envisioning the possible and focusing efforts · 2020. 3. 9. · the “intasc model core teaching...

Envisioning the Possible

and Focusing Efforts

April 2014

Contents

Page

Overview ......................................................................................................................................................................................................1

Content of this Guide .............................................................................................................................................................................1

Audience ................................................................................................................................................................................................2

Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................................................................2

Facilitation Instructions .........................................................................................................................................................................3

Teacher and Leader Practice Standards .......................................................................................................................................................5

Guiding Questions .................................................................................................................................................................................8

Licensure/Certification ................................................................................................................................................................................9

Guiding Questions ...............................................................................................................................................................................15

Program Evaluation/Improvement/Accountability ....................................................................................................................................16


Program Approval/Accreditation ...............................................................................................................................................................22


Preparation Reform/Program Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Requirements .................................................................................................26


Focusing State Efforts ................................................................................................................................................................................33

Envisioning the Possible and Targeting Efforts

1

Overview

Both problem solving and envisioning are important in this work. In today’s rapid pace of regulatory change and accountability, it is

easy to step directly into problem solving without a clear path or vision. Envisioning is essential as it generates a common goal, offers

a possibility for fundamental change, and gives stakeholders a sense of control and something toward which to move. With problem

solving alone, a group can become mired in technical details and political obstacles, potentially leading to disagreements about how to

solve the problems. This document provides a high-level review of the various policy levers that the Collaboration for Effective

Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center (CEEDAR) is charged with addressing and, when combined with

facilitated discussions and activities, will help stakeholders to collectively establish their vision for the work and identify the most

pressing and timely areas of reform in which the state elects to engage.

Content of this Guide

This document is designed to provide facilitation guidance to CEEDAR state leadership teams related to the following policy levers:

Teacher and Leaders Standards that are based on evidence and articulate what all teachers and leaders need to know and be

able to do.

Licensure and Certification encompass standards of expectation in terms of educator readiness that are then assessed,

through authentic means using performance-based assessments, to determine the degree to which all teachers and leaders are

able to implement the standards with fidelity and are prepared to serve PK–12 students.

Program Evaluation uses data (e.g., educator practice, candidate and supervisor feedback, student outcomes) to inform

preparation program refinement, determine program approval status (where applicable, accreditation), and identify the

effectiveness level of programs.

Preparation Reform and Professional Learning Systems are designed to ensure that graduates are prepared and supported

to apply, in multiple settings, evidence-based practices in integrated ways to help all students, including those with disabilities,

reach college- and career-readiness standards. This reform includes a review of program requirements, curriculum, pedagogy,

and opportunities for teacher candidates and practicing teachers to learn to use evidence-based practices in classrooms.


2

This document is organized in sections, each of which begins with an overview of the policy lever, including relevant state practical

examples. It addresses specific considerations for students with disabilities, depicts CEEDAR’s vision, and concludes with a series of

questions designed to facilitate the decision-making process.

Audience

This document is designed to guide the decision-making process of CEEDAR state leadership teams as an initial step to identify goals

and objectives within the technical assistance blueprint. Ultimately, it is intended that the document be used in facilitated activities by

CEEDAR staff. It can, however, be used by individual state teams.

Purpose

The purpose of this guide is to assist the CEEDAR state leadership teams in establishing a common state vision for an aligned policy

context that supports preparation refinement designed to ensure that teacher and leader graduates are prepared to use evidence-based

practices in integrated ways to help students with disabilities reach college- and career-readiness standards. Given that a large portion

of students with disabilities receive services in the general education classroom, this project (and activity) is designed to address all

teachers and leaders—not just special educators and administrators. Once the state vision across the policy and reform efforts is

developed, the guide leads the team through a series of high-level questions that can help identify which policy and reform efforts the

team should prioritize.

This activity can help identify the initial goals and objectives on the technical assistance blueprint. Specific instructions for this

activity are included below. Following this activity would be CEEDAR policy implementation matrices, innovation configurations,

and reform rubrics to help identify the tasks and activities to move the state toward its goals and, ultimately, its vision.

It is important to note that in this activity, we will be reviewing policy levers individually; however, we will also take a comprehensive

view as each of these policy levers are related and impact one another. While this activity initially may be viewed in a linear fashion,

the culminating activity will take a more comprehensive view to assess the timing, order, and nature of the necessary reforms.


3

Facilitation Instructions:

The scope of CEEDAR’s charge is complex, requiring that all policy levers and preparation curricula be considered in the reform

process. Each lever can have an integral impact on creating a coherent and aligned approach leading to a powerful and results-oriented

professional learning system of support. The challenge is in taking a comprehensive approach, while also being able to target and

focus efforts so that the work leads to real change in teacher and leader effectiveness.

This, therefore, necessitates a dive into each of the levers to determine need and prioritize efforts. This document can be used to

facilitate a decision-making process so that each lever is discussed and needs are considered so that efforts can be prioritized while

also keeping all levers in vision during reform efforts. Each of the policy lever sections begins with an overview of current practice

and research. This is a very short overview; each overview can be supported by longer, research-based knowledge building documents

available on the CEEDAR website. The intent is to provide an overview of current thinking in terms of best practice in the field. Each

overview is followed by the CEEDAR vision within each of the policy levers and a sequence of higher-level questions to help to target

and prioritize the work.

Step 1: Establishing a Vision

In this complicated work, it is very easy to begin with action steps or the selection of a policy or tool before having a clear consensus

on the direction in which to go. Establishing a vision is often an overlooked step in the process. While to some it may seem to be a

fruitless activity, establishing a vision often results in the ability to make quick, agreed-upon decisions and to take action steps later on

in planning and implementation. During this phase, stakeholders should consider the CEEDAR vision, the state context and needs, and

stakeholder input to establish a vision across the policy levers. Doing so will help not only establish a vision across the various policy

and practice levers in this work, but will also help to prioritize and target the state efforts.

Step 2: Responding to Guiding Questions

A vision alone is not enough. To prioritize and target efforts, we need to understand the priority needs within the state. A series of

questions are included after each policy lever overview to help stakeholders determine whether this is an area that the state leadership

team needs to identify as a goal within the technical assistance blueprint. You will see that higher-level questions are asked to

determine the state need, readiness, and/or timing considerations in working on this policy lever. It is not meant to be a deep-level dive

getting into the specifics of the reform efforts, but primarily to gain a consensus on whether the state leadership team needs to address


4

the policy lever area. Stakeholders should consider the questions posed after each section. Note your responses and any relevant

discussion points.

