Revision of Initial and Continued Approval Standard Guidelines for Educational Leadership Programs Presentation to FAPEL Winter Meeting Tallahassee, FL.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Campus Improvement Plans
Advertisements

Research Policy Practice National Dialogue: Phase III The Journey Ahead February 28, 2013.
PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING WORKSHOP SUSAN S. WILLIAMS VICE DEAN ALAN KALISH DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING ASC CHAIRS — JAN. 30,
 Reading School Committee January 23,
An Assessment Primer Fall 2007 Click here to begin.
Dallas Baptist University College of Education Graduate Programs
The Academic Assessment Process
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) Flex Activity March 1, 2012 Lassen Community College.
Principal Leadership Academy Basic Leadership Training November 2012.
How to write a Report On Assessment Source: AUN Secretariat.
Teacher Preparation Presentation to the Higher Education Coordinating Council May 2, 2012 Kathy Hebda, Deputy Chancellor for Educator Quality.
Assessment Workshop SUNY Oneonta May 23, Patty Francis Associate Provost for Institutional Assessment & Effectiveness.
Graduate Program Review Where We Are, Where We Are Headed and Why Duane K. Larick, Associate Graduate Dean Presentation to Directors of Graduate Programs.
University Of North Alabama General Education Assessment Paradigm Shift: A plan for Revising General Education Assessment at UNA.
Meeting SB 290 District Evaluation Requirements
APPRAISAL OF THE HEADTEACHER GOVERNORS’ BRIEFING
WASC Visiting Committee Final Presentation for Overseas Schools International School Eastern Seaboard March , 2011.
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.
1. Continue to distinguish and clarify between Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Service Area Outcomes (SAOs) 2. Develop broad SLOs/SAOs in order to.
Assessment Cycle California Lutheran University Deans’ Council February 6, 2006.
Prof. György BAZSA, former president Hungarian Accreditation Committee (HAC) CUBRIK Workshop IV Beograd, 13 March, 2012 European Standards and Guidelines.
JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE WORKSHOP
1 Effective Senates: The Key Ingredients of Collegial Consultation Angelica Bangle, Chris Hill, Wheeler North, Beverly Reilly, Cheryl Stewart.
HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation.
Standard 9 - Assessment of Candidate Competence Candidates preparing to serve as professional school personnel know and demonstrate the professional knowledge.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Special Education Advisory Committee Virginia Department of Education.
March 26-28, 2013 SINGAPORE CDIO Asian Regional Meeting and Workshop on Engineering Education and Policies for Regional Leaders Programme Evaluation (CDIO.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Virginia Association of School Superintendents Annual Conference Patty.
Commission on Teacher Credentialing Ensuring Educator Excellence 1 Biennial Report October 2008.
Research & Technology Implementation TxDOT RTI OFFICE.
Convocation Opening Address College of Sequoias Welcome&Introductions.
PERSONNEL EVALUATION SYSTEMS How We Help Our Staff Become More Effective Margie Simineo – June, 2010.
Toolkit #3: Effectively Teaching and Leading Implementation of the Oklahoma C 3 Standards, Including the Common Core.
SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation 7/28/09 Academic Affairs Retreat Cathy Sanders Director of Assessment.
“A Truthful Evaluation Of Yourself Gives Feedback For Growth and Success” Brenda Johnson Padgett Brenda Johnson Padgett.
This presentation:  is “ready-to-use” for presentations to school division administrators, board members, library personnel, teachers, etc.  incorporates.
UWF SACS REAFFIRMATION OF ACCREDITATION PROJECT Presentation to UWF Board of Trustees November 7, 2003.
1 Rossier School of Education Defining Excellence in Urban Education.
Connecticut PEAC meeting Today’s meeting Discussion of draft principal evaluation guidelines (1 hour) Evaluation and support system document.
The Conceptual Framework: What It Is and How It Works Linda Bradley, James Madison University Monica Minor, NCATE April 2008.
SACS Leadership Retreat 9/23/ Western Carolina University SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation Frank Prochaska Executive Director, UNC Teaching.
SUNY TAACCCT Grant PLA Advisory Board Agenda Review of Charge WordPress Site Policy – Philosophical differences on PLA – What makes a good: Policy?
Commission Updates Barbara J. Johnson July 18, 2014.
Response due: March 15,  Directions state that the report must “focus on the institution’s resolution of the recommendations and Commission concerns.”
Distance Learning and Accreditation Heather G. Hartman, Ph.D. Brenau University Online Studies and SACS Liaison.
D90 Administrative Recommendation: Full-Day Kindergarten Board of Education Meeting 1/23/12.
Accreditation Update and Institutional Student Learning Outcomes Deborah Moeckel, SUNY Assistant Provost SCoA Drive in Workshops Fall 2015
Gordon State College Office of Institutional Effectiveness Faculty Meeting August 5, 2015.
Stetson University welcomes: NCATE Board of Examiners.
Overview of SB 191 Ensuring Quality Instruction through Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education September 2010.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP TEAM CAMPUS IMPROVEMENT PLANNING MARCH 3, 2016.
Vermont’s Core Teaching & Leadership Standards. 13-member, teacher majority, policy-making board appointed by the Governor What is the VSBPE?
Advanced Writing Requirement Proposal
Review, Revise and Amend from Procedures for State Board Policy 74
Program Quality Assurance Process Validation
Advancing Student and Educator Growth through Peer Feedback
Clinical Practice Guidelines and Document Submission
Curriculum and Accreditation
Accreditation Pathway
OCTEO Conference ODE Update ∙ October 27, 2017.
Foothill College Accreditation Self-Study Update
February 21-22, 2018.
Roles and Responsibilities
Curriculum Coordinator: D. Para Date of Presentation: Jan. 20, 2017
Role of the External Examiner
The Program Evaluation Committee and the Annual Program Evaluation
Kentucky’s Professional Growth and Effectiveness System
New Special Education Teacher Webinar Series
Program Modification “Academic Year 2019” Assumption University
Presentation transcript:

Revision of Initial and Continued Approval Standard Guidelines for Educational Leadership Programs Presentation to FAPEL Winter Meeting Tallahassee, FL January 13, 2014

AGENDA Progress of Project to Date Initial Recommendations Questions and Discussion

Data Gathering Steps Review of Statutes, Rules, and Other Literature On-line Survey of Educational Leadership Faculty in September Focus Groups at Fall FAPEL Meeting On-line Focus Group in November Site Visits to Job-embedded Principal Preparation Programs in November

Data Gathering Steps, Continued On-Line Review of Tentative Conclusions and Recommendations in December Submission of Initial Report – December Review of Report with FLDOE in January

QUESTION 1 The Race to the Top initiative requires that the FLDOE set outcome-based performance standards, building on the State's new student growth model to be used for continued approval of principal preparation programs. 1. How would you incorporate this new requirement into a revised standard, with regard to the following? Viable and reasonable performance measures for graduates (related to program effectiveness) and weight of importance for each Before appointment to an administrative position After appointment to an administrative position

Question 1 Recommendations 1.The FLDOE is to be commended for sponsoring this study to seek feedback from educational leadership faculty on the Standard Guidelines for Educational Leadership programs. 2.If current statute remains requiring a student performance measure as a component for educational leadership program approval, more study and deliberation is needed to develop a model that is workable and acceptable to the State Board of Education and educational leadership programs. Perhaps a committee similar to the Student Growth Implementation Committee could make workable recommendations on this issue.

QUESTION 2 A recent report to the FLDOE reported that institutions following national standards, such as NCATE, ISLLC, and ELCC, need to be considered for state approval without having to meet additional standards or requirements, 2. Should programs that are already aligned with national standards also have to align with FPLS and FELE competences and skills?

