Slide 1Slide 1

Educator Preparation Advisory Council (EPAC)

Subcommittee Reports and 2015 Action Plan

December 5, 2014

Welcome and Introductions

Sarah Barzee, Chief Talent Officer, CSDE

Elsa Nunez, President, Eastern CT State University

Slide 2

Slide 3

Purpose

Purpose of the meeting is to report progress to date and seek your feedback on:

EPAC Progress Report to the State Board on Nov 5

EPAC Subcommittee preliminary recommendations

CEEDAR IHE Team progress report

Action plan for 2015

Non-Purpose

Approve final recommendations because:

All three subcommittees are not yet at the final recommendation stage

Other factors to impact our final design of data & accountability system and program review process:

New procedures for accreditation yet to be released by the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP)

Proposed Title II Higher Education Act regulations just released by US Dept of Education

Slide 4

Slide 5Slide 5

EPAC Principles for Transformation of Teacher and

School Leader Preparation

1. Program Entry Standards

2. Staffing & Support of Clinical Experiences

3. Clinical Experience Requirements

4. District-Program Partnerships & Shared Responsibility

5. Program Completion & Candidate Assessment Standards

6. Program Effectiveness & Accountability

Slide 6Slide 6

Principles were based on EPAC Recommendations

Identified need for more rigorous and relevant:

Preparation of teachers and school leaders aligned with the needs of students, schools and districts

Standards for entry through exit from preparation programs

Data/Accountability systems

Reform of state program approval system for continuing and new programs

BeliefsThe EPAC Principles were developed and synthesized within the context of three beliefs:

Do No Harm. The policies governing and requirements for teacher preparation programs must be based on practices that are demonstrated to have a positive impact on teacher effectiveness and student learning.

Encourage Innovation. Where there is a reasonable expectation of positive outcomes but limited evidence or data exists, Connecticut should further explore the practice and encourage innovation by preparation programs, districts and other stakeholders.

Be Aspirational. The CSDE should lead with high aspirations for the state’s educator preparation programs, setting rigorous standards and expectations for all educators to ensure every student has an excellent teacher.

Slide 7

2014 Activities

3 working subcommittees in 3 areas: Program Review Data and Accountability System Assessment Development

Subcommittees met between Feb-Nov 2014 and included EPAC members and additional K-12/IHE representatives: Data – 7 meetings Program Review – 4 meetings Assessment Development – 2 meetings

Slide 8

PresentersPresenters Role

Irv Richardson, Consultant

Facilitation of Q & A following each subcommittee report out

Ken Di PietroSuperintendent, Plainfield

Report out on Program Review

Colleen PalmerSuperintendent, Weston

Report out on Data & Accountability

Nancy HoffmanCCSU Professor

Report out on Assessment Development

Suzanne RobinsonCEEDAR Center FacilitatorUniversity of Kansas

Report out on CEEDAR

Irv Richardson Action Plan Development

Slide 9

Program Review Subcommittee

Report

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 11

SBE PROGRAM APPROVAL DECISIONBased on evaluation of qualitative and quantitative data

Quantitative Review

Collection, analysis and reporting of multiple data sources to monitor individual program quality and improve program effectiveness.

Qualitative Review

Review of programs based on qualitative criteria and evidence (curricula/syllabi, program reports, interview data, etc. ) with focused review of individual programs if accountability data indicates performance issues.

Model Guiding Work of EPAC Subcommittees

Slide 12

Proposed recommendations:Standards for Program Review: Adopt the five broad standards of Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) standards

Review Process: Adopt some or most of the CAEP visit process with state teams participating in joint process with national team members. Awaiting December 2014 release of CAEP accreditation and visit process details.

Additional State Process: State team will conduct “focused review” of programs identified as at-risk or low-performing based on accountability data and issue an addendum to CAEP report with their findings.

Program Review

CAEP Standards

Standard 1: Content and Pedagogical Knowledge

Standard 2: Clinical Partnerships and Practice

Standard 3: Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and Selectivity

Standard 4: Program Impact

Standard 5: Provider Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement

Slide 13

Program ReviewProposed recommendations:

Commence drafting new program approval regulations outlining:

Definitions Minimum requirements such as admission and exit, clinical

experiences, etc. Approval Cycle Decision rules that combine qualitative & quantitative data and

recommendation to the State Review Committee Approval decisions by the Board and procedural requirements

by level of approval Just cause to conduct off-cycle review Other policies concerning new program approval, low

enrollment programs, etc.Slide

14

Data and Accountability Subcommittee

Report

Slide 15

Slide 16

Design of Data SystemTo serve three purposes:

Public Profile Data

Program Improvement Data

Accountability Data

Profile Data

Slide 17

https://title2.ed.gov/Public/Report/StateHome.aspx

Profile DataProfile of completers/graduates by program

Completers in shortage areas

Completers by race/ethnicity

Employment data

Slide 18

2013 Profile Data (2011-12 Academic Year)

Total Enrollment 5716 Female/Male 75%/25%

Total Completers 2092

Race/Ethnicity Enrollments Hispanic 290

Am Indian/Alaska Native

15

Asian 88

Black/Af Am 222

White Enrollment 4606

Other 54

N FTE Faculty Supv Clin Exp 249.56

N FTE Adjunct Supv Clin Exp

956

N Candidates in Supv Clin Exp

2811 Slide 19

Profile Data

Slide 20

Program Improvement Data

Slide 21

Program Improvement Data

Slide 22

4 Categories and 12 indicators of accountability:o Program selectivity, entry and completion o Candidate pre-service performance o Candidate employment, persistence, in-service performance o District Partnership Leadership (institutional level data)NOTE: Some indicators require measures yet to be developed, piloted,

implemented (see assessment subcommittee).

Accountability decision rules will result in:o Program designation as Effective, At-Risk or Low-performingo Focused qualitative program review by state team

Slide 23

Accountability System

Accountability SystemDecision rules ultimately will lead to identifying a

program (not institution) as: Effective At-Risk or Low-performing Recommendations to include high level designation Proposed federal Title II Regulations require 4 rating levels:

the three listed above + Exceptional

Link with the qualitative review of educator preparation programs (EPPs) through the state program review process

Link indicators with new Title II Higher Education Act

Slide 24

*Proposed Title II Teacher Prep Regs

Key Indicators to be reported annually by states must minimally include:

Employment outcomes: New teacher placement and three-year retention rates, including in high-need schools

Teacher and employer feedback: Surveys on the effectiveness of prep

Student learning outcomes: Effectiveness of new teachers as demonstrated through measures of student growth, performance on state or local teacher evaluation measures that include data on student growth, or both, during their first three teaching years

Assurance of specialized accreditation, or evidence that a program produces candidates with content and pedagogical knowledge and quality clinical preparation, who have met rigorous entry and exit requirements.

*60-day public comment period with the final rules to be published in mid-2015.Slide

25

Consider CAEP Requirements

Slide 26

Slide 27

Consider CAEP Requirements

Accountability Categories, Indicators, Weights and Decision Rules

Category Indicator1. Program

selectivity, entry and completion

completer/graduation rates (CAEP)

admission selectivity criteria and goals   

2. Candidate pre-service

performance

pass rates by program for external assessments (including Praxis II, ACTFL, Foundations of Reading, CAT, etc.) (CAEP)

pre-service performance assessments (CAEP)   

3. Candidate employment,

persistence and in-service

performance

numbers initial employed in CT schools (of those candidates residing in CT using Dept of Labor data using occupational code) (CAEP)

employment of completers in hard to staff or high-need schools persistence rate: years in field after 1st and 3rd year of teaching or school leadership/admin/special service (CAEP)surveys of candidates 1-3 years from program completion and feedback on readiness for service (identify how many years out of preparation/distance away from completion date and how many/% stay in CT) (CAEP)

surveys of employers about candidates readiness 1-3 years from program completion (Supt will identify who is to receive these surveys supt or designees) (CAEP)

summative teacher level educator evaluation data (CAEP)   

4. District Partnership Leadership

(institutional level data)

surveys of superintendents regarding shared responsibility and shared accountability with preparing institution partners surveys of deans of education regarding shared responsibility and shared accountability with district partners

Slide 28

Assessment Development Subcommittee

Report

Slide 29

Assessment Development

Proposed recommendations:

1. Develop/consider of the following assessment measures: New Teacher and Employer Feedback Surveys (CSDE

administered)

New School Leader and Employer Feedback Surveys (CSDE administered)

Pre-Service Performance Assessment Measure of IHE/District Partnership Quality

2. Do not develop a statewide student teaching instrument with required training for cooperating teachers and univ supervisors due to time, cost and capacity issues,

Slide 30

Assessment DevelopmentOn Nov 20, the subcommittee heard presentations

on the following pre-service performance assessments:

National Observational Teacher Exam (NOTE), which includes a performance assessment component and content knowledge for teaching items

edTPA, a portfolio assessment that includes 5 parts assessed against 15 rubrics

Pre-Service Performance Assessment (PPAT) which includes 5 parts but only 3 assessed against rubrics

Slide 31

Assessment DevelopmentProposed recommendations:

3. At this point, the subcommittee recommends further review of edTPA and other supporting policies: Review of the 15 rubrics Review of assessment handbooks and training

outlines Consider adoption for a set period of time, including a

pilot study Develop a fund to pay for this assessment for low-

income candidates (20-25%) Reduce other testing requirements once adopted

Note: Data from edTPA will meet requirements for CAEP accreditation and the Accountability System

Slide 32

Collaboration for Effective Educator Development,

Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR)

Report

Slide 33

Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform

CEEDAR

Funded by the US Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) with goal of improving outcomes for students with disabilities as a technical assistance grant to support states engaged in:

Reforming teacher and leadership preparation programs to embed evidence based practices

Revising licensure standards to align with reforms in teacher and leader preparation

Refining personnel evaluation systems in teacher and leader preparation programs

Realigning policy structures and professional learning systems

Slide 34

CEEDAR

Slide 35

• Connecticut’s state goal is to focus on the design and implementation of pre-service curricula for all TEACHER candidates (special education and non-special education) in order to provide opportunities to learn and demonstrate competency in evidence-based practices to improve core and specialized instruction to support SWD, ELLs and struggling learners reach college- and career-ready (CCR) standards in reading, writing and comprehension skills in argumentation.

• Faculty teams collaborate to evaluate and revise syllabi based on national research and identified essential elements contained in the innovation configurations in literacy, writing and culturally responsive practice.

• Revised curricula evaluated by external experts and provide feedback

• Scale up with other Connecticut IHEs

Syllabi reviews require identification of gaps, redundancies and priorities in program curricula relative to the CEEDAR Innovation Configurations (ICs) and evidence-based practices (EBPs)

Faculty must review the content taught relative to ICs and the level of practice/competency expected of candidates in current courses

Program syllabi are revised based on goals for preparing candidates to teach students to achieve core standards in literacy and argumentation

Slide 36

Level 1:

reading, test, lecture/presentation, discussion, modeling/demonstration, or quiz

Level 2:

observation, projects/activity, case study, lesson plan study

Level 3:

tutoring, small group student teaching, whole group internship

CEEDAR

CEEDARExcerpt from IC for Literacy Grades 6-12

37

  Content Area Literacy & Disciplinary Literacy

RS 5.1English/Language Arts: Author’s purpose, point of view, theme

RS 5.2 English/Language Arts: Literal & implied meaning of textRS 5.3 Social Studies/History: Sourcing of primary documentsRS 5.4 Social Studies/History: ContextualizationRS 5.5 Social Studies/History: SummarizationRS 5.6 Social Studies/History: CorroborationRS 5.7 Science: Scientific meaning of vocabularyRS 5.8 Science: Relationships among conceptsRS 5.9 Science: Interpretation of graphs, charts, & formulasRS 5.10 Mathematics: Vocabulary of mathematics, Greek symbolsRS 5.11 Mathematics: Mathematical communication

RS 5.12Mathematics: Alignment of mathematical representations with text explanations

2015-2016 Action Plan

Slide 38

Timeline BenchmarksWork within and towards implementation dates of:

CAEP Implementation of new data-based accreditation process – Fall 2016

Federal Title II Report Requirements, Starting in 2016-17, reporting of all new data on 2015-

16 completers, for earliest first year of teaching in 2016-17, for the April 2018 pilot Title II report by U.S. Secretary of Education in

Begin reporting 4-level program performance ratings in 2017-18

Slide 39

2015 NTEP Implementation Plan

Proposed plan for Nov – Oct 2015 for:

Stakeholder Engagement

Program Approval Development

Data Collection, Analysis and Reporting

Licensure/Certification

Slide 40

Action Plan DevelopmentPolicy Area Pilot /Review

DateImplementation Date

Data & Accountability System Design

Assessment Development

Program Review/ Approval andRelated Regulations

Certification Regulations

Supply & Demand Report

Meeting Dates (virtual or in-person)

Slide 41

Follow-up and Thank YouWe will follow-up with you about our final action

plan including future convenings of full EPAC

Subcommittees will continue to meet spring 2015

We will focus on strategies to increase stakeholder engagement and communication

THANKS to EPAC, subcommittees members and national and state colleagues for your support and contributions to the work of educator preparation reform

Slide 42