Step 3: Prioritizing and Focusing Efforts

After each section is reviewed, the vision statement is established, and the stakeholders have considered the guiding questions, the

stakeholders should determine the level to which each policy lever falls in terms of prioritization. Using the chart on pages 31 and 32,

and the documentation of responses to the facilitated questions, stakeholders should identify where the policy lever falls in terms of

importance and feasibility. Questions to consider in terms of importance include current state policy agendas and reform initiatives,

stakeholder perception of need, and other driving forces. Considerations within feasibility include legislative timelines, current

priorities and reform efforts, recent policy changes, and other items concerning the likelihood and/or appetite of the policymakers,

administrators, and stakeholders in supporting this work. Then, using the discussion and information on the chart, indicate the level of

priority under which each policy lever falls. This will help to focus the state leadership team efforts, while also keeping a

comprehensive view of all the policy levers and their potential impact on one another.


5

Teacher and

Leader

Practice

Standards

Teacher and Leader Practice Standards

Teacher and Leader Standards have had a clear impact on the education profession, but maybe nowhere more strongly

than in preparation. States have either adopted or aligned their state standards to the Interstate Teacher Assessment and

Support Consortium (InTASC) Standards, Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008 Interstate School Leaders

Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards, Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Initial Level Special Educator Preparation Standards, or

standards driven by accreditation bodies such as the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). States have legislated

or regulated teacher and leader standards for many years now as a basis for their program approval/accreditation and as a guide in curriculum

development and licensure assessments. Many states recently revised teacher and leader standards to serve as the foundation to their educator

evaluation systems, most particularly states operating under Race to the Top (RTT) Grants or ESEA Waivers, or both.

The “InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards and Learning Progressions for Teachers 1.01” describes their teaching standards as serving three

functions, all of which are essential to success in teaching:

Establish a vision of where the field wants to go

Define a specific “bar” or level of performance that must be met, and

Articulate the supports that must be in place to ensure the opportunity to meet the standards.

Measurement experts refer to the “leveling of standards” from broad, general practice standards to specific content area standards (e.g., math,

science, special education).2 With this “leveling” comes more specific performance expectations. One challenge to this process, though, is

avoiding standards that are unwieldy, while ensuring that a useful level of specificity is included for the purpose of making judgments. For

example, the CEC “Initial Level Special Educator Preparation Standards” are more specific for teachers of students with disabilities, while the

“general” teaching standards are absent the same level of specificity. Given that most general education teachers have students with disabilities

1 InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards and Learning Progressions for Teachers 1.0; CCSSO, April 2013; Retrieved Jan, 13, 2013:

http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standards_and_Learning_Progressions_for_Teachers_10.html 2 Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing of the AERA, APA, and NCME. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing.

Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standards_and_Learning_Progressions_for_Teachers_10.html


6

in their classroom—or at the very least students who struggle—this lack of specificity could leave teachers unprepared and/or lacking the

knowledge of evidence-based instructional practices for students with disabilities. The challenge is to ensure that the standards are inclusive of

“all students,” meaning that the standards include the skills and competencies all teachers need to meet the needs of all students (e.g., students

with disabilities, struggling learners, English language learners), while at the same time not to a level of specificity that goes beyond the role of

teacher and leader standards. Standards often include indicators that require teacher and leader knowledge to meet the needs of “diverse

learners.” While beneficial, this language may lack the level of specificity necessary to ensure that all teachers are adequately prepared to

implement instructional practices that have proved to elicit improved outcomes for students with disabilities.

Standards often serve as the foundation for other policy levers. Therefore, it is essential that the standards are based on evidence and articulate

what all teachers and leaders need to know and be able to do. The standards should then be enacted, illuminated in practice for broad

stakeholder understanding, and assessed within an aligned and coherent system of curriculum, program approval/accreditation, licensure,

educator evaluation, and professional learning systems of support.


7

CEEDAR Vision: Standards that represent what all teachers and leaders need to know and be able to do that incorporate strategies of core and specialized

instruction to support all learners (e.g., students with disabilities, English language learners, struggling learners), are grounded in research, and

depict expectations of collaboration among and within general and special educators to leverage expertise and services so that all students are

college and career ready. The standards serve as the foundation in the design of professional learning systems of support to which they are

further defined and exemplified within licensure assessments, program curriculum, and educator evaluation.

State Vision:

Vision Problem Solution Action


8

Following are some examples of questions a state team might consider to guide its decision-making process in whether the “lever” of Teacher/Leader

Standards is a priority and requires action.

Teacher and

Leader

Standards

Revision

Are the

Teacher and

Leader

Standards in

need of

revision?

Trigger

Points for

Action Timing

Considerations

Level of

Need/Priority

Stakeholders

Perceived

Need

Has your state recently revised its teacher or leader standards?

Has your state made changes to policy or practice to meet the requirements of RTTT or your ESEA

Waiver or some other reform initiative? If so, are there changes to your teacher and leader standards

that would enhance the overall system?

Does your state have a strategic plan already established that outlines the timeline and process for

modifying teacher and leader standards?

What will be the timeline to implement these changes (consider regulatory revision requirements,

scheduling stakeholder input, staff capacity, funding streams)?

Guiding Questions

After reviewing the CEEDAR survey, do stakeholders perceive a need to prioritize the revision of

teacher and leader standards?

Taken together, do the standards for general and special education teachers describe a coherent model

of core and intensive instruction?

Do the standards align with the state’s vision and goals and reflect what special and general education

teachers and leaders need to know and be able to do to ensure that students with disabilities are

college- and career-ready?

Do the standards ensure that teachers and leaders are trained in the evidence-based instructional

strategies proven to help students with disabilities make academic gains?

Do the standards establish expectations and differentiation for the work of classroom teachers who

provide core instruction and specialists who provide intensive interventions?

Guiding Questions

Given the state’s needs, political context, and other reform initiatives, are revisions in teacher and leader

standards necessary and feasible at this time?

