T IPS FOR A S UCCESSFUL NCATE R EVIEW Matthew Cummiskey, Ph.D. Central CT State Univ., New Britain...
-
Upload
dorothy-allen -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of T IPS FOR A S UCCESSFUL NCATE R EVIEW Matthew Cummiskey, Ph.D. Central CT State Univ., New Britain...
TIPS FOR A SUCCESSFUL NCATE REVIEW
Matthew Cummiskey, Ph.D.
Central CT State Univ., New Britain
Materials available via website
MY STORY
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Current NASPE/NCATE Beginning Teacher Standards
2. Review process – reviewers3. Review process – program4. Developing the program report5. New NASPE/NCATE standard6. Questions
INITIAL (BEGINNING TEACHER) STANDARDS FOR PETE
REPORT DEVELOPMENT- PROGRAM
Program Report Cover sheet Section I - Context Section II - List of assessments Section III - Relationship of assessments to standards Section IV – Evidence for Meeting Standards Section V – Use of Assessments Results to Improve
Candidate and Program Performance Section VI – For Revised Reports Only
REPORT DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAM
Section I-Context Tips:
Provide information but don’t inundate OK to “recycle” materials from across institution
Mission statements, program of study Field experiences are valuable! (strengths) Avoid referring reviewers to external websites
Not permitted
REPORT DEVELOPMENT
- PROGRAM
Section II-List of AssessmentsTips
You have 8 possible assessments, use all of them (7,8 – optional)
Programs are responsible for the quality of materials created by the unit Communicate with
the unit to resolve concerns
REPORT DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAM
Section III - Relationship of Assessment to StandardsTips:
Only “check” assessments that are clearly aligned with the standards. Avoid a “Let’s see what sticks” approach
REPORT DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAM
Section IV – Evidence for Meeting Standards The meat and potatoes section of the report! Include 6-8 assessments that provide evidence for TCs
acquiring the desired competencies A1 – Licensure exam (typically, 80%) A2 – Content knowledge A3 – Candidate ability to plan instruction A4 – Assessment of internship, fieldwork, or clinical experience A5 – Effects on student learning A6 – Additional Assessment A7 – 8 – Optional Assessments
A3-6 should be performance- based assessments
REPORT DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAM
Section IV – Evidence for Meeting StandardsThe narrative for each assessment must include:
1. Description of the assessment and its use in the program
2. Alignment to NASPE Standards3. Brief analysis of data findings4. Interpretation of how the data provides evidence of
meeting the standards5. Assessment documentation
Assessment instrument itself Scoring guide/rubric Date derived from assessment
REPORT DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAM
Section IV – Evidence for Meeting StandardsTips:
Rubrics are critical! In my experience, rubrics are the #1 “fatal flaw” (Lund, 2006) A poor rubric will negate the rest of an otherwise well-planned
assessment
Generally see 3 types of rubrics:
REPORT DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAM
Section IV – Evidence for Meeting Standards1) No differentiation between levels of
performance(checklist format)
REPORT DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAM
Section IV – Evidence for Meeting Standards2) Minimal differentiation between levels of
performance; use of qualifier words
REPORT DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAM
Section IV – Evidence for Meeting Standards3) Detailed description that describes
performance at each rubric level; rich description (also known as qualitative or holistic rubrics)
REPORT DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAM
Section IV – Evidence for Meeting StandardsCreating Assessments – Best to create broad
assessments that can provide evidence for meeting several standards/outcomes Teaching portfolio of collected works (online?),
student teaching evaluation, curriculum plan, cycle of instruction assignment, generic skill evaluation rubric, case studies, individual child project, field experience capstone (pre-student teaching) TCs cannot just collect material into a portfolio and
call it an assessment. They must act upon the material.
REPORT DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAM
Section IV – Evidence for Meeting StandardsAssessment 1 – Typically state licensure
test Endeavor to provide generalized information
regarding to content of the test (motor learning, exercise science, history of PE, issues, fitness, tactics, etc) If possible, include source documents from the body
that administers the test (State Ed usually) Assessment 1 cannot provide evidence for
meeting performance-based standards (#’s 3-6) Communication, behavior management, student
assessment, etc
REPORT DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAM
Section IV – Evidence for Meeting StandardsAssessment 5 – Effect on student learning
Tips: Provide evidence of TCs ability to influence
student learning in a school setting. May include assignments both given to AND completed by students.
REVIEW PROCESS- PROGRAM
Section IV – Evidence for Meeting StandardsOutcomes for each standard
Endeavor to provide evidence for all of the outcomes identified with each standard. Programs are not currently required to meet all outcomes. Standards are holistically
assessed via a preponderance of evidence and professional judgment. Varies depending on the number of outcomes Less objective than desired
Rigor Lack of discrimination – If every student (100%) passes an assessment for past three
years, does it sufficiently challenge TCs and demonstrate achievement of meaningful & challenging skills and behaviors?
