2014 amle conference lienne medford ken mcewin
DESCRIPTION
To determine if: ◦ middle level teacher preparation programs have comprehensive assessments that demonstrate candidate mastery of the AMLE Middle Level Teacher Preparation Standards ◦ performance on these assessments is appropriate to demonstrate mastery. To provide information for unit to use to respond to CAEP Standard 1 To achieve National RecognitionTRANSCRIPT
AMLE/CAEP Middle Level Teacher Preparation Standards
2014 AMLE ConferenceLienne Medford
[email protected] McEwin
Dr. Lienne Medford
◦ Office 864 250-8891
Lienne is at Clemson University and will be an off-site consultant for AMLE.
Her responsibilities include coordinating the AMLE/CAEP national program review process.
New AMLE Program Review Coordinator January 1, 2015
To determine if:
◦ middle level teacher preparation programs have comprehensive assessments that demonstrate candidate mastery of the AMLE Middle Level Teacher Preparation Standards
◦ performance on these assessments is appropriate to demonstrate mastery.
To provide information for unit to use to respond to CAEP Standard 1
To achieve National Recognition
Purpose of Program Review
The recognition decision factors into CAEP Unit Standard 1, which says:
◦ The provider ensures that candidates develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their discipline and, by completion, are able to use discipline-specific practices flexibly to advance the learning of all students toward attainment of college-and career-readiness standards.
Relationship between Program Review and Unit Review-CAEP
1.3 Providers ensure that completers apply content and pedagogical knowledge as reflected in outcome assessments in response to standards of Specialized Professional Associations (SPA), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), states, or other accrediting bodies (e.g., National Association of Schools of Music – NASM).
Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions
Some states require national recognition from AMLE for the continuation of programs.
Some states require the national program approval process, but do not tie results to the continuation of programs.
Some states have only a state approval process.
Some states allow individual programs to select the state or national program approval process.
All partnership agreements between the states and CAEP are currently being renegotiated.
Program Approval State Options
Alabama Michigan South DakotaArkansas New Hampshire West VirginiaHawaii Ohio WyomingKansas OklahomaLouisiana Oregon
New Partnership Agreements 2014
Assessment 1: State Licensure Exam Assessment 2: Additional Content Assessment
(AMLE Standards Content) Assessment 3: Assessment of Candidates’ Ability to
Plan Instruction Assessment 4: Assessment of Student
Teaching/Internship Performance Assessment 5: Assessment of Candidate Impact on
Student Performance Assessment 6: Additional Required Assessment Assessments 7 & 8: Optional Additional
Assessments
Option A
The Five Required Assessments (Option A) Content domain (#1 and #2)
#1 Licensure test in the content area
If there is no required state test, then the program must substitute a different content-based assessment.
#2 An additional content-based assessment of the program’s choice. [AMLE Standards]
The Five Required Assessments: Pedagogy/skills domain (#3 and #4)
#3 Assessment of ability to plan or implement learning experiences (e.g., apply elements of the instructional design process)
#4 Assessment of candidate efficacy in practice (internship, practicum, observed practice). This assessment is based on the evaluation of candidate performance in an authentic setting.
The Five Required Assessments: Student learning domain (#5)
#5 Assessment of candidate impact on student learning, or providing a supporting learning environment.
This assessment requires that candidates have an opportunity to test their own effectiveness in a field-based setting.
Candidates can… Judge students’ prior learning, Plan and teach lessons, Assess student learning, Reflect on student learning, and Make adjustments to their teaching to
improve learning.
#6, 7, 8. Remaining assessments are not specifically defined to provide flexibility.
Programs choose their own assessments No more than eight assessments. Must submit state test data (Assessment 1) Must demonstrate content, pedagogical content
knowledge and skills, and impact on student learning
Must have assessment of candidate impact on student learning or for non- teaching programs, candidate impact on providing a supportive learning environment-Assessment 2
Must meet SPA standards
Option B
Designed to reduce the documentation requirements for programs already nationally recognized
Can be used by programs that were previously nationally recognized using the six to eight key assessment model and whose standards have not changed since the last submission.