Question 2 Recommendations 1.The question for this study was a general question with somewhat conflicting results. The FLDOE should consult with a representative group of educational leadership program stakeholders to seek ways of integrating the national standards more seamlessly into Florida’s state standards. 2.The FLDOE should explore ways to make the data collection for standards more streamlined and less burdensome on programs while maintaining necessary oversight of programs.

QUESTION 3 The same report said that Educational Leadership programs reported that Standard 2 – Candidate Performance and Standard 3 – Continuous Improvement should be emphasized over Standard 1 – Core Curriculum Content. 3. How much do you agree with this statement? What should be the relative weighting?

Question 3 Recommendations 1.Consideration should be given to the recommendation by both survey respondents and the FAPEL focus group to weight Standards 2 and 3 more heavily, perhaps using the recommended weights of 40% for Standards 2 and 3 and 20% for Standard 1. 2.If this weighting is applied to the standards, consideration should be given to renumbering the standards, with the higher-weighted standards listed first, although the current numbering follows a logical sequence.

QUESTION 4 Standard 1. Core Curriculum Content. The curriculum content delivered in each approved program is based on competencies aligned with the Florida Principal Leadership Standards and includes all other state-mandated requirements. 4. What modifications do you think are needed in this standard and the indicators for initial and continued approval?

Question 4 Recommendations 1.The FLDOE should give serious consideration to removing Criterion 1.3 including Indicators and from the required standards. There was very little support for them (Wm. Cecil Golden) in either the survey or focus groups. The materials should however remain available for districts and educational leadership programs to include as they deem appropriate.

Question 4 Additional Recommendations 2.The FLDOE should consider modifying Indicator to state, “As course work or professional development offerings are modified, based on the existing and emerging knowledge base of successful leadership, documentation is maintained that indicates…” 3.The FLDOE should consider rewording Indicator to state, “The overall course program design continues to place the greatest emphasis on the school leader’s role in improving curriculum, instruction, and student achievement, and building operations.” 4.The FLDOE should consider clarifying the wording of Indicator regarding the supervisors and their qualifications.

QUESTION 5 Standard 2. Candidate Performance. Each candidate in the approved program will demonstrate all competencies identified in statute and rule. 5. What modifications do you think are needed in this standard and indicators? (Indicate whether referring to the initial or continued criteria.)

Question 5 Recommendations 1.The FLDOE should consider deleting Criterion 2.3 and its associated indicators.

Question 5 Additional Recommendations 2.The FLDOE should consider simplifying the wording of Criterion The FLDOE should consider deleting Indicator as institutions have admission requirements, not the state. 4.The FLDOE should consider rewording Indicator to read, “Assessments are used to collect data on candidates’ progress in meeting outcomes of the program competencies aligned with each program’s required curriculum competencies in individual courses in the program.

Question 5 Additional Recommendations 5.The FLDOE should consider rewording Indicator to read, “Candidates are provided feedback on their mastery of competencies assessments given throughout each program and a remediation plan is developed if mastery is not achieved.” 6.The FLDOE should consider rewording Indicator to read, “University faculty or and district staff use an the assessment system to evaluate the candidates’ adequate progress in meeting outcomes of each program’s competencies.

QUESTION 6 Standard 3. Continuous Improvement The approved program implements processes to ensure continuous program improvement. 6. What modifications do you think are needed in this standard and indicators? (Indicate whether you are referring to the initial or continued criteria.).

Question 6 Recommendations 1.The FLDOE should clarify the wording of Criterion 3.3, regarding “faculty.” Does it mean university faculty? 2.The FLDOE should review its procedures and reporting requirements with the intent of reducing compliance costs while maintaining the necessary level of oversight and compliance. Comments throughout this section related to the burden of obtaining documentation to the standard rather than the wording of the criteria and indicators themselves. The burden involves time, effort, and money required for compliance.

CLOSING  Questions? Thank you for your participation in the process, especially the generous time allocated to the FAPEL agendas. Your time is very much appreciated and your comments throughout the process have been very helpful.

If you have any questions about this project, please contact Lee Baldwin through at