REPORT DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAM
Section IV – Evidence for Meeting StandardsPolicy on the Use of Course Grades
Are acceptable but must follow several specific documentation guidelines See: http://www.ncate.org/institutions/
GuidelinesGrades.asp?ch=90 Grades can be used for assessment #1 (if there
is no state licensure test), assessment #2, or one of the optional assessments (#’s 7 or 8)
REPORT DEVELOPMENT
- PROGRAM
Section IV – Evidence for Meeting Standards CCSU
Assessments
1 Praxis II[Licensure assessment, or other content-based assessment]
2 Physical Education Grade Point Average[Assessment of content knowledge in physical education]
3 Mid-Point Planning Assessment[Assessment of candidate ability to plan instruction]
4 Student Teaching Evaluations[Assessment of internship or clinical experiences]
5 Student Teaching Exit Portfolio[Assessment of candidate effect on student learning]
6 Skills Competency RubricAdditional assessment that addresses AAHPERD/NASPE standards (required) ]
7 Professional Dispositions RubricAdditional assessment that addresses AAHPERD/NASPE standards (optional) ]
8 Portfolio and Development Task Additional assessment that addresses AAHPERD/NASPE standards (optional) ]
REPORT DEVELOPMENT- PROGRAM
Section V – Use of Assessments Results to Improve Candidate and Program PerformanceTips:
The focus of section V is linking data from assessment results to program or student improvement. Don’t just say how the program has improved
What if you have collected data that can be used to improve program or student performance but have not acted on it? 1) OK – Explain your conclusions and state that the
program is currently collaborating to formulate new policy
2) Best – Explain your conclusions and how you plan to improve the program. Include documentation if it exists. Future planned improvements are 80% reality
REPORT DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAM
Section VI – Revised Reports If submitting a rejoinder for a met with conditions
report, the reviewers are instructed to ONLY examine information related to the conditions and not the entire report This eliminates “double jeopardy”
REPORT DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAM
Helpful resources from NCATE Guidelines for preparing the program report NCATE reviewer guidelines Checklist for evaluating assessments Checklist for program report Guidelines for revised reports Guidelines on the use of course grades
REVIEW PROCESS- REVIEWERS
3 reviewers Undergone training and online web seminars Start as assistant reviewer and promoted to lead
Expectations Confidentiality Avoid conflict of interest Keep digging (even if evidence is in wrong section) Make ALL decisions based on evidence presented
Be objective; avoid personal judgments Refrain from prescriptive language
Program should endeavor to…
REVIEW PROCESS- REVIEWERS
Online review process1. Access files online and create working deadline2. Develop program report
Continually compare assessments to standards Read entire report once before entering evaluative mode Evaluate assessments via worksheet
3. Post individual report and review others’
REVIEW PROCESS- REVIEWERS
Online review process4. Conference Call
Collaboratively review evidence for each standard Reach consensus final judgments for each standard
(8/10 on last report) and overall result
5. Lead reviewer creates and posts final report6. Assistant reviewers review final report, sign off7. NCATE auditors examine final report
REVIEW PROCESS- REVIEWERS
Recognition Decisions Nationally recognized
Contingent upon unit accreditation May include some Areas for Improvement (AFI)
Nationally recognized with conditions Must resubmit within 18 months to remove conditions Program will have two opportunities within 18 months to
resubmit Not nationally recognized
Program will have two opportunities to resubmit within 12-14 months to attain “nationally recognized” or “nationally recognized with conditions”
REVIEW PROCESS- REVIEWERS
NEW NASPE/NCATE STANDARDS
A look under the hood 2008 National Initial
Physical Education Teacher Education Standards (NASPE/NCATE) Unofficially the 6th edition
(1st in 1985). Programs must meet all
outcomes under each standard. Not holistically judged
REFERENCES Butler, J. (2006). An introduction to NCATE and
NASPE/NCATE beginning teacher standards. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 77(2), 15-19, 31-32
Dyson, B. (2006). NASPE/NCATE report preparation for the accreditation process. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 77(2), 13-14.
Lund. J. (2006). Creating rubrics for NCATE reports. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 77(3), 13-17, 31.
Martin, R. J., & Judd, M. (2006). The NASPE/NCATE program report from the reviewers’ lens. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 77(3), 25-31.
REFERENCES National Council on the Accreditation of Teacher
Education (n.d.) Institutions. Retrieved January, 31, 2009 from http://www.ncate.org/subhomepage.asp?audience=institutions
National Council on the Accreditation of Teacher Education (n.d.) Program Reviewers. Retrieved January, 31, 2009 from http://www.ncate.org/subhomepage.asp?audience=program%20review
Senne, T. A. (2006). Program report process and practical suggestions. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 77(3), 18-24, 31.
FEAR NOT
This is not mission impossible. Prepare in advance and pay attention to the details and your program will achieve accreditation!!!
Q U E S T I O N S
MATERIALS/CONTACT INFO
For all materials used in today’s presentation, visit: Http://thenewpe.com/ (click conference
presentations)
Contact info: Matthew Cummiskey [email protected] (860) 832 - 2123