1 / 22

New Hampshire Council for Teacher Education

New Hampshire Council for Teacher Education. Reviewer Training 2011. Welcome & Introductions Co-Chairs. Climate for Program Review. Purposeful Supportive Collegial Interactive Demonstrating integrity Focused on evidence Identifying continuous improvement Confidential.

ranger
Download Presentation

New Hampshire Council for Teacher Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. New Hampshire Council for Teacher Education Reviewer Training 2011

  2. Welcome & Introductions Co-Chairs

  3. Climate for Program Review • Purposeful • Supportive • Collegial • Interactive • Demonstrating integrity • Focused on evidence • Identifying continuous improvement • Confidential

  4. Professional Educator Preparation Program (PEPP) Standards • General Education (Ed 609.01) • Professional Education (Ed 610.02) • “Unit” Standards (C-I-A-R) • Curriculum • Instruction (Including Student Teaching) • Assessment (Program & Candidate) • Resources • Reviewed by co-chairs w. input from team

  5. Specific Program Standards • Individual Endorsements • Early Childhood (Ed 612.03) • Elementary Education K-8 (Ed 612.04) • Life Science gr. 7-12 (Ed 612.25) • plus Science “General” Requirements (Ed 612.23) • Middle Level Science gr. 5-9 (Ed. 612.22) • School Principal (Ed. 614.04) • Reviewed by individual program reviewers w. support from co-chairs

  6. Reviewer Matriceshttp://www.education.nh.gov/certification/matrices_ihes_reviewers.htm Standards are developed by the Professional Standards Board and approved by the State Board of Education. Ed 61X.XX NAME OF ENDORSEMENT RATING: On Standard Or Standard Not Met RATIONALE (Required) Describe the reviewed evidence that led to this rating. RECOMMENDATION (Required if standard is “not met.”) COMMENDATIONS (Optional)

  7. Your Task • Review Evidence of Teaching and Learning • Candidate work samples • Course materials • Direct observations • Records and documents • Testimony from interviews

  8. Candidate Work Samples • portfolios • reflections • reports • test responses • etc. • essays • journal entries • lesson plans • notes • performances

  9. Course Materials • assignments • handouts • notes • lectures/lecture outlines • tests, quizzes • evaluation rubrics • etc.

  10. Direct Observations of • college class sessions • candidates’ field experience settings • communications/interactions • performances • etc.

  11. Records & Documents • policy statements/ booklets • program descriptions and requirements • reports from other program reviews: local, regional, state, national • schedules • student records • etc. • advising materials • contracts • e-mails • Handbooks • organizational charts • meeting agendas • meeting minutes • meeting notes • procedures

  12. Testimony from Interviews with: • administrators • candidates • faculty • staff • graduates/alums • cooperating professionals • others, as appropriate

  13. Make a Decision: YEA or NAY • 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 • Not on Standard • Evidence of overall compliance w. standard is not available

  14. Write Comments • Commendations (OPTIONAL) • Only if something is exemplary and goes well beyond the expectations of the standard • Recommendations • Required to explain Not on Standard rating • Institution will need to provide evidence that … (complete sentence w. language in standard)

  15. Summary Findings • Serves as the ‘abstract’ for your review of the program • Provides a brief explanation of program • Provides narrative summary for final program report to compliment 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.

  16. Suggestions for Writing Summary Findings • Summarize the program’s strengths • If all standards were met, say so! • Comment on sources and quality of evidence • Identify any areas of concern • Summarize recommendations and unmet standards (if any) • Highlight commendations (if any) • Keep it brief (< 1 page is fine)

  17. Not Reviewing: • Institutional Mission • Core Values • Governance structures • Faculty style or personality • Delivery models • Activities not related to PEPP standards

  18. Not our job to… • 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

  19. Product: Program Report & Recommendation • Summary Findings for each program • Matrix with documentation for each standard and review process • Program Recommendation • Approval Options: • Full Approval • Approval with Conditions • Not Approved • Provisional Approval ( new programs only) Save Everything!

  20. Team Report & Recommendations • 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

  21. Final Request • Submit electronic copy of matrix and summary findings to co-chairs before you leave. • Keep copies of documents • Maintain confidentiality

  22. Next steps… • Team report is shared with Institution for factual errors. • Council of TE reviews report. • Institution attends Council meeting and responds to questions from reactors. • CTE makes a recommendation to the State Board of Education.

More Related