources to preparation programs to assist them with continuous improvement and to act on any program approval or national accreditation recommendations. Aligned EPAC Principles 6. Program Effectiveness & Accountability 3. Staffing & Support of Clinical Experiences 5. District-Program Partnerships: Structures & Shared Responsibility

7 CCSSO Report & NTEP Grant Overview: Our Responsibility, Our Promise Recommendations on Data Collection, Analysis & Reporting 9. States will develop and support state-level governance structures to guide confidential and secure data collection, analysis, and reporting of PK-20 data and how it informs educator preparation programs, hiring practices, and professional learning. Using stakeholder input, states will address and take appropriate action, individually and collectively, on the need for unique educator identifiers, links to non-traditional preparation providers, and the sharing of candidate data among organizations and across states. 10. States will use data collection, analysis, and reporting of multiple measures for continuous improvement and accountability of preparation programs. Aligned EPAC Principles 1. Program Entry Standards 6. Program Effectiveness & Accountability 5. District-Program Partnerships: Structures & Shared Responsibility

8 CCSSO Report & NTEP Grant Overview: NTEP Grant Selection Criteria The state’s commitment to implement the ten recommendations in Our Responsibility, Our Promise over at least the next two years (15 points) The demonstrated readiness of the state to implement the recommendations (25 points) The demonstrated political will to make policy changes needed to ensure that teacher and leader candidates are prepared to enter classrooms and schools ready to prepare all students to graduate college and career ready (20 points) The demonstrated willingness to work collectively with other states to address problems of practice such as performance assessments, reciprocity/mobility, data sharing across states, etc. (15 points) The commitment of the state agency to devote senior staff time to participating in the activities of the pilot project (10 points) A strategy to ensure stakeholder input and support (15 points) Participating States Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, & Washington Partners, Resources & Commitment

9 Agenda Welcome, EPAC Updates & Purpose for Webinar CCSSO Report & NTEP Grant Overview NTEP/EPAC Implementation Plan Next Steps

10 CCSSO Report & NTEP Grant Overview: NTEP Work Portland Convening of States CSDE Work on Implementation Plan NTEP & EPAC Workgroups and Plan

11 EPAC & NTEP Implementation Plan: Licensure CCSSO Recommendations States will revise and enforce their licensure standards for teachers and principals to support the teaching of more demanding content aligned to college- and career-readiness and critical thinking skills to a diverse range of students. States will work together to influence the development of innovative licensure performance assessments that are aligned to the revised licensure standards and include multiple measures of educators’ ability to perform, including the potential to impact student achievement and growth. States will create multi-tiered licensure systems aligned to a coherent developmental continuum that reflects new performance expectations for educators and their implementation in the learning environment and to assessments that are linked to evidence of student achievement and growth. States will reform current state licensure systems so they are more efficient, have true reciprocity across states, and so that their credentialing structures support effective teaching and leading toward student college- and career- readiness. EPAC Principles Program Entry Standards: Connecticut teacher preparation programs must actively recruit, admit, develop and retain only those teacher candidates with strong knowledge, skills, dispositions that are indicative of those expected of teachers for the 21 st Century and required to meet the needs of Connecticut students. Program Completion & Candidate Assessment Standards: Candidates will demonstrate competencies aligned with national and state standards by successfully completing rigorous performance-based assessments as part of clinical experiences. All teacher candidates will demonstrate dispositions and skills necessary to support students’ academic and non-academic needs.

12 EPAC & NTEP Implementation Plan: Licensure Licensure Goals Long-term goals: Certification regulations will be reviewed and revised aligned with EPAC principles. Changes to licensure are not a focus for the State of Connecticut during the first year of the NTEP grant.

13 EPAC & NTEP Implementation Plan: Program Approval CCSSO Recommendations States will hold preparation programs accountable by exercising the state’s authority to determine which programs should operate and recommend candidates for licensure in the state, including establishing a clear and fair performance rating system to guide continuous improvement. States will act to close programs that continually receive the lowest rating and will provide incentives for programs whose ratings indicate exemplary performance. States will adopt and implement rigorous program approval standards to assure that educator preparation programs recruit candidates based on supply and demand data, have highly selective admissions and exit criteria including mastery of content, provide high quality clinical practice throughout a candidate’s preparation that includes experiences with the responsibilities of a school year from beginning to end, and that produce quality candidates capable of positively impacting student achievement. States will require alignment of preparation content standards to PK-12 college- and career- ready standards for all licensure areas. States will provide feedback, data, support, and resources to preparation programs to assist them with continuous improvement and to act on any program approval or national accreditation recommendations. EPAC Principles Program Effectiveness & Accountability Preparing a teacher to be successful and effective in the field is the shared responsibility of preparation program and partner districts. Preparation programs must ultimately be responsible for ensuring completers enter the profession with the skills, knowledge and dispositions to be effective in the classroom. Preparation programs must have access to data about their completers’ performance in the classroom and should be held accountable for their programs’ effectiveness in preparing teachers to enter and remain in the profession. Staffing & Support of Clinical Experiences The staffing, structures and program support policies of preparation programs, school districts and CSDE must be coordinated to provide effective clinical experiences that represent the current and future needs of Connecticut’s schools and children. Clinical faculty (supervisors) and school based educators have a significant impact on candidate clinical experiences and must be effective educators who understand and apply national and state teaching and student standards. District-Program Partnerships Teacher preparation programs and schools/districts must have well-defined, high-quality, collaborative partnerships to ensure the quality of clinical experiences for teacher candidates while addressing the needs of and benefits to all involved. Teacher preparation programs and school districts will develop strategic partnerships to support clinical and school-based training for which they share responsibility, authority, and accountability including program development and implementation

