1

Emerson Elliott Rachelle Brunoemerson@ncate.org bruno@nku.edu

AACTEFebruary 7, 2009

The Next Generation of NCATE Program Standards

1

2

AgendaTask Force ChargeTask Force Activities Challenges and Task Force ResponseKnowledge BasePrinciplesStructure and FormattingEvidenceDiscussion

2

33

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 ElliottMargie CrutchfieldBoyce Williams

44

Our ChargeThe 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.

55

ActivitiesReviewed 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)

66

SummaryTHE CHALLENGE THE TASK FORCE RESPONSE

STANDARDSRequire “too much”Are too different from SPA to SPAAre not congruent / Unit Standard 1Some are not aligned with the 2004 program review report

Principles for more common approach, parallel to Standard 1Formatting guides to keep standards focused, restrict # of standards, and limit sub categories

RESEARCHResearch is not consistently incorporated into standardsField and clinical experiences are not emphasized enough

Ground recommendations in research and state trendsSPAs can propose a field and clinical standard to SASB; NCATE is considering additional options

EVIDENCEData requirements are perceived as too prescriptiveInstitutions 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)

77

The knowledge baseOn 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 learningOn 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

88

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 trendsCollaborationHigher order thinking, problem solving, information and

media literacy skillsFormative assessmentsCross-disciplinary content

99

PrinciplesFour principles; aligned with NCATE Unit Standard 1

Unit standard 1: Content knowledge

Principle 1: Content knowledge

Unit standard 1: Pedagogical content knowledge and skills

Principle 2: Content pedagogyPrinciple 3: Learning environments

Unit standard 1: Professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills

Principle 4: Professional knowledge and skills

1010

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.

1111

Principles, continued2. 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.

1212

Principles, continued3. 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.

1313

Principles, continued4. 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

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

1515

Draft guidelines for structure and formattingWriting standards

The principles serve as an organizer or framework for standardsCould 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 thatStandards 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

1616

Structure and formatting, continued

Limits on standardsThe 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

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

1818

Guidelines for EvidenceAssessments 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).

1919

Guidelines for Evidence – assessment alignmentCover the same or consistent content topics as

the standardsAddress the range of knowledge and skills that are

described in standardsBe congruent with the complexity, cognitive

demands, and skill requirements in the standardsBe consistent with the level of effort required, or

difficulty or degree of challenge in the standardsHave rubrics to guide decisions about candidate

performance that are consistent with standards.

2020

DiscussionIn 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??