Must submit current data on all assessments
Cannot be used after the fall 2014 review cycle because newer 2012 Standards are required.
Focus on Section V—self study and continuous improvement
Option C
Program conducts validity and reliability studies of its assessments in lieu of other program report evidence requirements
Must seek permission from CAEP to pursue Option D in advance
Option D
Some states may add a new self-study option.
States determine which options are available in their respective states.
The self-study option does not lead to national recognition.
New Option for Some States
What is Alignment? Assessments address the concepts included
in the specific AMLE standards!
Assessments and rubrics/scoring guides must contain the language and content of the AMLE Standards.
Three Parts of the Assessments
The assessment instrument (information or directions that are given to candidates –- not for licensure test or edTPA)
The scoring guides/rubrics by which the assessment is evaluated –- not for the licensure test [Explain scoring]
The aggregated data that represent candidate scores or grades on the assessment (data table) [The use of grades is strongly discouraged.]
More on Scoring Guides
The scoring guide should describe the performance that is expected of a candidate at the unacceptable, acceptable, and target levels. (Note: programs may differ in their descriptions and differentiation of candidate performance, although threshold performance should be defined for both candidates and reviewers.)
The description of threshold (minimal acceptable) performance must reflect AMLE Standards.
Data Tables
Data should be disaggregated to show candidate performance on each evaluated item as it relates to standards.
It is not sufficient for candidates to be evaluated on the content of the standards, but reviewers are only told that “everyone got an “A” or “B” or had a particular grade point average--for example., 3.2 on a 4 point scale.
It is highly recommended that grades (GPAs) not be submitted as evidence that standards have been met.
Initial – Report submitted at the beginning of an accreditation cycle
Response to Conditions – Report submitted in response to the feedback received in the recognition report. ◦ The program received “Nationally Recognized with Conditions”
Revised – Report submitted in response to the feedback received in the program report. ◦ The program received “Further Development Required” or
“National Recognition with Probation.”
Three Report Types
National Recognition
National Recognition with Conditions◦ Program has 18 months to address conditions before losing recognition status
Further Development Required◦ Program has 12 months to address problems in the previous report before
losing recognition status
National Recognition with Probation◦ Program has 12 months to address problems in the previous report before
losing recognition status
Not Recognized
Recognition Decisions
The new 2012 AMLE Middle Level Teacher Preparation Standards were officially approved in January of 2013.
The transition period where either the 2001 or 2012 Standards ends with the Fall 2014 review cycle.
The standards and accompanying materials are posted on the AMLE website.
There are five standards and 17 elements.
◦ http://www.amle.org/AboutAMLE/ProfessionalPreparation/AMLEStandards.aspx
2012 AMLE Standards
Standard 1: Young Adolescent Development
Standard 2: Middle Level Curriculum
Standard 3: Middle Level Philosophy and School Organization
Standard 4: Middle Level Instruction and Assessment
Standard 5: Middle Level Professional Roles
Five New Standards
Advanced Graduate AMLE Standards (advanced masters and doctoral levels) have been eliminated and will not be reviewed when the new 2012 standards are used.
◦ CAEP no longer requires the review of advanced programs with the exception of those that lead to initial licensure.
◦ MAT-type middle level teacher preparation programs will continue to be reviewed using the initial level standards.
Differences in Current and Revised Standards
The two AMLE programmatic standards have been eliminated:
◦ Middle Level Field Experiences◦ Qualified Middle Level Faculty
Standards and elements have been rewritten to more directly include performance-based language.
Differences in Current and Revised Standards
The Family and Community Involvement Standard has been eliminated as a separate standard to avoid possible duplication with content found in the unit standards.
◦ It has been refined and become an element under Standard 5: Middle Level Professional Roles.