14 EPAC & NTEP Implementation Plan: Program Approval Program Approval Goals Long-term goals: Develop new, more rigorous program approval process and regulations to guide approval decisions by the State Board of Education (SBE) based on review of efficacy of curriculum, as well as accountability data on a program’s measures of quality.

15 EPAC & NTEP Implementation Plan: Program Approval Milestones & Measures of Success 6 Month Conduct review and identify recommendations for revisions to the program approval process, including how state approval schedule will be aligned with NCATE/CAEP. Program approval process must clarify relationship between state approval mandate and optional NCATE/CAEP accreditation. 12 Month Develop accountability framework and measures of quality and link it with program approval process. Begin formal revisions to program approval regulations. With EPAC consensus, begin development of specific instruments (e.g., clinical experience evaluation instruments, feedback surveys, etc.) required as part of EPAC principle 6 and accountability system measures of quality. 18 Month Finalize accountability framework and program approval regulations. Develop budget to support improvement. Draft revised program approval regulations and coordinate with CSDE Office of Legal Affairs for review of technical sufficiency. Pilot specific instruments measuring candidate performance and related training. 24 Month Complete draft of proposed program approval regulations for presentation to the SBE for approval. Implement specific instruments measuring candidate performance and related training and integrate resulting data in the accountability system.

16 EPAC & NTEP Implementation Plan: Data Collection, Analysis & Reporting CCSSO Recommendations States will develop and support state-level governance structures to guide confidential and secure data collection, analysis, and reporting of PK-20 data and how it informs educator preparation programs, hiring practices, and professional learning. Using stakeholder input, states will address and take appropriate action, individually and collectively, on the need for unique educator identifiers, links to non-traditional preparation providers, and the sharing of candidate data among organizations and across states. States will use data collection, analysis, and reporting of multiple measures for continuous improvement and accountability of preparation programs. EPAC Principles Program Entry Standards: Connecticut teacher preparation programs must actively recruit, admit, develop and retain only those teacher candidates with strong knowledge, skills, dispositions that are indicative of those expected of teachers for the 21 st Century and required to meet the needs of Connecticut students. Program Effectiveness & Accountability Preparing a teacher to be successful and effective in the field is the shared responsibility of preparation program and partner districts. Preparation programs must ultimately be responsible for ensuring completers enter the profession with the skills, knowledge and dispositions to be effective in the classroom. Preparation programs must have access to data about their completers’ performance in the classroom and should be held accountable for their programs’ effectiveness in preparing teachers to enter and remain in the profession. District-Program Partnerships: Structures & Shared Responsibility Teacher preparation programs and schools/districts must have well- defined, high-quality, collaborative partnerships to ensure the quality of clinical experiences for teacher candidates while addressing the needs of and benefits to all involved. Teacher preparation programs and school districts will develop strategic partnerships to support clinical and school-based training for which they share responsibility, authority, and accountability including program development and implementation

17 EPAC & NTEP Implementation Plan: Collection & Use of Data Collection & Use of Data Goals Long-term goals: Develop new data collection, analysis and reporting system to ensure accountability in the system for program approval and institutional reporting of performance measures, as well as provide biennial research data on supply and demand.

18 EPAC & NTEP Implementation Plan: Collection & Use of Data Milestones & Measures of Success 6 Month Complete draft plan for data system for accountability performance measures and institutional reports. 12 Month Obtain consensus from EPAC on draft accountability system plan and present to SBE.

19 EPAC & NTEP Implementation Plan: Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder Engagement Goals Long-term goals: Maintain an active dialog with a broad base of stakeholders to provide regular updates and to solicit diverse input and strategic collaboration on each element of the work. By actively engaging stakeholders through ongoing communications and meetings, we will achieve broad support at all levels for the work of CSDE and EPAC including the work undertaken by EPAC and in furtherance of CSDE’s participation in NTEP.

20 Agenda Welcome, EPAC Updates & Purpose for Webinar CCSSO Report & NTEP Grant Overview NTEP/EPAC Implementation Plan Next Steps

21 Next Steps for CSDE & EPAC EPAC School Leader Framework State Board October 2 EPAC Appointment of new members to fill vacancies December Meeting of full EPAC EPAC sub-groups CCSSO/NTEP Submission of Implementation Plan with MOA Future Meetings Partner Resources