connecticut state department of education educator preparation advisory council (epac) university of...

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Educator Preparation Advisory Council (EPAC)

University of Saint Joseph, Mercy Hall, Crystal Room

December 11, 2015

1

D R A F TCONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Welcome

• Sarah Barzee, Chief Talent Officer, CSDE

• Elsa Nuñez, President, ECSU/ConnSCU

2


• Stated in March 7, 2012, SBE resolution• Advise the State Board of Education in developing a

system for the approval, quality, regulation, oversight of Connecticut educator preparation programs in order to…• Better preparing teachers and school leaders• Ensuring educator preparation programs are well-

aligned with the needs of Connecticut’s schools and districts

• Establishing rigorous standards for acceptance into teacher and administrator preparation programs

3

Charge of EPAC


Goal for Today

• Present a proposed framework which brings together the data & accountability system as well as the assessment development work into a new CT model for program approval (continuing approval, not for new programs)

• Meet the SBE and IHE timelines for a new data-driven system of program approval by Fall 2017

• Reach consensus on the CT proposed program approval model so that CSDE staff can begin drafting related regulations

4


Alignment of Work to EPAC PrinciplesEPAC Principles Work Alignment Subcommittee

1. Program Entry Standards To be addressed in program approval regulations drafted in 2015-16

Program Review

2. Staffing & Support of Clinical Experiences

Program approval regulationsIHE/District Partnership Protocol

Program ReviewAssessment

3. Clinical Experience Requirements

To be addressed in program approval regulations and CAEP process

Program Review

4. District-Program Partnerships & Shared Responsibility

IHE/District Interview Protocol and model MOA under development

Assessment

5. Program Completion & Candidate Assessment Standards

To be addressed in program approval regulations as well as new pre-service assessment

Program Review Assessment Dev

6. Program Effectiveness & Accountability

Data and accountability system dashboard under design

Accountability/Data

5


Timeline Benchmarks• August 3, 2012 – EPAC first convened

• April & Oct 2013 – EPAC Principles approved by SBE

• 2014 and Spring 2015 – EPAC subcommittees convened in 2014

• July 1, 2015 – SBE approved 2-year development & piloting period of new program approval process and regulations to be implemented by Fall 2017

• Fall 2017 – IHEs seeking CAEP accreditation will be subject to new process and standards Fall 2017

• July 1, 2015 (Effective) – P.A.15-243, Sec 1, mandate for annual report on teacher preparation quality

6


P.A. 15-243, Section 1: On and after July 1, 2015, the Department of Education shall annually submit a report on the quality of teacher preparation programs …to the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to education and higher education …Such report shall include, but not be limited to:

(1)information and data relating to the extent to which graduates of such teacher preparation programs help their students learn, including, but not limited to, data relating to the academic achievement and progress of the students of such graduates,•measures for assessing the classroom teaching performance of such graduates,•retention rates in the teaching profession of such graduates,•survey results from such graduates and the employers of such graduates regarding such teacher preparation programs,•data relating to the employment of such graduates in a teaching position,•certification issuance rates, including first-time pass rates for such graduates, and•recommendations regarding the recruitment of minority teachers and administrators pursuant to section 10-155l of the general statutes.

7

Statute Requiring Data and Accountability System

8

Meeting Protocols and Norms


Meeting Agenda

9

Welcome 9:00 am

Review of Agenda, Approval of Minutes and Meeting Norms

9:10 am

Presentation of Proposed Program Approval Model & National Context

9:15 am

Group Discussion & Report Out 9:45 am

Consensus Building 10:45 am

Next Steps and Timeline 10:50 am

Adjourn 11:00 am


Approval of Meeting Minutes

• Approve minutes from September 25, 2015

10


EPAC Meeting Norms

11

• Be open to listening.• Disagree with ideas, not with people.• Bring voices not in the room.• Bring all perspectives as appropriate.• Share air time.• Full participation.


Decision-Making Protocols

12

• Consensus-building

• When consensus cannot be reached, facilitator will invite a motion for a vote

• If the EPAC member is not present during a decision-making process, then the member forfeits his/her vote

13

Proposed Program Approval Model


• Per statute, SBE has primary authority to approve programs that prepare candidates for Connecticut certification. (NCATE accreditation is IHE’s choice.)

• Per regulation, all EPPs meet NCATE standards. Evaluation is at the unit level, not individual program level (e.g., elementary education; ed leadership).

• Per regulation, on-site visits are conducted every five years.

• Per regulation, CSDE Review Committee makes recommendation to Commissioner regarding continuing approval based on Visiting Team Report. Commissioner takes recommendation to SBE.

• Per regulation, continuing approval decisions granted by the SBE are: (A) Full, (B) Provisional, (C) Probationary, or (D) Deny.

Current State Board of Education Program Approval Process

14


Individual educator preparation programs (e.g., elementary education; educational leadership) will be evaluated and given a status designation on an annual basis using multiple accountability data sources, including measures of content knowledge and pedagogy. The CSDE will implement a focused monitoring system based on data and status designations described below:

o Effective: No data concerns

o Year 1: Marginal Risk: If cumulative rating based on all measures below 80% Action: Notification to EPP

o Year 2: At Risk: If cumulative rating based on all measures below 80% Action: Freeze candidate admissions

o Year 3: Low Performing: If cumulative rating based on all measures below 80% Action: Focused, On-Site Visit

o Year 4: Persistent Low Performance: If cumulative rating based on all measures below 80% (EPP must wait a minimum of one year before seeking SBE new program approval for such program)Action: Revoke approval

Proposed Outcomes-Based, Program Level Evaluation and Performance Designations

15


Any one of the following indicators will lead to identifying a program status of

At-Risk (if one of the indicators below persists for one year) orLow-Performing (if one indicator below persists over two years or two or more indicators below persists for one year or more):

o * First attempt pass rate for SBE required tests is 74% or lower;

o * Pre-Service performance category rating is 74% or lower;

o Connecticut Administrator Test (CAT) pass rate for a program is 74% or lower;

o Employer or teacher feedback survey indicates a rating that is 74% or lower (note: criterion may be adjusted as measure is developed and implemented).

* TWO-YEAR TRANSITION OF NEW ASSESSMENT: Accountability ratings will be publicly reported but will not be consequential for within two years of implementation of a new assessment to allow time to use/analyze pass rate data to inform/adjust curriculum and instruction.

Proposed “Just Cause” Triggers

16


CSDE Review Committee:

•Will continue to review program performance and any additional information to make final recommendations to the Commissioner and the SBE relative to continuing approval based on data weighting and status designations.

•May focus on all “like” certification programs across the state (not just those within an institution) to consider any performance trends (e.g., review of all elementary education programs).

Proposed Role of CSDE Review Committee

17


• Based on this proposed program approval model, CSDE will not enter into a CAEP partnership agreement.

• Individual institutions may continue to seek and partner with CAEP for national accreditation.

18

Proposed CAEP Partnership


• 4 categories• 11 indicators• Data will be available for all of these indicators

for teacher prep programs• Not all indicators will apply to school leader

programs

19

Accountability Indicators that Lead to Annual Performance Designation

EPAC Data and Accountability Framework

20


What we accomplish with this proposed model?

• Streamline approach to program review and approval• Focus on individual programs not the institution• Align with expectations of EPAC charge and SBE

expectations for outcomes based model• Focus on EPAC principles which align with CAEP• Provide valuable annual data to the IHEs which is

needed for CAEP and for program improvement• Provide data to the general public and policymakers• Not duplicative of CAEP accreditation processes• Meets mandates for state and federal data reporting

21

22

Table Group Discussions


Table Group Discussions

• Given the program approval model proposal, please identify the following:

• 45 minutes for discussion; then we will debrief

23

What can you support?

?What questions do you

have?

Recommendations

What are your suggestions for improving the model?

24

Next Steps and Closing


Next Steps and Closing

• Dependent on outcome today

• Minutes from today will be posted to the EPAC website

• Next meetings:

– Friday, April 29, 2016, 9 - Noon

– Friday, September 30, 2016, 9 am – 3 pm

25

connecticut state department of education educator preparation advisory council (epac) university of...

Documents

program review2

teacher preparation

state board of education

new process

new ct model

designaccountabilitydatad

new programsmeet

related regulations