1. BIR Session Team Lead Update October 29, 2010 Ensuring Educator Excellence

2. Welcome Introductions—Please share – Your name – Your affiliation/employer and the – Type of institution for which you will be the team lead IHE-CSU, UC, Private LEA-School District, County Office Other 2

3. Topics to be addressed Welcome and Introductions Goals for the Day Two-Month Out Pre-Visit Team Member Work and Pacing Day 1—afternoon meeting Mid-Visit Report Decisions on Standards COA Visits 10-11 Orange Cohort3

4. Topics to be addressed Accreditation Recommendation Stipulations Team Report Exit Report COA Presentation Program Sampling Common Standards/NCATE Team Leadership 4 COA Visits 10-11 Orange Cohort

5. Two-Month Pre-Visit Goals – Meet the Institution/Program leadership – View the institution and the hotel – Confirm meeting rooms—institution and hotel – Confirm visit meal and transportation plans – Review the Interview Schedule and provide feedback to the institution 5

6. Schedule for Two-Month PV Arrive evening before—State Consultant and Team Lead {NCATE Co-Chair} have dinner together Morning—Meet with institution and see the meeting room at the hotel Institution—Meet with leadership to review the topics on the “Checklist” Usually completed by early afternoon 6

7. Two-Month Out Checklist Team Lead’s Focus Confirm with state consultant – Arrival time – Lodging at hotel for the visit? State Consultant will focus the discussion Team Lead—interview schedule! 7

8. Site Visit Team Functions as a team—no one team member’s views may be allowed to be worth more than others Consensus is that while not all members of the team may personally agree with a proposed decision, all members understand the bases for the decision and all members can support it. – In the process of achieving consensus, team members must seek to understand one another’s views and be willing to set aside personal views in reaching a collective decision. Use your State Consultant 8

9. Composition of the Team Team Lead (1) Common Standards {NCATE} Cluster (1-4) Program Sampling Cluster (1-4) State Consultant (1-2) State Consultant will share team member names/contact info and cluster assignment and are not truly a part of the site visit team 9

10. Pacing of the Work Day 1: Get to know each other and the institution, raise questions, gather information Day 2: Gather and sort a lot of information, identify what is known and what needs to be found, draft of report on what is known Day 3: Home in on the unknown, team decisions, write report, recommendations, edit report Day 4: Review and finalize report, meet with institutional leadership and Exit Report 10

11. Bring Data—from Multiple Sources—into the Team’s Discussion Common Standards {NCATE} Cluster shares info Programs Sampling Cluster shares info Work to confirm from multiple sources—documentary and interview Interviews—cite stakeholder group and program Biennial Reports and Program Assessment A single instance of evidence will be considered an outlier 11

12. 12 Progress Towards Findings on Standards By end of day on Monday (Day 2), the team should have enough evidence from multiple sources to: – Make a preliminary determination on most of the Common Standards – Confirm the Program Assessment findings Discussions on Monday night focus on: – Findings as they relate to Program and Common Standards – What other information/evidence is needed by the team to complete findings on all standards

13. First Team Meeting Team Lead and the State Consultant organize the meeting Introductions Set tone for the visit Each team member has a voice, but no individual dominated the discussions Meetings will take place each evening and at lunch each day 13

14. Mid-Visit Report Purpose—Dean/Director, Team Lead and State Consultant  Identify what the team still need to know in order to make a determination about standards  Ask for evidence team members have not been able to locate up to this point  Discuss areas of concern or “red flags”, if any, that have emerged so far Each Morning and Evening—an informal reporting takes place 14

15. 15 Group Decision Making Team Consensus facilitated by the Team Lead (You) – Review all parts of the standard – Review all evidence Use only evidence gathered by the team in interviews or provided by the institution at the visit, during program assessment or biennial report process. – Is there a pathway of evidence from multiple sources? – Do the multiple sources of evidence point to the same conclusion, or are there discrepancies?

16. 16 Findings on Standards 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.

17. 17 Accreditation Recommendation Site Visit Team makes a consensus Accreditation Recommendation to the COA. – Accreditation – Accreditation with Stipulations – Denial of Accreditation Team agrees on the recommendation and crafts a Rationale for the recommendation

18. Team Recommendations Accreditation – Nothing required – 7 th year Report – Report in next Biennial Report Accreditation with Stipulations Accreditation with Major Stipulations Accreditation with Probationary Stipulations Denial of Accreditation 18

19. 19 Stipulations State what the program sponsor must do to meet the standards Define only the what, and not the how Are drafted by Team Lead and CTC Consultant and reviewed by team before inclusion in team report Are recommendations to the COA, which can accept, reject, or revise them

20. How to Divide Writing Responsibilities Depends on the size of the team Team lead makes these decisions, but asks for member’s preferences – Common Standards –approximately 1 page – Programs—approximately 2 pages Each team member is responsible for the full team report 20

