The Changing Context for Teacher Preparation and NCATEs Redesign to Align with Local, State, and Nat

1
The Changing Context for Teacher Preparation and
NCATEs Redesign to Align with Local, State, and
National Needs

• James G. Cibulka, President
• National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
  Education
• February, 2009

2
Changing Environmental Context

• High expectations for P-12 students21st century
  learning skills
• i.e. students able to analyze and evaluate major
  points of view theories
• Need for highly effective teachers for
  challenging schools
• Traditional higher ed not producing enough
  teachers for high needs schools
• Traditional candidates not prepared to teach
  diverse learners ESL learners

3
Teacher Prep and School Reform Linked

• Teachers must be prepared as skilled,
  knowledgeable practitioners
• Also oriented to ongoing school
  improvement/change
• Ability to work in teams for collaborative
  organizational development

4
Market Demand vs. Supply from SOE

• Mismatch between market demand (i.e. shortage
  areas high needs schools) and supply of
  candidates from SOE
• Example Boston Denver, etc.

5
Non-Traditional Providers Increasing

• TFA
• NYC Teaching Fellows
• Troops to Teachers
• State alternate route programs
• ABCTE
• Residency Programs

6
Research Debate on Teacher Prep Effectiveness

• Research mixed on value-added impact of
  traditional teacher preparation
• e.g., recent Mathematica Study
• Some research supports more clinically-based
  programs and new teacher induction. Need more
  research
• Intensive partnerships with schools and districts
  should be the focus of reforms and research on
  their effectiveness

7
Expectations for P-16 Seamless System

• Improve college access
• Reduce remediation rates
• Improve college completion
• Suggests changes in P-12 standards, curriculum,
  teaching and better linkages with higher
  education

8
Obama on Education

• In February 2009 press conference to nation
• Better training for the nations teachers is
  first item mentioned when discussing education
• Examine charter school success
• Offering opportunities for teachers to improve
  practice
• Ability to fire ineffective teachers after
  opportunity for improvement

9
Priorities for Teacher Preparation in Higher Ed
Opportunity Act

• New accountability requirements
• Schools of ed must set annual, measurable goals
  to increase number of teachers in shortage areas
• Ensure response to identified needs of
  schools/districts
• Training in teaching diverse populations ESL
  urban/rural populations low-income populations

10
Higher Ed Opportunity Act

• Some Funds for Partnership Approach for Teacher
  Prep and Induction
• Support for two-year induction partnerships
  between higher ed and schools/districts
• Provide professional development to high needs
  schools within partnership
• Design and implement a rigorous year-long
  pre-service clinical internship/component
• Ensure teachers can analyze achievement data and
  use to improve instruction

11
Structure of Traditional Teacher Preparation
Requires Change

• Residency idea may change structure of teacher
  preparation in institutions
• May move to year-long clinical experience
  supported by research
• Wrap coursework around clinical experience vs.
  clinical experience around coursework. Careful
  site/teacher selection
• Would provide rich experience for intern and more
  help to schools at the same time

12
Challenges for Accreditors

• Critics claim accreditation makes no difference
  in quality of preparation programs
• Not all institutions are accredited
• Accreditation is not required in most states
• State program approval is variable
• Burden of current NCATE process
• Need for unified accreditation systemJoint
  NCATE-TEAC Design Team

13
Redesign and Transformation of of NCATE
Accreditation

• McKinley Marketing Study
• Values Guiding Redesign
• Excellence
• Raise the bar vs. set a floor
• Focused on urgent needs, e.g., shortage areas
  clinical practice urban teaching
• Incorporate RD into accreditation process
  through continuous improvement option
• Build knowledge of best practice
• Options validating assessments research on
  retention recruitment best practices in
  teaching disciplines, etc.

14
Values to Lead in Redesign of NCATE Accreditation

• Inclusivity
• Reach out to high quality alternate providers
• High quality non-university providers need to be
  in accreditation tent
• University alternative programs must be of
  uniformly high quality
• Collegiality
• Shift culture to organizational learning
• Help institutions go to the next level
• Cost-effectivenessreduce reporting requirements

15
Changes In Process Currently

• Options being tested in Spring 09 and Fall 09
  visits
• Electronic previsit based on unit head preference
• Visit begins Sunday afternoon
• School visits eliminatedinterviews conducted
  instead
• Poster sessions eliminated
• Virtual focused visits
• Online IR with 11 tables
• List of key exhibits eliminates guesswork

16
Possible Options for Unit ReviewContinuing
Accreditation

• Greatly reduce reporting on Standards 5 and 6
  consistent with federal policy
• Institutions selecting regular visit
• Simplified IR submitted one-year before
  visitInstitution provides evidence that it
  continues to meet standards.
• IR focuses on self-study against target
• Electronic review with feedback
• Opportunity to address concerns and to improve
  before visit

17
Institutions desiring continuous improvement visit

• Characteristics
• Proposal for continuous improvement plan focuses
  on urgent district, state, national, and
  professional needs and target level performance
  for one or more standards
• Both research and development focus Iterative
  planning/implementationdesign, test, apply,
  review, redesign, test, etc. Engineering model.
• Emphasize sharing of findings, scaling up best
  practices
• May be jointly submitted by 2 or more
  institutions.

18
Possible Process

• Submit interim IR mid-cycle with continuous
  improvement proposal. Institution provides
  evidence that it continues to meet standards.
• NCATE staff/BOE members do electronic review with
  feedback that standards continue to be met.
• Opportunity to address concerns and to improve
  before visit
• Institution proceeds with continuous
  improvement. Consultation/peer support during
  implementation

19
Possible Process (contd)

• Annual reports on progress
• 3 person BOE team visit will focus on plan.
  Consultation and evaluation role. Fidelity of
  implementation is focus, not success/failure of
  plan.
• Plan may continue after visit.
• We are open to other ideas.

20
Proposed Changes in Program Review

• Options for continuing national recognition
• Only modified or new assessments reviewed, with
  evidence produced
• Focus on continuous improvement aspect of
  program review how has data been used to improve
  programs
• Conduct validity studies of assessments in lieu
  of other program report evidence
• Current streamlined process another option

21
Options for Initial Program Review

• Institution could choose own assessments (up to
  8)
• Demonstrate candidate mastery of SPA standards
  (assessments to provide information on content
  pedagogical content impact on student learning).
  
• SPAs create model assessments institution would
  have option of using those.
• Current streamlined process another option

22
Current Streamlining of Program Review Occurring
Now/Fall 2009

• Adopt principles from SASB Task Force to ensure
  consistency among SPA standards
• New process for middle-level programs
• Require only 1 or 2 years of data to encourage
  institution to progress in assessment development
• Delete items from program report that are not
  necessary for program decisions
• Develop new process for reviewing secondary
  MAT-like programs
• Small programs-either internal NCATE review or
  ask states to exempt.

23
Action Steps for Institutions

• Key into Obama priorities
• Apply for HEOA partnership funding
• Restructure programs to enhance length and depth
  of clinical experience
• Focus on better quality control to assure
  effectiveness of all candidates
• Focus on district/state needs
• Develop RD through NCATE accreditation
  continuous improvement option when available
• Develop evidentiary base on program effectiveness