1. 1 Emerson Elliott Rachelle Bruno emerson@ncate.org bruno@nku.edu AACTE February 7, 2009 The Next Generation of NCATE Program Standards 1

2. 2 Agenda Task Force Charge Task Force Activities Challenges and Task Force Response Knowledge Base Principles Structure and Formatting Evidence Discussion 2

3. 3 3 Task Force on Program Standards Rachelle Bruno, Chair, Northern Kentucky University Gene Martin, former Chair of SASB, Texas State University-San Marcos Joe Prus, Executive Board, Winthrop University Gail Dickinson, Chair of SASB P&E Committee, Old Dominion University John Johnston, SASB, University of Memphis Charles Duke, Chair of SASB, Appalachian State University Ron Colbert, SASB, Fitchburg State University NCATE Staff Emerson Elliott Margie Crutchfield Boyce Williams

4. 4 4 Our Charge The existing SASB guidelines for SPA standards need to be rethought in light of current research, national experience, and constructive feedback. As a result the SASB chair will appoint an inclusive task force to create a conceptual framework with comprehensive guidelines for the development of SPA program standards.

5. 5 5 Activities Reviewed current research Reviewed existing NCATE reports and reports from others, interviewed representatives from INTASC and NBPTS Requested input from SPA’s, universities and states December email (SPA’s and universities) May Clinic (SPA’s and states) August email (SPA’s, states and universities) Web-based forum (SPA’s) Held four meetings (January, April, May and October) Joint UAB-SASB meeting (October) Reviewed McKinley findings, Executive Board request for “transformation and redesign of the NCATE [unit] accreditation and program review process,” and updated context Held two conference calls (November, January)

6. 6 6 Summary THE CHALLENGETHE TASK FORCE RESPONSE STANDARDS Require “too much” Are too different from SPA to SPA Are not congruent / Unit Standard 1 Some are not aligned with the 2004 program review report Principles for more common approach, parallel to Standard 1 Formatting guides to keep standards focused, restrict # of standards, and limit sub categories RESEARCH Research is not consistently incorporated into standards Field and clinical experiences are not emphasized enough Ground recommendations in research and state trends SPAs can propose a field and clinical standard to SASB; NCATE is considering additional options EVIDENCE Data requirements are perceived as too prescriptive Institutions still have difficulty creating assessments that provide valid evidence of standards Guidelines on evidence (e.g., limit # of SPA required assessments; standards must be assessable) Principles for assessments (e.g., assessments are “aligned” with standards; assessments “sample” standards)

7. 7 7 The knowledge base On learning Preconceptions must be engaged Competence requires deep factual knowledge and a strong conceptual framework Students need metacognitive strategies to monitor their understanding and progress in their own learning On assessment for learning Formative assessment makes students’ thinking visible to themselves as well as teachers Training on assessment should be linked to actual classroom experience in assessment Descriptive feedback to students makes their learning more effective and efficient On student development Teachers need to know child and adolescent development as it influences learning at different levels

8. 8 8 More on the knowledge base “Knowing” content means factual information and routine procedures, but also integration of knowledge, skills, and procedures to interpret and solve problems in new situations Pedagogical content knowledge develops teacher strategies to help students learn a domain Research findings are not just generic, but need adaptation to each specialty field State trends Collaboration Higher order thinking, problem solving, information and media literacy skills Formative assessments Cross-disciplinary content

9. 9 9 Principles Four principles; aligned with NCATE Unit Standard 1 Unit standard 1: Content knowledgePrinciple 1: Content knowledge Unit standard 1: Pedagogical content knowledge and skills Principle 2: Content pedagogy Principle 3: Learning environments Unit standard 1: Professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills Principle 4: Professional knowledge and skills

10. 10 Principles, continued 1. CONTENT KNOWLEDGE—SPA standards address: Candidates’ knowledge of content they plan to teach or use as school professionals, and their ability to explain important principles and concepts delineated in professional standards.

11. 11 Principles, continued 2. CONTENT PEDAGOGY—SPA standards address: Candidates knowledge of content pedagogy (effective teaching strategies to impart the specialized knowledge of a subject area) or of a professional practice (such as planning, instruction, analysis, and evaluation), including: Knowledge of how students develop and learn, Students’ diversity and differing approaches to learning, Cultural influences on learning, Students’ preconceptions that must be engaged for effective learning, and Familiarity with standards-based instruction, assessment, and learning.

12. 12 Principles, continued 3. LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS—SPA standards address: Candidates’ ability to apply their knowledge appropriately in their education role by creating and maintaining safe, supportive, fair, and effective learning environments for all students—among them linguistically and culturally diverse students and those with exceptionalities— including: individual and group motivation for a disciplined learning environment and engagement in learning, Assessment and analysis of student learning, making appropriate adjustments in instruction, and monitoring student progress to assure meaningful learning experiences for all students, and Use of a variety of instructional strategies, materials, and applications of technology to encourage students’ development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.

13. 13 Principles, continued 4. PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS—SPA standards address: Candidates’ knowledge of professional practices in their field and readiness to develop them, including: engagement in professional experiences, and reflection on them, to enhance their own professional growth; understanding and ability to demonstrate a commitment to equitable and ethical treatment of all students and colleagues; knowledge of the collaborative roles of other school professionals and readiness to work with colleagues, families, and community agencies; and ability to identify opportunities for collaborative and leadership roles as members of teams.

14. 14 Do the principles reflect what is critical to professional preparation today? What would be the advantage to having SPA standards organized according to these principles? Discussion notes

15. 15 Draft guidelines for structure and formatting Writing standards The principles serve as an organizer or framework for standards Could be exceptions only for school professional specialties that do not have an instructional component “Standards” is the term that describes the primary level and “elements” is the term for the next level No additional layers of terminology (such as “indicators” or “sub- elements”) below that Standards are written so that each concept that is to be an element appears in the language of the standard Standards are based in research findings from consensus reports, longitudinal data studies, and judgments on what has been learned from practice

16. 16 Structure and formatting, continued Limits on standards The number of standards and elements must be sufficiently limited that they can be sampled in the program report assessments (a range for number of standards will be recommended). Standards are limited to SPA-specific topics appropriate for each principle. Standards are limited to what education professionals who are completing preparation programs must know and be able to do, related to the principles.

17. 17 In what way will revisions in structure and formatting of SPA standards assist universities in preparing program submissions? Are there other revisions that would be useful? Discussion notes

18. 18 Guidelines for Evidence Assessments should  Sample critical elements of the knowledge and skills to be acquired by professional educator candidates that are described in program standards  Match the substance of the standard with a consistent form or method (e.g.,test, essay, performance based on observation and judgment, or direct personal communication)  Be consistent with the method of inquiry in the discipline  Include one or more measures that have been created, reviewed, and/or scored by specialty professionals external to the program (such as field-based master teachers, clinical teachers, intern supervisors, and/or supervisors/employer of program candidates/graduates).

19. 19 Guidelines for Evidence – assessment alignment  Cover the same or consistent content topics as the standards  Address the range of knowledge and skills that are described in standards  Be congruent with the complexity, cognitive demands, and skill requirements in the standards  Be consistent with the level of effort required, or difficulty or degree of challenge in the standards  Have rubrics to guide decisions about candidate performance that are consistent with standards.

20. 20 Discussion In what way will revisions in structure and formatting of SPA standards assist universities in preparing program submissions? Are there other revisions that would be useful? Do the principles reflect what is critical to professional preparation today? What would be the advantage to having SPA standards organized according to these principles? Comments regarding evidence??