After reviewing existing state policy and research on best practices, are there instructional and professional

practices that are missing from existing leader and teacher standards that promote (a) coordination and

collaboration between general and special educators, and (b) quality preparation of educators in meeting the

needs of students with disabilities?

Guiding Questions


9

Licensure/

Certification Licensure/Certification

The National Research Council explains the landscape of teacher licensing this way: “Teacher licensing is under the

authority of individual states.3” There are 51 unique licensure systems in the United States; they share some

commonalties, however. As in other professions, teacher licensing relies on more than tests to judge whether candidates have

the knowledge, skills, abilities, and dispositions to practice responsibly. Teacher candidates generally must fulfill education requirements,

successfully complete practice teaching, and receive the recommendations of their preparing institutions. These requirements help ensure that a

broad range of competencies are considered in licensing new teachers.

While most states have some form of professional education standards boards, only 13 states have boards that hold authority over licensure

(e.g., California, Oregon, Georgia, Delaware, et al.), while in the rest, the state department of education is the responsible body. The National

Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) KnowledgeBase reports that as of 2013, 32 states require

“basic skills” exams, 38 require “subject matter” exams, 21 require some form of “knowledge of teaching“ (pedagogy) exam, and 22 require an

assessment of actual teaching performance (e.g., Stanford’s edTPA).4 Furthermore, many teacher preparation programs require these exams for

program admission (often using the “basic skills” exam) and/or program completion (most often the “subject matter” exam), and as the basis

for recommendation to the state for licensure/certification.

While states may include many components within their licensure or certification process, the focus in the 1980s and 1990s on improving

education in the United States led to most states requiring teacher licensure/certification exams as assurances of basic qualifications. Common

ways that states measure graduate performance include (1) licensure examinations and (2) performance measures.5 These indicators are

intended to provide information about the readiness skills that new teachers have when they enter the profession.

Licensure Examinations. Licensure examinations to test applicants’ skills, pedagogy, and content knowledge typically have cut scores,

generally around the national median score, for each grade-level band and content area that candidates must pass to be considered minimally

3 National Research Council (2001). Testing Teacher Candidates: The Role of Licensure Tests in Improving Teacher Quality. Washington, DC: The National Academies

Press. 4 National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC),NASDTEC Knowledgebase, retrieved June 18, 2012, from

https://www.nasdtec.info/ 5 Center on Great Teachers and Leaders Tiered Licensure Strategies, Copyright © 2013 American Institutes for Research. All rights reserved. 2378_06/13

http://nces.ed.gov/transfer.asp?location=www.nasdtec.info/


10

qualified.6 These have largely become computer-based assessments with scores reported directly to the test-taker and state. States’ use of

content area licensure/certification exams has increased since the introduction of the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) requirements of the No

Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the requirements for teacher “effectiveness” mandated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

(ARRA) and now the RTTT Grant and ESEA State Waiver Plans. Licensure examination scores, however, have only a modest relationship

with student achievement.7

Initial teacher licensure tests are designed to identify candidates with some of the knowledge and skills necessary for minimally competent

beginning practice. The tests now in use measure basic skills, general knowledge, content knowledge, and knowledge of teaching strategies.

They are designed to separate teacher candidates who are at least minimally competent in the areas assessed from those who are not. To

increase qualification requirements, states are thinking of other ways to assess the level of knowledge of teacher preparation program

graduates, including performance assessments.

Performance Measures. Performance-based assessments, such as portfolios,

artifacts, and teaching exhibitions (e.g., teachers execute practice lessons), capture

how teachers and teacher candidates apply what they have learned to their teaching

practices. Performance-based assessments are often considered more authentic and

more contextualized assessments of teacher practices than written tests.8 Teachers

and teacher candidates report that completing performance-based assessments

actually improved their teaching practices because they were able to apply the skills

they were learning.9 Many states are moving toward incorporating performance

assessment into their evaluations of teacher candidates. Examples of this shift to

performance assessments include the following:

New York, starting in May 2014, will require teacher candidates applying for licenses to pass edTPA.

6 Coggshall, J.G., Bivona, L., & Reschly, D.J. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs for support and accountability. Washington, DC:

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.gltcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/TQ_Rand_BriefEvaluatingEffectiveness.pdf 7 Goldhaber, D. (2007). Everyone’s doing it, but what does teacher testing tell us about effectiveness? The Journal of Human Resources, 42(4), 766–794.

8 Darling-Hammond, L. & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Leader Education, 16, 523–545.

9 Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching. Washington, DC: Center for

American Progress.

The edTPA instrument is a subject-specific assessment that

contains two components: Embedded Signature Assessments

(ESAs) and authentic teaching artifacts. Examples of artifacts

include analysis of student work, planning units, or

observations during student teaching experience. The second

component of edTPA is a summative assessment that typically

occurs at the end of the student teaching experience. It consists

of a three- to five-day learning segment with a class of

students, in which the teacher candidate provides multiple

artifacts of practice about his or her learning segment (e.g.,

lesson plans, video clips), coupled with a reflection on each

artifact.

http://www.gltcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/TQ_Rand_BriefEvaluatingEffectiveness.pdf


11

Washington, starting in January 2014, will require teacher candidates to take edTPA to complete teacher preparation programs and

receive licenses for most subject areas.

Minnesota. Minnesota’s Board of Teaching, which approves programs to prepare teachers, now uses edTPA as one measure for program

approval and licensure.

Hawaii, starting in 2017 will require a performance-based assessment such as edTPA for teaching candidates.

Georgia, starting in 2015–16, will require edTPA for teacher licensure.

Wisconsin, starting in 2016–17, will require edTPA for teacher licensure. EdTPA will also be used as one measure for teacher

preparation program approval beginning in 2015–16.

Tennessee allows edTPA to be used as a substitute for an initial standardized test of teaching practice.10

As with teacher and leader standards, the challenge is in deciding how deeply to assess teacher and leader capacity in meeting the instructional

and support needs of students with disabilities. Furthermore, given the increasing number of educators who have students with disabilities in

their classrooms and continued reports of general education teachers feeling unprepared,11

it is essential that all teachers and leaders be

assessed to determine the degree to which they are prepared to provide high-quality instruction and services to all students. We can no longer

expect that only special educators are prepared and assessed to meet the needs of students with disabilities. As such, certification and licensure

standards, and their corresponding assessments, should address the knowledge and skills all teachers need to adequately serve and instruct

students with disabilities.

