1 Accreditation 101 February 2009 Ensuring Educator Excellence Commission on Teacher Credentialing

2 Accreditation The process by which an organization recognizes a program of study or an institution as meeting predetermined standards The process by which an organization recognizes a program of study or an institution as meeting predetermined standards Procedure by which an authoritative body formally recognizes that a body or person is competent to carry out specific tasks. Procedure by which an authoritative body formally recognizes that a body or person is competent to carry out specific tasks.

3 Institution College, university, school district, county office of education, or other entity that offers one or more educator preparation programs – –CSU—23 campuses – –UC—8 campuses – –AICCU—57 institutions – –Other Sponsors—30 sponsors – –Induction Programs—170 sponsors

4 Program Approved educator preparation program – –e.g., multiple/single subject, education specialist, administrative services, pupil personnel services, school nurse Completion of an approved program leads to a credential or authorization Approximately 1,000 approved educator preparation programs in California

5 Commission on Teacher Credentialing Responsible for the accreditation of all educator preparation institutions and the programs the institutions offer in California Responsible for the accreditation of all educator preparation institutions and the programs the institutions offer in California Completion of an approved educator preparation program allows a program sponsor to recommend the candidate for a credential Completion of an approved educator preparation program allows a program sponsor to recommend the candidate for a credential

6 Governance EC EC (a) The system for accreditation of educator preparation shall do all of the following: (1) Concentrate on the overall quality of educator preparation in credential programs. (2) Hold professional elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educators responsible for quality in the preparation of professional practitioners. (3) Contribute to improvements in educator preparation and recognize excellence in preparation programs and institutions.

7 Commission on Teacher Credentialing –14 individuals appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate 6 teacher representatives6 teacher representatives 1 administrative services representative1 administrative services representative 1 services, non administrative services1 services, non administrative services 4 public representatives4 public representatives 1 school board representative1 school board representative 1 faculty representative1 faculty representative –Superintendent of Public Instruction or designee –4 ex officio members (nonvoting members) CSUCSU UCUC AICCUAICCU CPECCPEC

8 Committee on Accreditation Tasks the COA must complete: (1)Make decisions about the accreditation of educators’ preparation. The Committee's decision making process shall be in accordance with the Accreditation Framework. (2) Make decisions about the initial accreditation of new programs of educator preparation in accordance with procedures established by the Committee.

9 COA Tasks (continued) (3) Determine the comparability of standards submitted by applicants with those adopted by the Commission, in accordance with the Accreditation Framework. (4) Determine the comparability of standards submitted by applicants with those adopted by the Commission, in accordance with the Accreditation Framework. (5) Adopt guidelines for accreditation reviews, and monitor the performance of accreditation teams and other aspects of the accreditation system.

10 COA Members K-12 Members Joyce Abrams Retired Teacher, Chula Vista Unified Dana Griggs San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Joseph Jimenez BTSA Induction Cluster Region Director Carol Leighty Superintendent, Temecula Valley Unified Karen O'Connor Teacher, Poway Unified Nancy Watkins Teacher, Placentia- Yorba Linda Postsecondary Members Ellen Curtis-Pierce Associate Vice Chancellor, Chapman Lynne Cook Dean, CSU Northridge Gary Kinsey Associate Dean, Cal Poly Pomona Reyes Quezada Professor, University of San Diego Ruth Sandlin Chair, Educational Psychology, CSU San Bernardino Sue Teele Director, Extension, UC Riverside

11

12 Purposes of the Commission’s Accreditation System –Accountability-public and profession –Adherence to Standards –High quality preparation for educators –On-going program improvement

13 Common Standards Institutional Capacity 1: Educational Leadership 2: Unit and Program Assessment and Evaluation 3: Resources 4: Faculty and Instructional Personnel 5: Admission 6: Advice and Assistance 7: Field Experience and Clinical Practice 8: District-Employed Supervisors 9: Assessment of Candidate Competence Common Standards and Glossary

14 Program Standards Specific to each credential program Specific to each credential program e.g. multiple/single subject, administrative services, school nurse, school psychology… –Program Design –Curriculum –Field Experience –Candidate Competency

15 Commission’s Accreditation System …includes a series of activities that, over time, give a picture of how the program and institution is meeting the adopted standards. …includes a series of activities that, over time, give a picture of how the program and institution is meeting the adopted standards. Overview of Accreditation System

16 Accreditation Cycle Program Assessment (Yr 4) Biennial Report (Yr 1) Follow-up to Site Visit (Yr 7) Site Visit (Yr 6) Biennial Report (Yr 3) Biennial Report (Yr 5) Collect and Analyze Data Annually

17 CTC Administrator of Accreditation is responsible for implementing the Commission’s accreditation system, implementing the Commission’s accreditation system, preparation of materials for the COA, and preparation of materials for the COA, and guiding consultant staff related to accreditation activities. guiding consultant staff related to accreditation activities.

18 CTC Consultants’ Role Technical assistance to institutions Technical assistance to institutions Review Biennial Reports Review Biennial Reports Facilitate review of Program Assessment documents Facilitate review of Program Assessment documents Facilitate site visits Facilitate site visits

19 Board of Institutional Review Members: Members: –Educators (K-12 or IHE) who attend the 4 day BIR Training Tasks: Tasks: –Review Program Assessment documents –Serve on Site Visit Teams Training Options: Training Options: –June 2009, August 2009, or January 2010

20 Institution Tasks and Documents Submitted to the CTC Ongoing Data Gathering & Analysis Biennial Report Program Assessment Site Visit Follow Up

21 Do these all happen at once? Accreditation activities are spread out over a period of 7 years. Accreditation activities are spread out over a period of 7 years. Each institution is completing at least one of the activities each year. Each institution is completing at least one of the activities each year.

22 Institution or Program SponsorSubmit to CTCCTC and COA Year 1 Data Gathering & AnalysisBiennial Report Year 6, 7 & 1 Review report Year 2 Data Gathering & Analysis Year 3 Data Gathering & Analysis Prepare program document updates Biennial Report Years 2 & 3 Review report Year 4 Submit Program Assessment Document (s) Data Gathering & Analysis Program Assessment Documents* Review Program Assessment Document (s) Accreditation Activities across the Cycle

23 Institution or Program Sponsor Submit to CTC CTC and COA Year 5Data Gathering & Analysis Prepare Common Standards self-study for site visit Biennial Reports Years 4 & 5 Preliminary Report of Findings questions for sponsor Year 6Data Gathering & Analysis Complete preparations for site visit Host site visit Self-StudyConduct Site Visit Year 7Data Gathering & Analysis Follow-up to site visit if necessary Site visit response, if needed Follow-up to site visit, if necessary

24 What is due and when? Each institution is assigned to a cohort that is color coded. Each institution is assigned to a cohort that is color coded. Each cohort has a sequence of activities to follow. Each cohort has a sequence of activities to follow. Sample Cohort Charts

25 YELLOW COHORT (18) Academic Year Cycle Year Accreditation Activity Institutional Data Collection Program Assessment Institutional Data Collection Biennial Report Institutional Data Collection Site Visit Institutional Data Collection Site Visit follow Institutional Data Collection Biennial Report Institutional Data Collection Biennial Report Due to CTCProgram Assessment Biennial Report Self Study addressing Common Standards Based upon accreditation decision Biennial Report NothingBiennial Report Due datesOctober 2010 or January Aug. Oct. or Dec months before Site Visit Based upon accreditation decision Aug. Oct. or Dec 2014 NoneAug. Oct. or Dec 2016 COA/CTC Feedback What & when Preliminary Findings on each program and all standards by January CTC Staff feedback in 6-8 weeks -Aggregated report to COA Accreditation decision made by COA Based upon accreditation decision -CTC Staff feedback in 6-8 weeks -Aggregated report to COA None-CTC Staff feedback in 6-8 weeks - Aggregated report to COA Sample Cohort Map

26 Data Collection and Analysis Annually  Collect data  Analyze data  Decide if program modifications are needed

27 Biennial Reports Focus on candidate outcomes Focus on candidate outcomes Each program sponsor will submit a report for each approved program that is offered that includes aggregated data, analysis, and program modification Each program sponsor will submit a report for each approved program that is offered that includes aggregated data, analysis, and program modification Two sections of the report: A—for each program (see above) and B—for overall trends and action plan submitted by the Dean/Director. Two sections of the report: A—for each program (see above) and B—for overall trends and action plan submitted by the Dean/Director.

28 Biennial Reports Submitted in years 1, 3 and 5 Submitted in years 1, 3 and 5 CTC staff will review the reports CTC staff will review the reports –Aggregated data –Analysis of aggregated data –Program modifications, if appropriate –Dean/Director’s summary Biennial Report Web Page

29 Program Assessment Year 4 of cohort cycle Year 4 of cohort cycle Focus on the adopted Program Standards Focus on the adopted Program Standards Thorough review of ALL approved preparation programs Thorough review of ALL approved preparation programs Due date to CTC: October - January; institution’s option Due date to CTC: October - January; institution’s option

30 Program Assessment Document Part I: Narrative, describing the program currently in place. Part I: Narrative, describing the program currently in place. Part II: Current course syllabi Part II: Current course syllabi (induction likely to submit professional development and formative assessment) Part III: Assessments used to assure candidate competence Part III: Assessments used to assure candidate competence –e.g. rubrics, training information, calibration activities.