21. Report for each Common Standard or Program Describe how the institution/program operates related to the language in the standard Cite examples of evidence to – flesh out, “personalize” how the institution/program meets key parts of a standard – note innovative, unique, and/or noteworthy practices used by the institution/program to meet key parts of a standard – Indicate triangulation from multiple sources Report must be congruent across Common Standards Reports, Program Reports, Standard Findings, Accreditation Recommendation and Rationale 21

22. Exit Report Prior to the Exit Report, team lead and state consultant meet with leadership to review the report and answer any questions Exit Report—public, factual, no questions – Institution introduces state consultant – State consultant brief explanation of process up to now – Team Lead presents findings and accreditation recommendation – State consultant reviews COA meeting and appeal options 22

23. Presentation to the COA Specific date and scheduled time—state consultant will arrange this COA will have read the Site Visit Report thoroughly so provide contextual information about the visit to indicate how the findings were determined and considerations in making the recommendation Order of the presentation—Co-Chair will call on team lead after the state consultant portion COA Members will ask questions of institution, team lead or state consultant Watch 2-3 presentations from the COA Archive 23

24. Program Assessment and Program Sampling Program Assessment began 2 years before the site visit Many Program Standards will have been identified as “Preliminarily Aligned” Other Program Standards will be reviewed onsite Sample across 3 categories: Program Design, Course of Study: curriculum and field experience, and Candidate Competence 24

25. 25 Program Summary Developed by PA Readers from the program narrative. Provides contextual information on the program—2-4 pages total – Program Design – Course of Study: curriculum and field experience – Candidate Competence Program Summaries must be read prior to arriving at the site visit and will serve as the foundation for the Program Report.

26. 26 Utilizing Biennial Reports Biennial Reports were available for the Spring 2009 and 2010 visits and often teams found that the Biennial Reports identified key assessments used to assess candidate competency. CTC Feedback pointed out the level of data analysis and the plans to use the analysis to drive program modifications. Biennial Reports and CTC Feedback must be reviewed prior to arriving at the site visit.

27. 27 Sampling across programs Only ONE stakeholder group will be interviewed at a time— likely divided into teaching and services groups – Candidates – Completers – Program coordinators – Faculty and Instructional Personnel – Field supervisors—programmatic and district-based – Employers – Credential analysts – Advisory boards

28. 28 When would a team member go to the specific program standards? If a concern seems to arise during the site visit—e.g. candidates talk about not being supervised in field experience—pin down which program (s) and try to triangulate with other stakeholder groups. If the concern is confirmed by multiple stakeholder groups, go to the adopted program standards to detail the issue in the program report.

29. 29 MS, SS, and Ed Sp Intern Programs 120 hour Pre-Service – Required prior to the issuance of the Intern Credential. – Team members focusing on one of these programs should understand the Pre-service component for the program and the tracking process to ensure that all individuals recommended for the Intern Credential have completed the 120 pre-service (June 2008).

30. 30 MS and SS Intern Programs  Early Completion Option – All MS and SS Intern programs must offer an ECO in the areas of MS, SS-English, SS-Math, and SS- Science IF the program offers the internship for the credential. – Check on the advising process and how many individuals have elected ECO. – May not have any candidates who have elected ECO…that is ok

31. TPA When visit has MS and/or SS Program(s) State Consultant will provide questions for Program Sampling Team Member(s) to ask – TPA Coordinator – Faculty – Assessors – Supervisors – Candidates 31

32. 32 Programs Reports Program Summary is the genesis of the Program Report As a team, make decisions for each standard If one or more standards are not fully met, identify the standard and detail the evidence that led to the standard being “Met with Concerns” or “Not Met” Provide examples and evidence how this institution meets the program standards

33. Responsibility for understanding the Common Standards Each team member is responsible for the content of the Common Standards Use the Glossary! Team Lead and Commission Consultant are resources—so Team Leads need to be very comfortable with the Common Standards 33

34. Common Standards Assignments Prior to the visit, assign specific Common Standards to team members—primary and secondary Team Lead may have to write to 1 or more CS if it is a small team Begin draft of CS Report on first evening, refine on second evening, finalize on last evening 34

35. CS Pre-Visit Worksheet Each Common Standards Cluster member will review the Common Standards Document and note evidence reviewed in the top box Team member should note evidence he or she wants to look for in the lower box Arrive at Visit with the Pre-Visit Worksheet completed—Some team leads ask that Worksheet is emailed prior to arriving at visit. 35

36. Format for Common Standard report Writing Worksheet: use during the collection of evidence Report Template: prompts to assist in the writing of the report – Blue text—means to replace with your own writing 36

37. Support Assigned State Consultant – BTSA Induction Visits Karen Sacramento and Gay Roby Cheryl Hickey or Teri Clark BIR Web page: http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/BIR.html http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/BIR.html Accreditation Handbook, Chapter 12: Team Leadership: http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/accred- handbook/AH-Chapter-12.doc http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/accred- handbook/AH-Chapter-12.doc 37