States decide whether and which tests to use to license beginning teachers. Each of the 42 states that require tests uses a different combination

of them, uses them at different points in a candidate’s education, and sets its own passing scores. Several hundred different initial licensure

tests are currently in use.12

10

Center on Great Teachers and Leaders Tiered Licensure Strategies, Copyright © 2013 American Institutes for Research. All rights reserved. 2378_06/13 11

King, M.B., & Youngs, P., (2003). Classroom teachers’ views on inclusion. Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform for Youth with Disabilities Brief, (7), 1–15. 12

National Research Council. Testing Teacher Candidates: The Role of Licensure Tests in Improving Teacher Quality. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press,

2001.


12

Multitiered Licensure13

Traditionally, teacher licensure has been used to establish a minimum standard of competence to enter a classroom; however, there is an

increasing understanding that learning does not end when teacher candidates graduate but rather that knowledge and competencies grow as they

gain practical experience. Therefore, many states are moving toward a tiered system of licensure that establishes standards of what teachers and

leaders need to know and be able to do at different stages of their career. In such systems, teachers and leaders must demonstrate such mastery

at various points of their career to obtain and maintain licensure.

Multitiered licensure can incentivize educators to develop and improve their performances as they work toward advanced status. In tandem

with policies on compensation, career ladders, and ongoing professional learning, licensure can be a lever to promote educator development,

advancement, and retention. States interested in redesigning their teacher licensure systems may want to keep the following promising

strategies in mind:

Build a Continuum of Expectations that supports and promotes educator development and improved student learning through a

continuum of performance-based expectations and licensing assessments, from novice to advanced practice.

Create Opportunities that provide educators with opportunities to learn that scaffold their development.

Leverage Relationships between preparation providers and the districts in which their candidates are placed (for clinical practice,

residencies, or employment) that continue into induction to support collegial coaching and sharing.

Use Evaluation Data in valid and reliable ways to inform high-stakes licensure decisions as one of multiple measures, e.g., individual

professional growth plans that can serve as another source of performance data.

Several states have implemented multiple tiers into license renewal.

In Maryland’s proposed three-tier performance-based certification system funded through Race to the Top, teachers not rated

“effective” or higher on their evaluation, of which 50 percent includes student achievement and growth, will not receive a professional

certification or continue to teach in Maryland. New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Georgia have planned similar changes, and

Louisiana has already adopted them.

13

This section is taken and slightly modified from the Center on Great Teachers and Leaders Ask the Team brief on Tiered Licensure Strategies retrieved from

www.gtlcenter.org, Copyright © 2013 American Institutes for Research. All rights reserved. 2378_06/13


13

Wisconsin requires that teachers submit a portfolio and videos of their teaching, which are reviewed by a team before advancing. North

Carolina requires beginning teachers to complete an induction program and receive an evaluation rating of “proficient” on all five

North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards before advancing. You can find information about these two state systems in Tiered

Teacher Certification and Performance-Based Assessment.

Ohio restructured its teacher licensure system to establish a four-tiered system providing opportunities for teachers to advance in their

professional careers and take on new roles and responsibilities without having to leave the teaching profession. For additional

information on these tiers, you can view Ohio’s licensure website. You can find Ohio’s supporting educator standards here.

Rhode Island has transformed its educator certification process into three tiers, and the state awards and renews certification based

solely on evidence of effectiveness as assessed through the local evaluation system. The state also requires completion of structured

induction that integrates mentoring, professional learning, and supervision so that new teachers can document effective practice before

obtaining a professional license. See Rhode Island’s requirements. See additional information.

http://groups.ascd.org/resource/documents/134168-RELMidwestTeacherCertificationBrief1.pdf

http://groups.ascd.org/resource/documents/134168-RELMidwestTeacherCertificationBrief1.pdf

http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Licensure/Audiences/Senior-Professional-Educator-and-Lead-Professional

http://esb.ode.state.oh.us/PDF/StandardsforEducators_revaug10.pdf

http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Teachers-and-Administrators-Excellent-Educators/Educator-Certification/Cert-main-page/CertificationRedesign-IssuanceRenewalReinstatement.pdf

http://co-lip.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Licensure+Case+Studies+3.pdf


14

CEEDAR Vision: The certification and licensure process builds upon a continuum of scaffolded expectations, supported and assessed over the course of an

educator’s career. Preparation programs, local education agencies, and the state education agency jointly support educator credentialing and

development through such learning supports as mentoring, induction, professional learning, and evaluation (e.g., educator evaluation). Data are

shared and used across agencies to determine educator effectiveness, allocate and target support, and designate certification level. Licensure

assessments should be authentic and performance-based; they should assess the degree to which all teachers and leaders are able to implement

evidence-based practices with fidelity. These practices derive from the standards and result in increased access to rigorous core curriculum and

instruction for all students, resulting in college and career readiness.

State Vision:



15

Following are some examples of questions a state team might consider to guide its decision-making process in whether the “lever” of

licensure/certification rises to the point of priority and resulting action.

Timing

Considerations

Level of

Need/Priority

Stakeholders

Perceived

Need

Has the state’s licensure process been modified recently?

Has your state recently revised its teacher or leader standards, requiring changes to the licensure

assessments or broader licensure process?

Does that state have a strategic plan already established that outlines the timeline and process for

modifying the licensure process/assessment(s)?

What will be the timeline to implement these changes (consider licensure assessment options,

associated costs, alignment with standards and curriculum)?

Guiding Questions

In review of the CEEDAR implementation survey, do stakeholders perceive a need to prioritize the

revision of the state’s licensure process/assessments?

Do the licensure assessments assess, using authentic practice, an educator’s ability to implement the

expectations outlined in the teacher and leader standards?

Do the licensure assessments assess teacher and leader capacity to implement, with fidelity, evidence-

based instructional strategies proven to help students with disabilities make academic gains?

Do stakeholders recognize educators’ development stages across the career continuum and the need to

assess educator capacity over time?

Guiding Questions

Are there any political contexts that would influence the revision of the state licensure process?

Do the existing licensure assessments lack alignment with the standards and curriculum, and therefore

fail to assess educator capacity in essential skills?