Element B: “Middle Level Student Standards” was added to Standard 2: Middle Level Curriculum.
Differences in Current and Revised Standards
The Teaching Fields Standard (subject matter) has been eliminated and redefined.
◦ It is now Element A: Subject Matter Knowledge and included in Standard 2: Middle Level Curriculum.
The Middle Level Professional Roles Standard has been revised to better reflect the professional roles played by middle level teacher candidates.
Differences in Current and Revised Standards
A more comprehensive emphasis has been placed on diversity and technology.
◦ For example Element B of Young Adolescent Development is now “Knowledge of the Implications of Diversity on Young Adolescent Development.”
Differences in Current and Revised Standards
Elements have been added to Standard 4: Middle Level Instruction and Assessment:
◦ Element A: Content Pedagogy
◦ Element C: Middle level Assessment and Data-Informed Instruction
◦ Element D: Young Adolescent Motivation
Differences in Current and Revised Standards
All standards have elements which further define each respective standard.
Supporting explanations have been written for all standards.
Rubrics have undergone significant revisions to reflect the new standards.
References for the research base for standards have been added.
Differences in Current and Revised Standards
All SPAs are moving to a common standards format.
This new format is being implemented as new standards are approved.
There are four Principles under which standards are placed.
New Format for AMLE Standards
There are four principles that provide a framework for standards for all SPAs.
◦ Principle A: The Learner and Learning
◦ Principle B: Content
◦ Principle C: Instructional Practice
◦ Principle D: Professional Responsibilities
New Format: CAEP Principles
The Learner and Learning◦ Standard 1: Young Adolescent Development
Content◦ Standard 2: Middle Level Curriculum◦ Standard 3: Middle Level Philosophy and School Organization
Instructional Practice◦ Standard 4: Middle Level Instruction and Assessment
Professional Responsibilities◦ Standard 5: Middle Level Professional Roles
AMLE Standards and CAEP Principles
Middle level teacher candidates understand, use, and reflect on the major concepts, principles, theories, and research related to young adolescent development and use that knowledge in their practice. They demonstrate their ability to apply this knowledge when making curricular decisions, planning and implementing instruction, participating in middle level programs and practices, and providing healthy and effective learning environments for all young adolescents.
Example Standard 1: Young Adolescent Development
Element a. Knowledge of Young Adolescent Development: Middle level teacher candidates demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of young adolescent development. They use this understanding of the intellectual, physical, social, emotional, and moral characteristics, needs, and interests of young adolescents to create healthy, respectful, supportive, and challenging learning environments for all young adolescents, including those whose language and cultures are different from their own.
Element b. Knowledge of the Implications of Diversity on Young Adolescent Development: Middle level teacher candidates demonstrate their understanding of the implications of diversity on the development of young adolescents. They implement curriculum and instruction that is responsive to young adolescents’ local, national, and international histories, language/dialects, and individual identities (e.g., race, ethnicity, culture, age, appearance, ability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, family composition). They participate successfully in middle level practices that consider and celebrate the diversity of all young adolescents.
Example of New Format: Elements for Standard 1 Young Adolescent Development
Element c. Implications of Young Adolescent Development for Middle Level Curriculum and Instruction. Middle level teacher candidates use their knowledge of young adolescent development when planning and implementing middle level curriculum and when selecting and using instructional strategies.
Element d. Implications of Young Adolescent Development for Middle Level Programs and Practices: Middle level teacher candidates apply their knowledge of young adolescent development when making decisions about their respective roles in creating and maintaining developmentally responsive learning environments. They demonstrate their ability to participate successfully in effective middle level school organizational practices such as interdisciplinary team organization and advisory programs.
