Web Seminar for Institutions
with Visits in Fall 2008
Donna M. Gollnick
Senior Vice President
April 5, 2007
NCATE Web Conference – Fall 2008 Visits
1:45 – 2:00
Audio Checks
2:00 – 2:05
Introductions and Review of Elluminate
2:05 – 2:10
Objectives of the Web Seminar
2:10 – 2:25
The Revised Standards
2:25 – 2:40
The National Program Review Process
2:40 – 3:00
Streamlining the Continuing Accreditation
3:00 – 3:15
Planning for the Visit
- Timeline for Appointing the BOE Team
- 3rd Party Testimony
- NCATE’s Website
- BOE Updates
Icon Review
To participate in this web conference, use
these icons:
Raise hand
Yes, No
More Icons
Happy face
Sad face
Click in the rectangular box to key in a
text message.
Text message us if you experience
technical difficulties.
Reminder: All messages and NCATE
responses can be viewed by all
NCATE staff on the
Donna M. Gollnick, Senior Vice President
Patty Garvin, Accreditation Associate
Julien Goichot, Webmaster
Marsha Russell, Database Manager
Khadija Jordan, Assistant to Donna
Click the green check-mark if you are, in NCATE
jargon, the unit head (i.e., the dean or department
Click the smiley-face if you are the NCATE
Raise your hand if you have attended an
AACTE/NCATE Institutional Orientation.
Click the clapping hands if you have a microphone.
Welcome to everyone!
Objectives of the
Web Seminar
1. To become familiar with NCATE’s revised
unit standards.
2. To understand the program review
3. To introduce a streamlined process for
continuing visits.
4. To review next steps in preparing for the
NCATE visit.
Revision of NCATE 2001
Adapted from a presentation by UAB
Members Ana Maria Schuhmann &
Barbara Chesler Buckner, Coastal
Carolina University
Purpose of Revision
Remove ambiguity,
Promote consistency, and
“Tweak” the current standards.
Surveyed Deans, NCATE Coordinators, Heads of
Units, Dept. Chairs, BOE Members, States, & all
NCATE Boards.
Drafted First Revision based on outcome of the
Held hearings at 2006 & 2007 AACTE and ATE
Called for Written Comments, Spring and
Summer 2006.
Drafted Second Revision in October 2006
Called for Written Comments, Winter 2007
April 2007
May 2007
2007-2008 Visits
Fall 2008 Visits
UAB reviews
comments, makes
changes as needed, &
adopts standards
Executive Board
ratifies revised
Standards optional
Standards required
Conceptual Framework
Eliminated Evidence of the Conceptual Framework
(pg. 13) and consolidated the information in the
Structural Elements (pg. 12).
1. vision and mission of the institution and unit;
2. philosophy, purposes, goals, and institutional standards of the
3. knowledge bases, including theories, research, the wisdom of
practice, and educational policies that drive the work of the unit;
4. candidate proficiencies related to expected knowledge, skills, and
professional dispositions, including proficiencies associated with
diversity and technology, that are aligned with the expectations
in professional, state, and institutional standards; and a
5. summarized description of the unit’s assessment system
Made the Conceptual Framework more pronounced
in the Standards.
– Standards 1, 3, and 5.
Standards are based on significant
emergent research.
Meeting the Target Level is
inclusive of what is expected at
the Acceptable Level.
NCATE Standards
1. Candidate Knowledge, Skills, &
2. Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
3. Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
4. Diversity
5. Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and
6. Unit Governance and Resources
Standard I
Added clearer expectations to the acceptable
and target levels for advanced level programs.
Clarified distinction between Initial Teacher
Preparation and Advanced Programs.
Added the disposition of “fairness and the belief
that all students can learn,” to the disposition
Changed “Other School Personnel” to “Other
School Professionals”
Eliminated “Content for Other School
Standard II
Adjusted the statements in the Supporting
Explanation of Standard 2 to be clearer about
the connection between the unit and
program review.
Element 2b. Data Collection, Analysis,
and Evaluation
– Acceptable: The unit can disaggregate candidate
assessment data when candidates are in alternate
route, off-campus, and distance learning
Standard II, continued
2c: Use of Data for Program
– Acceptable: Faculty have access to candidate
assessment data and/or data systems.
Standard III
Element 3b: Design, Implementation, and
Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical
– Acceptable: Candidates in advanced programs for teachers
participate in field experiences that require them to apply
course work in classroom settings, analyze P-12 student
learning and reflect on their practice in context of theories
on teaching and learning. Candidates in programs for
other school professionals participate in field experiences
and clinical practice that require them to engage in
structured activities related to the roles for which they are
Standard III:
Supporting Explanation
Licensed teachers who are continuing
their education in advanced programs
are expected to complete structured field
experiences in settings that 1) deepen their
understanding of the K,S, and professional
dispositions that foster student learning and
2) broaden their ability to apply those K, S,
and professional dispositions so that they
are able to help all students learn.
These structured field experiences can
take place in multiple settings such as
neighboring schools or school districts,
day care centers and after school
programs, alternate youth centers, and in
the schools and classrooms in which
candidates work.