Are districts requesting more evidence of educator capacity to implement the teacher and leader

standards with fidelity?

Guiding Questions

Licensure/

Certification

Revision

Does the

licensure

process

require

revision?

Trigger

Points for

Action


16

Program

Evaluation Program Evaluation/Improvement/Accountability14

States have historically had three opportunities to hold teacher preparation programs accountable for program quality:

(1) approval requirements and standards (initial application to become a teacher preparation program); (2) accreditation

from a nongovernmental agency such as the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education; and (3) certification of teachers who

graduate from a preparation program to determine whether teacher preparation programs are producing graduates who meet state teacher

certification requirements.15

Several states have added variables to teacher education program accountability systems in an effort to document

program outcomes and candidate satisfaction with program quality.

The Obama administration proposed three types of measures that could be instrumental in focusing teacher preparation programs on

accountability. The new variables are 1) aggregate learning outcome data of the K–12 students taught by the graduates of a particular teacher

preparation institution using multiple and varied student achievement data (in other words, aggregate student achievement scores for the

graduates of the same preparation institution); 2) job placement and retention rates of graduates, particularly for hard-to-staff areas; and 3)

perception data from graduates of the program (e.g., how prepared the graduates feel) and from principals of graduates of the program (e.g.,

connecting the principal’s perceptions of a teacher’s effectiveness to that teacher’s preparation program). 16

Six potential measures are highlighted below, providing a national overview and citing potential disadvantages and considerations for states:

Student Achievement and Growth

At least 14 states are considering the use of a value-added or student growth model to compare teacher education programs.17

Growth

models can provide a common metric to compare programs. Some disadvantages have been noted in the use of student achievement: 1)

these data provide preparation institutions only a raw score and do not provide formative feedback to the institutions about how their

specific program prepares teachers; 2) student achievement data will not be available for all the teachers from a teacher preparation

14 This section is taken and slightly modified from the Center on Great Teachers and Leaders Ask the Team brief on Teacher Preparation Accountability retrieved from

www.gtlcenter.org, Copyright © 2013 American Institutes for Research. All rights reserved. 2378_06/13 15

Coggshall, J.G., Bivona, L., & Reschly, D.J. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs for support and accountability. Washington, DC:

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.gltcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/TQ_Rand_BriefEvaluatingEffectiveness.pdf 16

Duncan, A. (2011). A new approach to teacher education reform and improvement. Secretary Arne Duncan’s remarks at the Educator Sector Forum, Washington, DC. 17

Sawchuk, S. (2012). “Value added” proves beneficial to teacher prep. Education Week, 31(21),1, 20.



17

program (e.g., teachers in nontested subjects and grades, teachers who move out of state); and 3) student growth models do not always

produce consistent scores for teachers over multiple years; therefore, the utility of value-added measures (VAM) for differentiating

teacher preparation program performance is suspect.18

State and District Teacher Evaluation Results

Some states are considering the use of summative teacher performance evaluation results as a measure in teacher preparation program

accountability.19

Compared with using only value-added models, teacher evaluations provide a more comprehensive picture of teacher

performance in the classroom. The challenge is in states that allow district flexibility in the selection and implementation of the measures

comprising the evaluations. Thus, teacher evaluation scores may not be comparable across the state if districts are using varied metrics to

evaluate their teachers.

Surveys of Principals or Employers

Surveying principals or the evaluators of newly hired teachers is another way to report on the perceived effectiveness of teachers.

Unfortunately, there has been little research linking principals’ surveys to teacher preparation. Principals’ surveys do show promise for

stakeholder engagement, as surveys may help principals pay closer attention to the type of training new teachers received.20

Texas and

Ohio use principals’ surveys of graduates to inform their states’ evaluation of teacher preparation programs.

Surveys of Preparation Program Graduates

States also can use survey data from teacher preparation program graduates to estimate the effectiveness of the teacher preparation

program. (States using this approach include Louisiana, Ohio, and Texas.) Recent graduates can provide information about how well

prepared and effective they feel and about their teaching and the program more generally. Recent research has demonstrated a positive

18

Goldhaber, D., & Liddle, S. (2012). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher preparation programs based on student achievement (Working Paper 65).

Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retried from http://www.caldercenter.org/publications/upload/Goldhaboer-et-

al.pdf . Retrieved from http://www.gltcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/TQ_Rand_BriefEvaluatingEffectiveness.pdf 19

Baker, E.L., Bartson, P.E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H.F., Linn, R., et al. (2010). Problems with the use of students tests scores to evaluate teachers.

Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. 20

Coggshall, J.G., Bivona, L., & Reschly, D.J. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs for support and accountability. Washington, DC:

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.gltcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/TQ_Rand_BriefEvaluatingEffectiveness.pdf

http://www.caldercenter.org/publications/upload/Goldhaboer-et-al.pdf

http://www.caldercenter.org/publications/upload/Goldhaboer-et-al.pdf




18

relationship between new teachers’ perceptions of their teacher preparation programs and their teacher effectiveness ratings as measured

by standardized achievement tests.21

Data on Teacher Retention

Identifying trends in teacher and leader retention could be a measure used to evaluate the program. Collecting this information and

sharing it with preparation programs could inform the institutions about the quality of the program for two primary reasons. First, teacher

preparation programs would learn whether they are providing their graduates with the necessary tools and resources to persist in the

profession. Second, teacher preparation programs would learn whether they have a substantial number of graduates who are not

persisting because they have not had their teaching certification renewed, owing to poor performance.

Hiring and Placement Data

Teacher preparation programs can use hiring and placement data to determine where are placing their graduates and whether they are

placing them as full-time teachers in their certification areas or in high-needs areas.

Given the limitations of any single measure, states generally rely on multiple measures when evaluating individual teachers and their

preparation programs. As of February 2012, only two states, Louisiana and Texas, planned to use revised evaluations of program effectiveness

for accountability. Louisiana requires programs to report multiple measures, including graduate Praxis scores, student-teaching experiences,

and student-to-faculty ratio. However, numbers of teachers within a subject and grade were too small for analysis, so the state is moving toward

evaluating program performance using value-added modeling (VAM) scores of graduates in their first and second years of teaching. Texas

bases program accreditation review on four measures: (1) teacher candidate pass rate on certification exams, (2) administrator ratings of

beginning teachers, (3) VAM scores for the first three years of teaching (aggregated across teachers within each preparation program), and (4)

the quantity and quality of beginning teachers’ field supervision. Implementation has revealed the need to refine some measures. Principals

tended to rate teachers as adequate or highly skilled, resulting in low variation across programs and indicating a need for further training and

support for survey completion. Challenges with VAM have included issues with data accuracy and a large proportion of teachers who do not

teach tested subjects and grades (mathematics and reading in grades 4–8).

