1. 101 May 2005

2. An accrediting body for schools, colleges, and departments of education recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the Commission on Higher Education Accreditation

3. NCATE’s Constituent Members Teachers Specialized Professional Associations State & Local Policymakers Teacher Education

4. NCATE GOVERNANCE Executive Board provides overall leadership Unit Accreditation Board (UAB) makes accreditation decisions, writes standards, & oversees Board of Examiners Specialty Area Studies Board (SASB) approves program standards State Partnership Board (SPB) approves state partnerships

5. State Partnerships

6. Standards –State Unit & Program Stds –NCATE Unit & Program Stds –Combination State Program Stds NCATE Unit Stds Type of Visit –Joint State & NCATE Visit –Concurrent State & NCATE Visit –NCATE Only Visit

7. BOE Team Composition for Joint Visits Voting Members –3-8 NCATE Board of Examiners members –2-7 or fewer state representatives Non-voting Members –State consultant from the State Agency –Observers from state affiliates of AFT & NEA

8. How does the state partnership work in your states?

9. Annual Report Submit AACTE/NCATE annual report by October 1. –Part A: Contacts & Characteristics –Part B: Data on candidates, faculty, & budget –Part C: Progress on AFIs States may have access to annual report data for its institutions. Some states request supplemental information with Part C.

10. Team Report NCATE format for the team report State addendum (optional)

11. Accreditation Decisions by NCATE Accreditation Accreditation with provisions or conditions Accreditation with probation Deny or revoke accreditation

12. Continuing Accreditation Visit AccreditationConditionalProbation Written Documentation Focused Visit AccreditationRevocation Within 6 months Within 2 years Accreditation Within 12-18 months Within 2 years Full Visit

13. First Accreditation Visit AccreditationProvisionalDenial Written Documentation Focused Visit AccreditationRevocation Within 6 months Within 2 years Accreditation Within 12-18 months

14. Decisions by States Program Approval (usually for licensure areas) Unit Approval –May be same or different from NCATE

15. How does your state use the NCATE program review and accreditation decisions in determining state approval?

16. NCATE Standards

17.  Candidate Performance  Candidate Knowledge, Skills, & Dispositions  Assessment System and Unit Evaluation  Unit Capacity Field Experiences and Clinical Practice Diversity Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development Unit Governance and Resources

18. Components of Standard The Standard Rubrics Supporting Explanation

19. Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions Standard 1

20. The Standard Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

21. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates (Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers) UnacceptableAcceptableTarget Teacher candidates have inadequate knowledge of subject matter that they plan to teach as shown by their inability to give examples of important principles or concepts delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. Fewer than 80 percent of the unit’s program completers pass the academic content examinations in states that require such examinations for licensure. Teacher candidates know the subject matter that they plan to teach as shown by their ability to explain important principles and concepts delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. Eighty percent or more of the unit’s program completers pass the academic content examinations in states that require such examinations for licensure. Teacher candidates have in-depth knowledge of the subject matter that they plan to teach as described in professional, state, and institutional standards. They demonstrate their knowledge through inquiry, critical analysis, and synthesis of the subject. All program completers pass the academic content area examinations in states that require such examinations for licensure.

22. Dispositions for All Candidates UnacceptableAcceptableTarget Candidates are not familiar with professional dispositions delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. They do not model these dispositions in their work with students, families, and communities. Candidates are familiar with the dispositions expected of professionals. Their work with students, families, and communities reflects the dispositions delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. Candidates’ work with students, families, and communities reflects the dispositions expected of professional educators as delineated in standards. Candidates recognize when their own dispositions may need to be adjusted and are able to develop plans to do so.

23. Supporting Explanation: The public expects that teachers of their children have sufficient knowledge of content to help all students meet standards for P–12 education. The guiding principle of the teaching profession is that student learning is the goal of teaching. NCATE’s Standard 1 reinforces the importance of this goal by requiring that teacher candidates know their content or subject matter, can teach effectively, and can help all students learn. All professional school personnel are expected to carry out their work in ways that are supportive of student learning.

