CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 7f1ec1-NGI2N



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Description:

Title: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Author: GN Last modified by: Weiner, Gady Created Date: 5/26/2015 2:22:26 PM Document presentation format – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:78
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 26
Provided by: GN55
Learn more at: http://www.sde.ct.gov
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


1
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
  • Educator Preparation Advisory Council (EPAC)
  • University of Saint Joseph, Mercy Hall, Crystal
    Room
  • December 11, 2015

2
Welcome
  • Sarah Barzee, Chief Talent Officer, CSDE
  • Elsa Nuñez, President, ECSU/ConnSCU

3
Charge of EPAC
  • 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 Connecticuts
    schools and districts
  • Establishing rigorous standards for acceptance
    into teacher and administrator preparation
    programs

4
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

5
Alignment of Work to EPAC Principles
EPAC Principles Work Alignment Subcommittee
Program Entry Standards To be addressed in program approval regulations drafted in 2015-16 Program Review
2. Staffing Support of Clinical Experiences Program approval regulations IHE/District Partnership Protocol Program Review Assessment
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
6
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

7
Statute Requiring Data and Accountability System
  • 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
  • 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.

8
Meeting Protocols and Norms
9
Meeting Agenda
Welcome 900 am
Review of Agenda, Approval of Minutes and Meeting Norms 910 am
Presentation of Proposed Program Approval Model National Context 915 am
Group Discussion Report Out 945 am
Consensus Building 1045 am
Next Steps and Timeline 1050 am
Adjourn 1100 am
10
Approval of Meeting Minutes
  • Approve minutes from September 25, 2015

11
EPAC Meeting Norms
  • 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.

12
Decision-Making Protocols
  • 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
14
Current State Board of Education Program Approval
Process
  • Per statute, SBE has primary authority to approve
    programs that prepare candidates for Connecticut
    certification. (NCATE accreditation is IHEs
    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.

15
Proposed Outcomes-Based, Program Level Evaluation
and Performance Designations
  • 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
  • Effective No data concerns
  • Year 1 Marginal Risk If cumulative rating based
    on all measures below 80
  • Action Notification to EPP
  • Year 2 At Risk If cumulative rating based on
    all measures below 80
  • Action Freeze candidate admissions
  • Year 3 Low Performing If cumulative rating
    based on all measures below 80 Action Focused,
    On-Site Visit
  • 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

16
Proposed Just Cause Triggers
  • 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) or
  • Low-Performing (if one indicator below persists
    over two years or two or more indicators below
    persists for one year or more)
  • First attempt pass rate for SBE required tests
    is 74 or lower
  • Pre-Service performance category rating is 74
    or lower
  • Connecticut Administrator Test (CAT) pass rate
    for a program is 74 or lower
  • 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.

17
Proposed Role of CSDE Review Committee
  • 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).

18
Proposed CAEP Partnership
  • 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.

19
Accountability Indicators that Lead to Annual
Performance Designation
  • 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

20
EPAC Data and Accountability Framework
Category Indicator
1. Program selectivity, entry and completion EPAC Principle 1 6 completer/graduation rates (CAEP)
1. Program selectivity, entry and completion EPAC Principle 1 6 admission selectivity criteria and goals
   
2. Candidate pre-service performance EPAC Principle 5 6 pass rates by program for external assessments (including Praxis II, ACTFL, Foundations of Reading, CAT, etc.) (CAEP)
2. Candidate pre-service performance EPAC Principle 5 6 pre-service performance assessments (CAEP)
   
3. Candidate employment, persistence and in-service performance EPAC Principle 5 6 numbers initial employed in CT schools (of those candidates residing in CT using Dept of Labor data using occupational code) (CAEP)
3. Candidate employment, persistence and in-service performance EPAC Principle 5 6 employment of completers in hard to staff or high-need schools
3. Candidate employment, persistence and in-service performance EPAC Principle 5 6 persistence rate years in field after 1st and 3rd year of teaching or school leadership/admin/special service (CAEP)
3. Candidate employment, persistence and in-service performance EPAC Principle 5 6 surveys of candidates 1-3 years from program completion and feedback on readiness for service (identify how many years out of preparation/distance away from completion date and how many/ stay in CT) (CAEP)
3. Candidate employment, persistence and in-service performance EPAC Principle 5 6 surveys of employers about candidates readiness 1-3 years from program completion (Supt will identify who is to receive these surveys supt or designees) (CAEP)
3. Candidate employment, persistence and in-service performance EPAC Principle 5 6 summative teacher level educator evaluation data (CAEP)
   
4. District Partnership Leadership (institutional level data) EPAC Principal 4 6 surveys of superintendents regarding shared responsibility and shared accountability with preparing institution partners (CAEP)   surveys of deans of education regarding shared responsibility and shared accountability with district partners (CAEP)
21
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

22
Table Group Discussions
23
Table Group Discussions
  • Given the program approval model proposal, please
    identify the following
  • 45 minutes for discussion then we will debrief

? What can you support? ? What questions do you have?
Recommendations What are your suggestions for improving the model? Recommendations What are your suggestions for improving the model?
24
Next Steps and Closing
25
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
About PowerShow.com