21

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement.

Education Finance and Policy, 1(2), 176–215.


19

With this increased focus on accountability, concern must be given to the effectiveness of teacher and leader preparation graduates to meet the

needs of students with disabilities. This is not to say that a different design of measures is warranted, but rather that within each measure

consideration be given to including content and data about students with disabilities, so that preparation effectiveness is determined by the

capacity of all teachers and leaders to implement evidence-based instructional practices and strategies with fidelity. For example, state

standardized assessment results for students with disabilities are reported only back to the program that prepares special education candidates.

Scores should be reported back to all teacher and leader preparation programs to measure effectiveness.


20

CEEDAR Vision:

Preparation program evaluation should include performance measures and/or students outcomes linked to program graduates. To inform

program revision, state policy should provide for the aggregation and reporting of these data. The data help states and programs determine the

degree to which graduates are prepared to educate diverse students to be college and career ready. Evaluation supports programs in identifying

areas that need to be strengthened, with measures of educator performance aligned with evidence-based practices reflected in teacher and leader

standards.

State Vision:



21

Following are some examples of questions a state team might consider to guide its decision-making process in whether the “lever” of Program

Evaluation is a priority and requires action.

Program

Evaluation

Revision

Is the Program

Evaluation

process in

need of

revision?

Timing

Considerations

Level of

Need/Priority

Stakeholders

Perceived

Need

Has your state recently revised your program evaluation process?

If you choose to revise your program evaluation process, what will be the timeline to implement these

changes (consider procedural requirements, scheduling stakeholder input, staff capacity, funding

streams)?

After reviewing the CEEDAR survey, do stakeholders perceive a need to prioritize the revision of the

program evaluation process?

Has the state established priorities, initiatives, and goals for program evaluation? Do they align with the

anticipated CEEDAR scope of work and do those efforts include considerations for students with

disabilities?

To what extent do the findings of the current program evaluation process agree with the program’s

effectiveness as perceived by various stakeholder groups (e.g., recent graduates, hiring principals)?

Do districts have an opportunity to provide input on the program evaluation process and does that input

address teacher and leader capacity to meet the needs of students with disabilities?

Guiding Questions

Are there any political contexts that would influence the decision to revise program evaluation?

Does the current process align with other key levers, such as teacher standards, teacher licensure, and

program approval?

Does the current evaluation process assess graduates’ effectiveness in teaching students with disabilities

(SWDs) by

○ Linking student learning outcomes to their teachers’ preparation program or

○ Assessing teacher practice with a tool that reflects evidence-based practices for teaching SWDs?

Guiding Questions

Trigger

Points for

Action

Guiding Questions


22

Program

Approval Program Approval/Accreditation

Accountability in teacher education has increased largely as a result of many states implementing student and teacher

standards, such as the InTASC Standards, and the challenge of how to measure whether these standards were met.22

In

addition, two national accreditation bodies for teacher education, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher

Education (NCATE) and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC), have since merged into a new accrediting body, The Council

for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), further supporting a framework for accountability in teacher education.

The move to a focus on accountability for PK–12 schools and teacher education programs was a result of amendments to the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Higher Education Act (HEA) in the 1990s. Reports were also published showing that states

implementing reform initiatives that focused on teacher quality (e.g., rigorous teacher education requirements focused on both a content major

plus pedagogy) produced the highest student achievement. The 1997 reauthorization of the IDEA emphasized access to the general education

curriculum for SWDs and required schools to teach these students what is taught to all students, increasing pressure on programs with regard to

teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge. “Further complicating the controversy … has been the passage of federal legislation (i.e., NCLB

and IDEA 2004) mandating high stakes accountability for all students, including those students with disabilities.23

Given these mandates,

students with disabilities are expected to reach achievement levels comparable to typically achieving peers on state accountability measures.

While some have advocated for this level of program effectiveness in the past,24

this is a much higher standard than has been employed for

most programs for students with disabilities in previous research or practice.25

” NCATE then released NCATE 2000, which focused on teacher

education outcomes and required programs seeking national accreditation to report assessment data relating to program improvement and

candidate performance. Teacher education accountability continues to grow as more recent federal requirements (i.e., American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act [ARRA] of 2009) mandate that evaluation of teacher education programs include assessments showing how well graduates

22

InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards and Learning Progressions for Teachers 1.0; CCSSO, April 2013; Retrieved September, 13, 2013:

http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standards_and_Learning_Professions_for_Taechers_10.html 23

Fuchs, D. Fuchs, L. & Stecker, P. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76,

301-323. Hoppy, D. & McLeskey, J., (2010). A case study of principal leadership in an effective inclusive school. The Journal of Special Education Retrieved Jan, 13,

2013: http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standards_and_Learning_Progressions_for_Teachers_10.html 24

Zigmond, Jenkins, Fuchs, L., Deno, S., Fuchs, D. Baker, J., Jenkins, L., & Coutinho, M. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year

studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(7), 531–540. 25

Full inclusion programs for elementary students with learning disabilities: Can they meet student needs in an era of high stakes accountability?

James McLeskey, Ph.D., Nancy L. Waldron, Ph.D., School of Special Education, School Psychology, & Early Childhood Studies

University of Florida Retrieved Jan, 13, 2013 at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529797.pdf

http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standards_and_Learning_Professions_for_Taechers_10.html

http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standards_and_Learning_Progressions_for_Teachers_10.html

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529797.pdf


23

improve their students’ achievement. With the growth of large-scale databases in school districts and states, value-added models linking PK–12

students and teacher preparation programs now receive attention in general and special education.