24. Program Reviews as Evidence of Meeting Standard 1 National Reviews by SPAs (Specialized Professional Associations) State Reviews by the State Agency Responsible for Program Approval

25. New NCATE Program Review Process

26. 5 Sections 1.6-page Context Statement –Course of Study –Number of completers –Brief information about faculty 2.List of assessments, scoring guides, and data tables being submitted 3.Table aligning assessments to SPA standards

27. 4.Discussion of assessments and data –Content knowledge –Pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions –Effects on student learning 5.3 pages delineating how faculty have used data to improve the program

28. Data available from national (& sometimes state) program reviews 1.State licensure exam for program area (if available—otherwise another content based assessment) 2.Content Assessment 3.Assessment of Planning (e.g., unit plan) 4.Student teaching/internship assessment 5.Assessment of candidate impact on student learning or providing a supporting learning environment 6.Other assessment to show SPA standards are met

29. How much data are needed? Between now and through spring 2007 visits: –At least one semester of data for assessments in program reports –At least one year of data for the onsite visit Fall 2007 & Spring 2008: 2 years of data for both Beginning fall 2008, three years of data for both

30. What have you learned about assessments in the national review of elementary education programs? How are institutions addressing student learning? Where are institutions doing well & falling short? Ron

31. What candidate assessments do you use in the state program approval process? What are institutions doing well in collecting & using data & what needs improvement? States

32. Alignment of Program Review with Standard 1 Content Rubric elements 1-2 Professional & Pedagogical Knowledge, Skills, & Dispositions Rubric elements 3-5 P-12 Student Learning Rubric elements 6-7

33. Use of National Recognition/ State Approval by BOE Teams An area for improvement will be cited for each program that is not nationally recognized or does not have full state approval. UAB may remove AFI if program has been recognized after the BOE visit, but before the UAB meeting.

34. What unit assessments and data are needed for Standard 1?  Outcomes from conceptual framework  Dispositions  Pedagogical content knowledge  Professional knowledge

35. What responsibility do we (NCATE, state, SPA) have for helping institutions be successful in achieving state/national approval/ recognition of programs and unit accreditation? What are your groups doing?

36. The Process

37. 2-3 years before visit 3 semesters before visit 1-2 semesters before visit Intent to Seek Accreditation Preconditions Program Reports Due

38. 60 days before visit 30-60 days before visit Visit Date Institutional Report Due Previsit with Team Chair The On-site Visit

39. Board of Examiners Teams Teacher Education Teachers Specialty & Policy

40. Within 52 days after visit March/April & October Within 2 weeks after UAB BOE Report Finished UAB Meeting Notification of Accreditation

41. For this question, respond as a BOE member. –How can the state consultant be most helpful to the BOE/state team during the visit? –How does the state consultant help make the visit run smoothly?

42. Organizing to Determine Accreditation Audit Committees 4-5 Members with 6-9 cases Joint Audit Committees 2 Audit Committees Full UAB 32 Members Consent Agenda Recommendations for Denial, Probation, or Revocation

43. Continuing Accreditation Cycle

44. Accreditation Decision YEAR 1 Annual Report YEAR 2 Annual Report YEAR 3 Annual Report YEAR 4 Annual Report YEAR 7 Institutional Report & Visit YEAR 6 Annual Report & Program Review Documents YEAR 5 Annual Report Probation 2 years Visit Conditional 2 years Focused Visit

45. Reminder The second visit for a newly accredited institution is in five years Some states are still on a 5 year cycle

46. States Moving to 7-Year Review Cycle: 42  Arkansas  Arizona  California  Connecticut  Delaware  District of Columbia Georgia  Guam (non-partner)  Hawaii  Idaho  Illinois  Indiana  Kansas  Kentucky  Louisiana Maine  Maryland – will move to 7- year cycle after institutions have been accredited under the new MD standards  Michigan  Minnesota Missouri  Montana  Nebraska  Nevada

47. and more…  New Hampshire (non-partner) New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina - will move to a 7-year cycle after institutions have been accredited under the new NC standards  North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont (non-partner) Virginia Washington Wisconsin West Virginia Wyoming

48. States considering the 7-year cycle, but have not received approval from the appropriate board: 1 Florida

49. States retaining the 5-year cycle: 6 Alabama Colorado Iowa Massachusetts Mississippi Puerto Rico

50. States that have not responded: 2 Alaska Rhode Island

51. And Remember Why We Are Doing All of this Work…