Standard IV
Made it more performance/outcomes
based by adding to the standard:
– Assessments indicate that candidates can
demonstrate and apply proficiencies related to
diversity. Experiences provided for candidates
include working with diverse populations,
including higher education and P-12 school
faculty, candidates, and students in P-12
Elements 4b, 4c, & 4d
– Clarified that diversity for faculty, peers, P12 students needs to be at least two
ethnic/racial groups as reported in the US
Elements 4b and 4d, added
– Expectations that both faculty and
candidates can work with English
Language Learners.
Standard IV
Supporting Explanations
Teachers in advanced programs are
expected to complete field experience in
educational settings with diverse
Standard V
Collapsed two elements, service and
collaboration into one: Service.
Element 5c: Modeling Best
Professional Practices in
– Faculty scholarly work is driven by the
mission of their unit and institution.
Standard V
Supporting Explanation
“All scholarly inquiry includes submission of
one’s work for professional review and
evaluation by peers outside one’s own
Standard VI
Element 6c: Personnel
– Added class size to work load policies.
Advanced Programs
Distance Learning Programs
Professional Dispositions
Added fairness
Professional Dispositions
The professional behaviors educators are expected
to demonstrate in their interactions with students,
families, colleagues, and communities. Such
behaviors support student learning and
development and are consistent with ideas of
fairness and the belief that all students can learn.
Based on their mission, professional education units
may determine additional professional dispositions
they want candidates to develop. Institutions
assess professional dispositions based on observable
behavior in educational settings.
The commitment demonstrated in
striving to meet the educational needs
of all students in a caring, nondiscriminatory, and equitable manner.
Program Reviews as Evidence
of Meeting Standard 1
Reviews by
State Reviews
by the State
for Program
Data from national
(sometimes state)
program reviews
State licensure exam for program area (if
available—otherwise another content based
Content Assessment
Assessment of Planning (e.g., unit plan)
Student teaching/internship assessment
Assessment of candidate impact on student
learning or providing a supporting learning
Alignment of Program
Review with Standard 1
Rubric elements 1-2
Professional &
Knowledge, Skills,
& Dispositions
Rubric elements 3-5
P-12 Student
Rubric elements 7-8
Timeline for Program
Summer 2007
August 2007
September 15,
Web Seminars on
Programs via
PRS open
Programs must be
submitted via PRS
Streamlining the Visit for
Continuing Accreditation
Unit Accreditation Board will consider
proposals for streamlining the process for
continuing accreditation visits at its April 2007
NCATE community will have opportunity to
review proposals & make recommendations in
Summer 07
Institutions with spring 2008 visits can pilot
test the new system
The IR Proposal
– A briefer IR, which will be submitted via
NCATE’s website, could focus on previous
AFIs and changes since the last visit and
be filled with data determined by NCATE.
– Data prepared for national program
reviews would not have to be repeated in
Standard 1.
Length of Visit & Exhibits
o Teams
would access electronic
exhibits before arriving for the onsite visit, reducing the length of
the visit by 1-2 days.
o The
number of exhibits available
to teams would be specific and
limited in number.
BOE Report
o reduced to approximately 10 pp.
o provide feedback on whether the unit
is at the target level
o could be pilot tested in fall 2007
Annual Report
o The AACTE/NCATE annual report
could be revised to collect data that
would be helpful to teams in making
performance-based judgments.
Planning for the Visit:
Spring 2008
April 2008
June/July 2008
60 days before visit
Before previsit
1-2 months before
3rd Party Testimony
Appointment of
Team Chair
Appointment of
Team Members
Dissemination of IR
Organization of
Exhibit Room
The Visit
The Institutional Report
Overview of the institution
– Include table summarizing programs
Summary of conceptual framework
Description of how each of 6 standards are
being met
– Response to each element
– Include tables as appropriate
– Include links to key exhibits
Where do you
find the tables?
Tables in the IR: Overview
Table 1: Program Review Status
Table 2: Academic Rank of Professional
Education Faculty
Tables in the IR: Std. 1
Table 3: Unit Pass Rate on Content
Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation
Table 4: Unit Pass Rates on Content
Tests for Other School Personnel
– Data from follow-up studies
– Data from assessments of dispositions
– Data related to conceptual framework’s
Tables in the IR: Stds. 2 & 3
Table 5: Unit Assessment System:
Transition Point Assessments
Others for Std. 2:
– Transition Points
– Changes/Improvements made as result of
data findings
Table 6: Field Experiences and Clinical
Practice by Program
Tables in the IR: Std. 4
Table 7: Faculty Demographics
Table 8: Candidate Demographics
Table 9: Demographics on Clinical
Sites for Initial and Advanced
Guidelines for how much data are
needed for the on-site visit?
Program Reports
Amount of Data Required
Thru Spring 2008
1 year
First Visit
Fall 2008
2 years
2 years
Spring 2009
2 years
2 years
Fall 2009
3 years
2 years
Spring 2010
3 years
2 years
Fall 2010 &
3 years
2 years
1 year
Use the website:
Handbook for Accreditation Visits
Tables for the IR
BOE Updates
BOE Team Resources
Guidelines for Preparing Rejoinders
And much more
A Brief Survey
A = Extremely
B = Somewhat
C = Not at all
Overall, how helpful was this
How ready are you for your visit?
Would another webconference before your
visit be helpful?
Stay in touch
Call or email NCATE staff at anytime before,
during, and after the visit.

similar documents