The CAEP website states: “The goals of the State Alliance for Clinical Teacher Preparation—a group of states committed to major

transformation of educator preparation policies and practices—are three-fold: (1) to foster collaborative partnerships among schools, districts,

and higher education, (2) to develop more effective state policies that support innovation, research, strong clinical preparation, and partnerships

so that teachers are better prepared to meet the needs and challenges of a diverse student population, and (3) to increase use of formative and

summative candidate performance assessments to ensure candidates can demonstrate knowledge and skills needed in today’s classrooms, and

to collect data on candidate performance in classrooms to help preparation programs improve” (http://www.caepsite.org/states/default.html).

The State Alliance was established in 2010 to implement recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships

for Improved Student Learning, http://caepnet.org/in-the-states/.

http://www.caepsite.org/states/default.html

http://caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/brp_report.pdf

http://caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/brp_report.pdf

http://caepnet.org/in-the-states/


24

CEEDAR Vision:

A priority goal for CEEDAR is that all teachers and leaders are prepared effectively to teach and support a wide range of diverse students,

including those with disabilities, and that a system of ongoing professional learning opportunities is in place to provide the required support. To

this end, preparation program approval and accreditation should assess the extent to which programs (a) offer teacher and leader candidates

opportunities to learn the skills and competencies outlined in state standards, (b) incorporate clinical experiences early and often so that

candidates have ample opportunity to apply what they have learned, and (c) collaborate with local education agencies about curriculum design

and implementation. Program accreditation should also ensure that faculty are qualified for their roles and supported to provide effective

instruction and learning opportunities. Program accreditation requirements align with policies on mentoring and ongoing professional

development.

State Vision:



25

Following are some examples of questions a state team might consider to guide its decision-making process in whether the “lever” of Program

Approval/Accreditation is a priority and requires action.

Timing

Considerations

Level of

Need/Priority

Stakeholders

Perceived

Need

Has your state recently revised its program approval process? If so, what other systems, such as

licensure/certification or teacher and leader standards, need to be reviewed for alignment?

What does the state require for program accreditation?

Is the frequency of program approval/accreditation sufficient?

Is there a different program approval process for general and special education programs?

Guiding Questions

After reviewing the CEEDAR implementation survey, do stakeholders perceive a need to prioritize the

revision of the state’s program approval and accreditation process?

Do stakeholders view the program approval process as advantageous and essential to program

improvement?

Do stakeholders view the program approval process as a validation or confirmation of preparation

program efficacy and teacher and leader capacity to meet the needs of students with disabilities?

Do districts have an opportunity to provide input on the program approval process and is input provided

that specifically addresses teacher and leader capacity to serve students with disabilities?

Guiding Questions

Are there any political contexts that would influence the revision of the state’s program approval

process?

Does the existing program approval process lead to improved preparation programs?

Does the program approval process include licensure assessments that lack alignment with the

standards and curriculum, and therefore fail to assess educator capacity in essential skills?

Are districts requesting more evidence of educator capacity to implement the teacher and leader

standards with fidelity?

Guiding Questions

Program

Approval/

Accreditation

Is the

Program

Approval/

Accreditation

Process in

Need of

Revision?

Trigger

Points for

Action


26

Preparation

Reform Preparation Reform/Program Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Requirements

A priority goal for CEEDAR is that all teachers and leaders are prepared to effectively teach and support a wide range

of diverse students, including those with disabilities, and that a system of ongoing effective professional learning

opportunities is in place to provide the required support. This system begins in the teacher/leader preparation programs and

continues with ongoing mentor support and professional development during the first few years of a teacher or leader’s career. A critical

component of these systems is the provision of sufficient effective opportunities to learn for teacher and leader candidates. Effective

opportunities to learn consist of three dimensions: Content, Instructional Quality, and Time.

(1) Content is what teacher and leader candidates need to learn to be effective. Teacher and leader preparation providers are able to draw

upon a wealth of research that supports evidence-based instructional and behavior management practices. Research about how to effectively

teach the content areas of reading, writing, and mathematics, and how to structure and deliver positive behavior management is abundant and

clear. For example, regarding teaching content areas, students with disabilities learn best when they are taught explicitly with modeling and

systematically with scaffolding and with multiple opportunities to learn and for practice of each skill. Students need to receive specific positive

and corrective feedback and have their progress monitored and instruction adjusted as necessary. These practices improve the achievement of

all students and are absolutely necessary to ensure that students with disabilities learn academic content.

(2) Instructional Quality refers to the pedagogical practices that teacher and leader preparation programs use to improve the knowledge

and skills of their candidates. Emerging research about the education of teachers and a wealth of research on developing expertise in medicine,

sports, physics, and the military suggests that deliberate opportunities to practice with feedback are essential to learning.26

Thus, teacher

candidates and practicing teachers need structured opportunities to learn evidence-based practices, the content knowledge underlying those

practices, and how to analyze student learning.27

These structured opportunities involve repeatedly practicing the essential skills and receiving

feedback on practice attempts. Such repeated practice attempts are necessary to develop fluency in using evidence-based practices and

analyzing data regarding student progress. This feedback also helps candidates understand why their instruction “worked” or didn’t “work”.

26

Ericsson, K.A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K.A. Ericsson, N., Charness, P.,

Feltovich, and R.R. Hoffman, R.T. (Eds.). Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 685–706). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 27

Kamman, M. (2014). Teacher Education Pedagogy. Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center (CEEDAR), University of

Florida: Gainsville, Florida.


27

A recent review of effective practices conducted by CEEDAR Staff identified additional practices that hold potential for more effectively

preparing teacher candidates. This review examined the practices that programs developed as a result of receiving competitive grants funded

through the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants (325T grants). For example, faculty from

these programs used the following practices to ensure that their teacher candidates were learning to use evidence-based practices in classrooms:

evidence-based practices were taught in multiple courses to meet the needs of students with high-incidence disabilities;

evidence-based practices that foster inclusive education were modeled (e.g., coplanning, coteaching, cooperative learning, universal

design for learning, differentiated instruction, strategy instruction, and cooperative learning, and accommodations);

structured opportunities to apply evidence-based practices in clinical settings were ensured;

structures for extended clinical and field experiences were created by establishing partnerships with schools;

effective professional learning opportunities were increased, through the use of professional learning communities, shared

information from experts in the field, book studies, and lesson study.