Example of New Format: Elements for Standard 1 Young Adolescent Development
Standard 2: Middle Level Curriculum
◦ Element A: Subject Matter Content Knowledge
◦ Element B: Middle Level Student Standards
◦ Element C: Interdisciplinary Nature of Knowledge
Examples of Elements
Standard 5: Middle Level Professional Roles
◦ Element A: Professional Roles of Middle Level Teachers
◦ Element B: Advocacy for Young Adolescents and Developmentally Responsive Schooling Practices
◦ Element C: Working with Family Members and Community Involvement
◦ Element D: Dispositions and Professional Behaviors
Examples of Elements
Each standard includes a “Supporting Explanation” which further defines the standard.
New Format: Supporting Explanations
The knowledge base on specialized middle level teacher preparation has consistently included an emphasis on the importance of middle level teacher candidates demonstrating their knowledge of the philosophical foundations of middle level education and their ability to use this knowledge in their practice. Calls for middle level teachers having this knowledge began appearing in the knowledge base at the turn of the previous century and continues today (AMLE, 2006, 2012; Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1989; McEwin & Smith, 2013; Van Til, Vars, & Lounsbury, 1967). Understanding the history and philosophy of middle level education guides the practice of middle level teacher candidates, gives them confidence, and helps develop their ability to teach all young adolescents in ways that support healthy development and enhance student learning.
Example of a Supporting Explanation: Middle Level Philosophy and Organization
The knowledge base also includes a strong focus on the importance of middle level candidates demonstrating their ability to successfully participate in middle level programs and practices that are supported by research and successful practice; for example, team organization, advisory programs, flexible scheduling, integrated curriculum, and effective teaching strategies (AMLE, 2010, 2012; Andrews, in press; Dickinson, 2001; George & Alexander, 2003; Jackson & Davis, 2000; McEwin & Greene, 2011; Smith & McEwin, 2011; NASSP, 2006; Roney, Anfara, & Brown, 2008). These programs and practices are grounded in the commitment of the middle school philosophy to provide educational practices, programs, and personnel that are responsive to the intellectual, social, emotional, cultural, physical, and academic needs of all young adolescents.
Example of a Supporting Explanation: Middle Level Philosophy and Organization
Well-prepared middle level teacher candidates demonstrate their knowledge of the philosophical and historical underpinnings of middle level education and document their ability to use this knowledge in their practice. They can articulate the rationale for developmentally responsive programs and practices such as interdisciplinary teaming and advisory programs, and they use this knowledge within the context of a range of school settings. Middle level teacher candidates exhibit a commitment to developmentally responsive organizational structures that foster socially equitable programs and practices that enhance the education and well-being of all young adolescents. They demonstrate their ability to participate successfully in best practices that are supported by the middle-level knowledge base in a variety of school settings.
Example of a Supporting Explanation: Middle Level Philosophy and Organization
Association for Middle Level Education (2006). Association for Middle Level Education position statement on the professional preparation of middle level teachers. Westerville, OH: Author. Retrieved from http://www.amle.org/AboutAMLE/PositionStatements/ProfessionalPreparation/tabid/287/Default.aspx
Association for Middle Level Education (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.
Beane, J. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Darling-Hammond, L., Banks, J., Zumwalt, K., Gomez, L., Sherin, M. G., Griesdorn, J., & Finn, L. (2005). Educational goals and purposes: Developing a curricular vision for teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond and J. Bransford (Eds.) Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 169-200) San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grossman, P, Schoenfeld, A. & Lee, C. (2005). Teaching subject matter. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press.
Example of References to Research That Supports Standards: Standard 2: Middle Level Curriculum
McEwin, C. K., & Dickinson, T. S. (1996). Forgotten youth, forgotten teachers: Transformation of the professional preparation of teachers of young adolescents. Background paper prepared for the Middle Grade School State Policy Initiative. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
McEwin, C. K., & Dickinson, T. S. (2012). Value young adolescents: Educators value young adolescents and are prepared to teach them. In This we believe in action: Implementing successful middle level schools (pp. 7-15) Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education.
McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S., & Smith, T. W. (2004). The role of teacher preparation, licensure, and retention in creating high performing middle schools. In S. Thompson (Ed.), Reforming middle level education: Considerations for policymakers (pp. 109-129). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
McEwin, C. K., & Smith, T. W. (in press). The professional preparation of middle level teachers. In G. Andrews (Ed.), Research to guide practice in middle grades education. Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education.
National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform (2002). Policy statement: Teacher preparation, licensure, and recruitment. Newton, MA: Education Development Center. Retrieved from http://www.mgforum.org
Stevenson, C. (2002). Teaching 10 to 14 year olds (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon. Stevenson, C., & Bishop, P. A. (2012). Challenging curriculum: Curriculum is challenging,
exploratory, and relevant. In This we believe in action: Implementing successful middle level schools (pp. 29-46). Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education.
Example of References to Research That Supports Standards
Rubrics that reflect the content of each standard are provided.
New Format: Rubrics
UNACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE TARGET
Middle level teacher candidates understand the importance of being knowledgeable about young adolescent development.
Middle level teacher candidates demonstrate their knowledge of the concepts, principles, theories and research about young adolescent development. They apply this knowledge in their practice.
Middle level teacher candidates understand and accurately interpret the concepts, principles, theories and research about young adolescent development.They use this knowledge to deconstruct classroom events and other experiences, analyze how this information impacts student learning, and modify their teaching to reflect this new understanding.
Middle level teacher candidates understand the importance of creating and maintaining safe learning environments that promote the development of young adolescents.
Middle level teacher candidates create supportive learning environments that promote the healthy development of diverse populations of young adolescents.
Middle level teacher candidates create and maintain safe and supportive learning environments that promote the healthy development of all young adolescents. They create dynamic environments that celebrate and incorporate the diversity found within student populations.
Are there sample assessments available? The program review coordinator has
identified examples of effective assessments from several middle level programs. (There are not examples for the 2012 Standards at this point).
The examples have been placed on the NCATE web site.◦ http://www.ncate.org/Accreditation/
ProgramReview/ProgramReviewResources/SPAAssessmentLibrary/tabid/460/Default.aspx
Standards are met by a preponderance of evidence drawn from the elements.
AMLE requires that elements under each standard be addressed, but does not require that a specific number of elements be addressed to determine if standards are met.
Reviewers consider each standard as a whole and make professional judgments as to whether the program meets the overall intent of the standard.
A standard may be assessed as met without each element being met, if the preponderance of evidence indicates that the standard is met.
Preponderance of Evidence Policy
There is a frequently asked questions resource on the AMLE website.
FAQ and other resources can be found on the website by clicking About AMLE,” then selecting “Professional Preparation.”
◦ http://www.amle.org/ProfessionalPreparation/AMLEStandards/tabid/374/Default.aspx
Frequently Asked Questions
How much data should be submitted?
◦ For full recognition, programs are required to submit data that represent two applications of an assessment. That is, the assessment must be given and data collected at least two times.
◦ If an assessment is in a class that is offered every semester, then the two applications could be satisfied in one academic year. If the assessment is in a class that is offered once per year, then the two applications would take two academic years.
◦ For revised and response to conditions reports, data from one application of the assessment are required for full recognition.
FAQ Example 1
Do all standards have to be met for a program to be approved/ recognized by AMLE?
◦ Yes, all standards have to be substantially met for programs to be approved and recognized by AMLE. Program reviewers use the “preponderance of evidence” principle when making decisions about program recognition.
FAQ Example 2
Are separate assessments required for each standard?
◦ No, many assessments provide information that includes multiple standards.
FAQ Example 3
Are two teaching fields (content areas) required in the AMLE standards?
◦ Study in two teaching fields (content areas) is not required in the new 2012 standards.
FAQ Example 4
What happens if my program is responding to the 2001 standards and requires only one teaching field at the initial level?
◦ AMLE program review board members are instructed to acknowledge that these programs will be recognized/ approved by AMLE with only one content area (teaching field) as long as all other standards are met. In this situation, the program will be nationally recognized with the program review document listing the lack of a second area of study as an Area for Consideration. This section of the program review report will include a statement recommending that program faculty members consider adding a second area of study (teaching field). However, the national recognition in this situation is full national recognition with no conditions attached or changes required.
FAQ Example 5
Do middle level teacher preparation programs have to file separate middle level program review reports to other Specialized Professional Associations (SPAs) for areas such as middle level mathematics, science, social studies, and English/language arts?
◦ No, middle level programs that prepare candidates in content areas and that meet the AMLE criteria for middle-level programs will submit program reports to NCATE/AMLE and not to each of the content area SPAs (NCSS, NCTM, NCTE, NSTA, ACTFL). Please see the following information: . . .
FAQ Example 6
Does AMLE recognize edTPA assessment data for documentation that AMLE Middle Level Teacher Preparation Standards are met?
Aggregated data from edTPA assessments for Middle Childhood English/Language Arts, Middle Childhood History/Social Studies, Middle Childhood Mathematics, and Middle Childhood Science can be used to document that teacher candidates met AMLE Standard1: Young Adolescent Development, Standard 2: Middle Level Curriculum, and Standard 4: Middle Level Instruction and Assessment.
edTPA assessments cannot be used to document candidates’ mastery of Standard 3 Middle Level Philosophy and School Organization or Standard 5: Middle Level Professional Roles.
Example 7
FAQ Example 8 Should endorsements be submitted for
review?
Yes, for endorsements and add-on programs that are similar in content and requirements to other programs within that content area and are of sufficient breadth and depth to meet the AMLE Standards.
No, for endorsements and add on programs that require only a few courses, insufficient content, and/or limited requirements are not included in the CAEP review and will not be listed among the offering of an accredited professional education unit.
FAQ Example 9
Can the same assessment be used for more than one of the 6-8 required assessments?
Yes. For example, a comprehensive evaluation of a candidate portfolio or the student teaching semester may include in-depth assessments of both content knowledge and lesson planning.
In this case, it would be appropriate to use the different components of the same evaluation instrument for the assessment on content knowledge, and the assessment on ability to plan instruction.
FAQ Example 10
Should documentation of the positive effects of teacher candidates on student learning be included in the assessment plan?
◦ Yes, it is essential that assessments are included which demonstrate the positive impact of teacher candidates on student learning.
◦ Aggregated data from edTPA Middle Childhood assessments can be used for documentation
Programs rely on grade point averages rather than on carefully designed rubrics/scoring guides.
◦ CAEP does permit the use of grade point averages as an assessment. However, AMLE highly recommends that this method of assessment not be used. It is very difficult for program review board members to determine how grade point averages document meeting specific standards. If the grade point average is used, the NCATE document regarding use of this method should be read. It is found on the NCATE web site.
Pitfalls to Avoid
Rubrics/scoring guides used in internships and student teaching are generic to all majors and do not reflect the AMLE standards. They are really unit rather than middle level teacher preparation program assessments.
◦ It is essential that rubrics/scoring guides for middle level internships and student teaching directly reflect the content and language of AMLE Standards. Generic rubrics/scoring guides designed for use with all teacher education majors should not be used unless they include direct references to the AMLE Standards.
◦ A matrix showing generic rubrics and how they align with AMLE standards will not be accepted as documentation for successfully meeting AMLE Standards.
Pitfalls to Avoid
Aggregated data from assessments that reflect AMLE standards are not included in the program review report.
◦ As noted in earlier statements, it is essential that the program assessments directly reflect the content and language of AMLE Standards rather than being generic in nature.
◦ Aggregated data from generic program assessments will not result in approval and national recognition.
Pitfalls to Avoid
Programs seem to be devoid of instruction that focuses on Standard 1: Young Adolescent Development and Standard 2: Middle Level Philosophy and Organization.
◦ For example, rubrics for program assessments do not include the content and language of these two standards.
Pitfalls to Avoid
Questions?AMLE Middle Level Teacher Preparation Standards