31 Program Assessment Review CTC staff CTC staff –Organize and facilitate the review of documentation Two days of dedicated time Two days of dedicated time Two trained reviewers Two trained reviewers –Review for links; HOW the Biennial Report data relates to the programs –Key Questions: How does the program know it is preparing competent educators? Is the program meeting the adopted standards?

32 Program Assessment Review Program assessment is a process; a professional dialogue Program assessment is a process; a professional dialogue Reviewers look for a description of HOW the program meets the standards Reviewers look for a description of HOW the program meets the standards Each component of the standard is reviewed for supporting evidence narrative. Each component of the standard is reviewed for supporting evidence narrative. Program Assessment Web Page

33 Preliminary Report of Findings from Program Assessment Submitted to COA Submitted to COA –Six months prior to the site visit, example: Report of Findings to COA, fall 2011 for a site visit in spring 2012 Findings from Program Assessment will “focus” the site visit. Findings from Program Assessment will “focus” the site visit.

34 Site Visit Year 6 Year 6 Team of trained Board of Institutional Reviewers: 3-10 individuals Team of trained Board of Institutional Reviewers: 3-10 individuals Areas of Focus Areas of Focus –Common Standards –Areas of question from Program Assessment –Confirmation of the Preliminary Program Assessment Report of Findings

35 Site Visits CTC staff will facilitate the site visit. CTC staff will facilitate the site visit. BIR team of reviewers will gather information to make a decision regarding each Common Standard and Program Standards BIR team of reviewers will gather information to make a decision regarding each Common Standard and Program Standards –Biennial Reports –Program Assessment –Interviews with employers, graduates, candidates, field supervisors, and program personnel Institutions will receive a draft site visit report at the end of the site visit. Site Visit Web Page

36 Decisions on Standards The site visit team must reach a decision on each Common Standard and Program Standard — Met—All phrases of the standard are evident and effectively implemented. Met with concern (s)—One or more phrases of the standard are not evident or are ineffectively implemented. Not Met — Significant phrases of the standard are not evident or are so ineffectively implemented that it is not possible to see the standard in the program.

37 Accreditation Options Accreditation Accreditation Accreditation with Stipulations Accreditation with Stipulations Accreditation with Major Stipulations Accreditation with Major Stipulations Accreditation with Probationary Stipulations Accreditation with Probationary Stipulations Denial of Accreditation Denial of Accreditation

38 Stipulations If the recommendation is not “Accreditation,” the team must draft proposed stipulations If the recommendation is not “Accreditation,” the team must draft proposed stipulations If the COA decision is not “Accreditation,” the COA must take action on stipulations If the COA decision is not “Accreditation,” the COA must take action on stipulations Stipulations identify the specific area (s) where the institution/program is not meeting the standard (s) Stipulations identify the specific area (s) where the institution/program is not meeting the standard (s)

39 Findings and Follow up Year 7 Year 7 Report on issues, concerns, questions or follow-up to the site visit Report on issues, concerns, questions or follow-up to the site visit Information from each activity (Biennial Report, Program Assessment and Site Visits) will then be reported at Committee on Accreditation (COA) meetings Information from each activity (Biennial Report, Program Assessment and Site Visits) will then be reported at Committee on Accreditation (COA) meetings The COA, in turn, shares findings with the Commission The COA, in turn, shares findings with the Commission

40 Resources –Go to Program Sponsors In the grey column on the right select Accreditation In the grey column on the right select Accreditation There you will find information and updates on all accreditation activities.

41 Critical Resources Accreditation Framework Accreditation Framework – prep/PDF/accreditation_framework.pdf prep/PDF/accreditation_framework.pdfhttp:// prep/PDF/accreditation_framework.pdf Accreditation Handbook Accreditation Handbook – handbook.html handbook.htmlhttp:// handbook.html COA’s Annual Report COA’s Annual Report Accreditation Handbook

Technical Assistance Webcasts Accreditation 101 Accreditation 101 Biennial Reports Biennial Reports Program Assessment Program Assessment Preparing for a Site Visit: Nuts and Bolts Preparing for a Site Visit: Nuts and Bolts Common Standards Common Standards