(3) Time is essential to learn to use complex skills. Researchers studying the development of expertise have shown that it takes seven to 10

years to become highly effective, as experts need repeated opportunities to apply their knowledge in authentic settings and receive feedback on

their efforts. Teacher and leader preparation programs put their candidates on a path to becoming highly effective by teaching them

foundational knowledge and skills and providing time for them to learn to apply these skills in classrooms and schools. For teachers to develop

new expertise (e.g., a new reading comprehension strategy) effective professional development efforts are substantive in duration, averaging

approximately 40 to 50 hours. Since most teacher education programs are approximately two years in length, teacher education faculty will

need to carefully select the knowledge and strategies they want candidates to learn, as it will take repeated opportunities to practice applying

the knowledge and strategies if teacher candidates are to develop fluent practice. Thus, preparation programs must select the evidence-based

practices that are likely to matter most, as teacher and leader candidates will need repeated opportunities to learn to use these practices.

If teacher and leader preparation providers are going to offer these effective opportunities to learn, substantial program changes may be

necessary to better support their candidates’ learning. In our review of the 325T grants, faculty did the following to support program

improvement:

Developed systems to systematically collect, analyze, and use data to improve their programs;

Developed partnerships and collaborative structures for extended clinical and field experiences;

Aligned educator preparation program curriculum with the evidence-based practices and to existing state requirements;


28

Took advantage of information included in federally funded resources such as IRIS, Monarch, CAST, What Works Clearinghouse,

PBIS, and Response to Intervention websites.

By engaging in these program improvements, 325T participants were able to see positive changes in their candidates’ learning. One 325T

participant shared that the teacher preparation program received “accolades from local systems that our candidates are entering the field

more like second-year teachers.28

”

The 325T grant recipients were provided grant funding to begin the process of restructuring their preparation programs. CEEDAR

similarly provides Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) with support to improve their teacher and leader preparation programs to

incorporate systematic opportunities to learn and build systems to sustain their efforts.

CEEDAR priorities in educator preparation are that each preparation program, delivered by an IHE or alternative route:

1. Integrate evidence-based practices throughout the programs;

2. Prepare school leaders to support teachers and other professional staff to use evidence-based practices to improve outcomes for

students with disabilities;

3. Revise programs to include more systematic opportunities to learn;

4. Establish ongoing substantive communication among programs to ensure that general and special education teacher candidates are

prepared to teach students who struggle with learning, focusing on students with disabilities;

5. Establish a process by which special and general education teacher candidates are prepared to work together, as they are expected to

do in the schools;

6. Ensure that at least one IHE in the state addresses reform of a leadership preparation program to better support teachers, parents, and

students to improve achievement of students with disabilities.

28

Sobel, D., Little, M., McCray, E., & Wang, J. (2014). A Review of the OSEP Program Redesign Projects: Analysis, Synthesis, and Recommendations. Collaboration for

Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center (CEEDAR), University of Florida: Gainsville, Florida.


29

CEEDAR Vision:

CEEDAR’s highest priority is that general and special education teachers and school leaders are prepared to work collaboratively to implement

evidence-based practices and universally designed instruction to serve students with disabilities. Preparation programs, therefore, establish a

system that ensures ongoing, substantive collaboration between general and special education teacher preparation faculty so that all teacher

candidates learn how to support students with disabilities in core instruction and special educators learn how to provide intensive,

individualized instruction. Moreover, programs that prepare educational leaders (e.g., principals, curriculum leaders, central office

administrators, and others) provide opportunities for leaders to learn how to support teachers, parents, and students to improve the achievement

of students with disabilities so all students are successful in careers or continuing education upon graduation.

State Vision:



30

Following are some examples of questions a state team might consider to guide its decision-making process in whether the “lever” of educator

preparation program/curriculum rises to the point of priority and resulting action.

Preparation

Program

Curriculum/

Requirements

Revision

Are the

Preparation

Program

Curriculum/

Requirements

in need of

revision?

Timing

Considerations

Level of

Need/Priority

Stakeholders

Perceived

Need

Has your preparation program recently revised its curriculum/requirements?

Has your state made recent changes to educator standards or licensure requirements? If so, is your

program aligned with these changes?

If you choose to revise your program curriculum/ requirements, what will be the timeline to implement

these changes (consider procedural requirements, scheduling stakeholder input, staff capacity, funding

streams)?

After reviewing the CEEDAR survey, do stakeholders perceive a need to prioritize the revision of

preparation program curriculum/requirements?

Has the state or your IHE established priorities, initiatives, and goals that will impact program

requirements? Do they align with the anticipated CEEDAR scope of work?

Do all the teacher/leader preparation programs within the state have a common vision of what

constitutes effective teaching? How is this vision communicated to the candidates? To new or adjunct

faculty, or both?

Does this vision of effective teaching include a focus on evidence-based practice?

Guiding Questions

Are there any political or IHE contexts that would influence the decision to revise program

curriculum/requirements?

How well do the general education and special education preparation programs communicate expectations to

teacher candidates? Do faculty members from the different programs align their objectives and curricula to

ensure all candidates have the skills necessary to instruct diverse groups of students?

How are your preparation programs using effective pedagogical practices to improve their teacher

candidates’ learning?

What opportunities are provided to general and special education teacher candidates to work together

to plan and deliver instruction to students with disabilities?

Guiding Questions

Trigger

Points for

Action

Guiding Questions


31

Focusing State Efforts

Importance Feasibility Overall Priority

1

Least

2 3

Most

1

Least

2 3

Most

1

Least

2 3

Most

Example:

Teacher and Leader Standards

X X

Comments: Standards have just been revised as

per efforts to comply with Principle

3 in the ESEA Flexibility Waiver.

Stakeholder feedback indicates

agreement with the present

standards.

Given that standards were just

redone, the state would not have an

appetite to reopen the discussion and

standards.

This may be something to reconsider

after the IC and Reform Rubric work is

completed at the IHE level. At that

point, we may have more specific

guidance on the evidence-based

practices.

Teacher and Leader Standards

Comments:

Licensure/Certification

Comments:


32

Importance Feasibility Overall Priority

1

Least

2 3

Most

1

Least

2 3

Most

1

Least

2 3

Most

Program Evaluation/Improvement/

Accountability

Comments:

Program Approval/Accreditation

Comments:

Preparation Reform

Comments: