Reviewer Training
5/18/2012
WelcomeWelcome& Introductions& Introductions
Co-Chairs:
NHDOERepresentative: Bob McLaughlin
IHE and P12 educators
Two members of the NH Council for Teacher
Education serving as team co-chairs
One representative from the NHDOE
Support continuous program improvement
Ensure NH’s IHEs are effectively preparing future educators
Purposeful Supportive Collegial Interactive Demonstrating integrity Focused on evidence Identifying continuous improvement Confidential
General Education (Ed 609.01) Professional Education (Ed 610.02) “Unit” Standards (C-I-A-R)
◦ Curriculum
◦ Instruction
◦ Assessment (Program & Candidate)
◦ Resources
These standards are reviewed by co-chairs with input from reviewers.
Individual Endorsements for INSERT IHE NAME HERE
◦ Elementary Education K-8 (Ed 612.04)
◦ Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities (Ed 612.10)
◦ Specific Learning Disabilities (Ed 612.11)
◦ Special Education (Ed 612.07)
◦ English Language Arts 5-12 (Ed 612.05)
◦ Life Sciences 7-12 (Ed 612.25)
◦ Social Studies 5-12 (Ed 612.28)
These standards are reviewed by individual program reviewers with support from co-chairs.
Standards are Developed by the Professional Standards Board
Approved by the State Board of Education Monitored by the Council for Teacher
Education
Ed 61X.XX NAME OF ENDORSEMENT
RATING: Either: On Standard or Approaching Standard or Standard Not Met
RATIONALE (Required)Describe the reviewed evidence that led to this rating.
RECOMMENDATION(Required if standard is “approaching” or “not met.”)
COMMENDATIONS (Optional)
Review Evidence of Teaching and Learning (e.g.)
◦Candidate work samples◦Course materials◦Direct observations◦Records and documents◦Testimony from interviews◦Alumni and/or employer surveys of
graduates’ preparedness
essays journal entries
lesson plans notes performances
portfolios reflections reports test responses etc.
assignments handouts notes lectures/lecture outlines tests, quizzes Samples of assessed candidate work
evaluation rubrics etc.
advising materials contracts e-mails handbooks organizational
charts meeting agendas meeting minutes meeting notes procedures
policy statements/ booklets
program descriptions and requirements
reports from other program reviews: local, regional, state, national
schedules student records etc.
administrators candidates faculty staff graduates/alums cooperating professionals others, as appropriate
On Standard
Review of the evidence indicates that the overall standard is met
Usually requires a mix of types of evidence Look at the whole, not the individual sub-items
within a standard Consider the Institution’s understanding and
interpretation of the standard Consult with co-chairs & team if uncertain
Approaching Standard
Although some evidence is provided, this evidence does not indicate overall compliance with the standard.
Request additional information from the IHE during the review process about potentially unmet standards
Consult with co-chairs if uncertain
Standard Not Met
Evidence of overall compliance with standard is not available, even when requested. Consult with co-chairs if uncertain
Rationale◦ List evidence to be reviewed for the rating
◦ Required to explain Approaching or Standard Not Met rating
◦ WRITE COMMENT TO EXPLAIN RATIONALE FOR EACH STANDARD
Recommendation◦ “Institution will need to provide evidence that …”
(complete sentence using language in standard)
Commendations (OPTIONAL)◦ Only if something is exemplary and goes well beyond
the expectations of the standard
Serves as the ‘abstract’ for your program Provides a brief explanation of program Provides narrative summary for final program
report to complement data from matrix Informs Council members to support their
decision regarding approval Note: This is not the place for personal
congratulations or appreciation to the program; this is a formal report.
Also, please use no individual’s name, and state “the reviewer” rather than “I”.
Comment on sources and quality of evidence
Summarize the program’s strengths If all standards were met, say so! Identify any areas of concern Summarize approaching or unmet standards
(if any) and the related recommendations Highlight commendations (if any) Keep it brief (< 1 page is fine)
Institutional Mission Core Values Governance structures Faculty style or personality Delivery models Activities not related to PEPP standards
Provide advice as to how to change the program
Compare their program to another program
Critique the readings, assignments, or syllabi
Make recommendations that aren't related to standards
Completed by each reviewer
Summary Findings for each program Individual Program Matrix with documentation for
each standard Program Recommendation Approval Options:
◦ Full Approval◦ Approval with Conditions◦ Not Approved◦ Provisional Approval ( new programs only)
Save Everything!Save Everything!
Completed by co-chairs
Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment & Resources matrices
Ed 609 and ED 610 matrices Summary Findings from each reviewer All matrices submitted to provide
documentation of each standard and the review process
Program Approval Recommendations
Before you leave, submit to co-chairs: Electronic and signed paper copies of Ed 612/614
and Ed 610 matrices and summary findings Your flash drive Program Approval Recommendation form [signed]
Keep copies of documents Maintain confidentiality
Team report is shared with Institution for factual errors.
Council for Teacher Education reviews report.
Institution attends Council meeting and responds to questions from reactors.
CTE makes a recommendation to the State Board of Education.
Top Related