APRIL 2, 2012 EDUCATOR PREPARATION POLICY & PRACTICE UPDATE

WELCOME & OVERVIEW 2

EDUCATOR PREPARATION UPDATES 3

REVISED STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS Central Office Administrator and School Principal Standards were presented to the State Board of Education (SBE) on March 12 Back to SBE for final approval on May 14 Programs should begin transitioning to meet the new standards as soon as possible 4

REVISED STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS Communication regarding review will come from the Office of Professional Preparation Services (OPPS) via Rajah Smart in the near future Educator Preparation Institutions (EPIs) with approved Central Office Administrator and/or School Principal programs will be able to submit earlier in the process 5

MICHIGAN TEACHER LEADER PREPARATION STANDARDS The Michigan Teacher Leader Preparation Standards will be presented to the SBE for discussion on April 9 Public Comment will occur April and May Presented to SBE for final approval on August 13 6

MICHIGAN TEACHER LEADER PREPARATION STANDARDS (CONT.) These standards will outline expectations for programs preparing teachers for either the optional third tier Advanced Professional Teaching Certificate or to serve as Teacher Leaders Interested EPIs should begin developing programs to prepare teachers to meet these standards 7

MICHIGAN TEACHER LEADER PREPARATION STANDARDS (CONT.) Timelines for program application and review will be disseminated by OPPS after final approval of the standards in August 8

MI-INTASC STANDARDS The MI-InTASC standards will be presented to the SBE for final approval on April 9 EPIs should begin revising programs as soon as possible 9

MI-INTASC STANDARDS (CONT.) Review of the alignment to the MI-InTASC will occur in multiple phases including: During Accreditation The EPI performance score Endorsement/Elementary Certificate program review 10

MCEE/EDUCATOR EVALUATION UPDATE Pilot of Four Observation Tools February 2013 Update By June 2013, MCEE will recommend a multi- year schedule for implementing the educator evaluation system “Legislature will need to act on the MCEE recommendations early in the fall of 2013” First year ( ) recommended focus will be training and infrastructure Second year ( ) recommended as “operational implementation” 11

TEACHER CERTIFICATION TEST UPDATES The Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC) Basic Skills test has been renamed to the Professional Readiness Examination (PRE) 12

TEACHER CERTIFICATION TEST UPDATES (CONT.) Effective October 2013: MDE is discontinuing the practice of a phase-in period applied to passing (cut) scores of new and updated MTTC tests The following fields will be impacted: Early Childhood Social Studies Elementary Education 13

QUESTIONS REGARDING UPDATES? 14

REVISED PERFORMANCE SCORE Draft will be released: April 4 Hope College meeting Revised score focuses on three over-arching goals 15

PERFORMANCE SCORE GOALS IN BRIEF Goal 1: Content Knowledge and Pedagogy Goal 2: Capacity, Continuous Improvement, and MDE Priorities Goal 3: Teacher Effectiveness 16

MEASUREMENT TOOLS Evidence Supported Annual Report (ESAR) The ESAR is a narrative report submitted to MDE from each Educator Preparation Institution (EPI) as part of the metrics necessary to calculate the annual Performance Score 17

EVIDENCE SUPPORTED ANNUAL REPORT Annual measure used in-between the 2-7 year accreditation visits Is an opportunity for the EPI to provide evidence, in a comprehensive manner, how it is meeting or exceeding the metrics identified by MDE 18

EVIDENCE SUPPORTED ANNUAL REPORT (CONT.) Requires that all narrative must be supported by evidence (data). Will undergo a rigorous peer review and rating process. Utilizes a point-based rating system that will be transparent to the EPIs. 19

MEASUREMENT TOOLS Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC) Subject area assessment results Weighting for this component has been adjusted to allow more equitable weighting of other factors 20

MEASUREMENT TOOLS Registry of Education Personnel (REP) and the Michigan Online Educator Certification System (MOECS) Teacher effectiveness scores Program placement rates 21

MEASUREMENT TOOLS Surveys Surveys have been expanded: initial graduates and one year after Questions have been revised to align to the MI-InTASC standards Analysis by our Bureau of Assessment and Accountability (BAA) research team Graduate surveys will be administered by MDE 22

PERFORMANCE SCORE GOAL 1 Goal 1: (A) Exposure to and Demonstration of Content Knowledge and Content Specific Pedagogy; and (B) Exposure to and Demonstration of General Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills 23

PERFORMANCE SCORE GOAL 1 (CONT.) Goal 1 (A) Sub-Elements: Content (MTTC) High-Quality Learning Experiences (ESAR and Survey) Critical Thinking (ESAR and Survey) Connecting Real World Problems and Local and Global issues (ESAR and Survey) 24

PERFORMANCE SCORE GOAL 1 (CONT.) Goal 1 (B) Sub-Elements: Technology (ESAR and Survey) Special Populations (ESAR and Survey) Learning Environments (ESAR and Survey) Effective Use of Data (ESAR and Survey) 25

GOAL 1 WEIGHTING 50% 26

PERFORMANCE SCORE GOAL 2 Goal 2: Capacity, Continuous Improvement and alignment to MDE Priorities 27

PERFORMANCE SCORE GOAL 2 (CONT.) Goal 2 Sub-Elements: Candidate Diversity – recruit, support and retain underrepresented students (ESAR) Commitment to Clinical Preparation (ESAR and Survey) State Evaluation System – flexible options in evaluation design (ESAR) 28

PERFORMANCE SCORE GOAL 2 (CONT.) Goal 2 Sub-Elements: Placement Rates in "shortage" areas – including support and advising of candidates in relation to “shortage” areas (REP, MOECS, and ESAR) 29

GOAL 2 WEIGHTING 20% 30

PERFORMANCE SCORE GOAL 3 Goal 3: Graduates meet standards for effectiveness 31

PERFORMANCE SCORE GOAL 3 (CONT.) Goal 3 Sub-Elements: Educator Effectiveness Ratings (REP and MOECS) Placement Rates (REP and MOECS) 32

GOAL 3 WEIGHTING 30% 33

METRIC/TOOL WEIGHTING ESAR – 25.3% MTTC – 20% Surveys – 22.5% REP/MOECS – 32.3% 34

PERFORMANCE SCORE SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ESAR: multiple data-sources REP effectiveness data Adjustment in weighting of MTTC Emphasis on continuous improvement Additional surveys and change in administration 35

HOW WILL EPIS BE INVOLVED? April 4 – Initial Release and Feedback April and May – Scheduled webinars followed by structured feedback windows on each component May and June – EPI focus groups (if necessary) July – Draft revised score to the SBE for discussion 36

QUESTIONS REGARDING THE EFFECTIVENESS SCORE? 37