Revision of NCATE 2001 Standards

1
Revision of NCATE 2001 Standards

• Donna M. Gollnick, Senior Vice President, NCATE
  (donna_at_ncate.org)
• Adapted from a presentation by UAB Members Ana
  Maria Schuhmann Barbara Chesler Buckner,
  Coastal Carolina University

2
Standards Committee

• Ana Maria Schuhmann, Costal Carolina University
  (SC), chair
• Barbara J. Chesler Buckner, Costal Carolina
  University (SC)
• Anthony Daniels, NEA Student Program Chair
• Deena Sue Fuller, Tennessee State University
• Arnold G. Hyndman, Rutgers University (NJ)
• Cheryl L. Mason, San Diego State University (CA)
• Donovan D. Steiner, Eastern Mennonite University
  (VA)
• Pamela J. Taverner, Clearwater High School (KS)
• Katherine Wright Knight, Parkview High School (AR)

3
Purpose of Revision

• Simplify,
• Clarify,
• Remove ambiguity,
• Promote consistency, and
• Tweak the current standards.

4
Process

• Surveyed Deans, NCATE Coordinators, Heads of
  Units, Dept. Chairs, BOE Members, States, all
  NCATE Boards.
• Drafted First Revision based on outcome of the
  surveys.
• Held hearings at 2006 AACTE and ATE meetings.
• Called for Written Comments, Spring and Summer
  2006.
• Drafted Second Revision in October 2006
• Called for Written Comments, Winter 2007

5
Calendar

• February 2007
• March 19, 2007
• April 2007
• May 2007
• 2007-2008 Visits
• Fall 2008 Visits

• Hearings at AACTE ATE meetings
• Call for Comment Period Ends
• UAB reviews comments, makes changes as needed,
  adopts standards
• Executive Board ratifies revised standards
• Standards optional
• Standards required

6
Changes to Preconditions

• Combined Precondition 5, Assessment System and
  Precondition 4, Conceptual Framework, which
  had a similar requirement for a description of
  the assessment system.

7

• In Precondition 9 (now 8) on the requirement
  for institutional accreditation, added
  requirements for organizations not eligible for
  regional or other institutional accreditation.

8
Changes to the Standards
9
Conceptual Framework

• Eliminated Evidence of the Conceptual Framework
  (pg. 13) and consolidated the information in the
  Structural Elements (pg. 12).
• Made the Conceptual Framework more pronounced in
  the Standards.
• Standards 1,3, and 5.

10
Introduction

• Standards are based on significant emergent
  research.
• Meeting the Target Level is inclusive of what is
  expected at the Acceptable Level.

11
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
  element.
• Changed Other School Personnel to Other School
  Professionals
• Eliminated Content for Other School
  Professionals

12
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 programs.

13
Standard II, continued

• 2c Use of Data for Program Improvement
• Acceptable Faculty have access to candidate
  assessment data and/or data systems.

14
Standard III

• Element 3b Design, Implementation, and
  Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical
  Practice
• 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
  preparing.

15
Standard IIISupporting 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.

16

• 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.

17
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 schools.

18

• Elements 4b, 4c, 4d
• Clarified that diversity for faculty, peers, P-12
  students needs to be at least two ethnic/racial
  groups as reported in the US Census.

19

• Elements 4b and 4d, added
• Expectations that both faculty and candidates can
  work with English Language Learners.

20
Standard IV Supporting Explanations

• Teachers in advanced programs are expected to
  complete field experience in educational settings
  with diverse populations.

21
Standard V

• Collapsed two elements, service and collaboration
  into one Service.
• Element 5c Modeling Best Professional Practices
  in Scholarship
• Faculty scholarly work is driven by the mission
  of their unit and institution.

22
Standard VSupporting Explanation

• All scholarly inquiry includes submission of
  ones work for professional review and evaluation
  by peers outside ones own institution.

23
Standard VI

• Element 6c Personnel
• Added class size to work load policies.

24
Glossary

• Clarified
• Advanced Programs
• Distance Learning Programs
• Unit
• Professional Dispositions
• Added fairness

25
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.

26
Fairness

• The commitment demonstrated in striving to meet
  the educational needs of all students in a
  caring, non-discriminatory, and equitable manner.

27
Last Chance for Comments

• Due at NCATE by March 19, 2007. Send to
  Antoinette Mitchell at antoinette_at_ncate.org.