Reviewer Training

5/18/2012

WelcomeWelcome& Introductions& Introductions

Co-Chairs:

NHDOERepresentative: Bob McLaughlin

IHE and P12 educators

Two members of the NH Council for Teacher

Education serving as team co-chairs

One representative from the NHDOE

Support continuous program improvement

Ensure NH’s IHEs are effectively preparing future educators

Purposeful Supportive Collegial Interactive Demonstrating integrity Focused on evidence Identifying continuous improvement Confidential

General Education (Ed 609.01) Professional Education (Ed 610.02) “Unit” Standards (C-I-A-R)

◦ Curriculum

◦ Instruction

◦ Assessment (Program & Candidate)

◦ Resources

These standards are reviewed by co-chairs with input from reviewers.

Individual Endorsements for INSERT IHE NAME HERE

◦ Elementary Education K-8 (Ed 612.04)

◦ Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities (Ed 612.10)

◦ Specific Learning Disabilities (Ed 612.11)

◦ Special Education (Ed 612.07)

◦ English Language Arts 5-12 (Ed 612.05)

◦ Life Sciences 7-12 (Ed 612.25)

◦ Social Studies 5-12 (Ed 612.28)

These standards are reviewed by individual program reviewers with support from co-chairs.

Standards are Developed by the Professional Standards Board

Approved by the State Board of Education Monitored by the Council for Teacher

Education

Ed 61X.XX NAME OF ENDORSEMENT 

RATING: Either: On Standard or Approaching Standard or Standard Not Met

RATIONALE (Required)Describe the reviewed evidence that led to this rating.

RECOMMENDATION(Required if standard is “approaching” or “not met.”)

COMMENDATIONS (Optional)

Review Evidence of Teaching and Learning (e.g.)

◦Candidate work samples◦Course materials◦Direct observations◦Records and documents◦Testimony from interviews◦Alumni and/or employer surveys of

graduates’ preparedness

essays journal entries

lesson plans notes performances

portfolios reflections reports test responses etc.

assignments handouts notes lectures/lecture outlines tests, quizzes Samples of assessed candidate work

evaluation rubrics etc.

advising materials contracts e-mails handbooks organizational

charts meeting agendas meeting minutes meeting notes procedures

policy statements/ booklets

program descriptions and requirements

reports from other program reviews: local, regional, state, national

schedules student records etc.

administrators candidates faculty staff graduates/alums cooperating professionals others, as appropriate

On Standard

Review of the evidence indicates that the overall standard is met

Usually requires a mix of types of evidence Look at the whole, not the individual sub-items

within a standard Consider the Institution’s understanding and

interpretation of the standard Consult with co-chairs & team if uncertain

Approaching Standard

Although some evidence is provided, this evidence does not indicate overall compliance with the standard.

Request additional information from the IHE during the review process about potentially unmet standards

Consult with co-chairs if uncertain

Standard Not Met

Evidence of overall compliance with standard is not available, even when requested. Consult with co-chairs if uncertain

Rationale◦ List evidence to be reviewed for the rating

◦ Required to explain Approaching or Standard Not Met rating

◦ WRITE COMMENT TO EXPLAIN RATIONALE FOR EACH STANDARD

Recommendation◦ “Institution will need to provide evidence that …”

(complete sentence using language in standard)

Commendations (OPTIONAL)◦ Only if something is exemplary and goes well beyond

the expectations of the standard

Serves as the ‘abstract’ for your program Provides a brief explanation of program Provides narrative summary for final program

report to complement data from matrix Informs Council members to support their

decision regarding approval Note: This is not the place for personal

congratulations or appreciation to the program; this is a formal report.

Also, please use no individual’s name, and state “the reviewer” rather than “I”.

Comment on sources and quality of evidence

Summarize the program’s strengths If all standards were met, say so! Identify any areas of concern Summarize approaching or unmet standards

(if any) and the related recommendations Highlight commendations (if any) Keep it brief (< 1 page is fine)

Institutional Mission Core Values Governance structures Faculty style or personality Delivery models Activities not related to PEPP standards

Provide advice as to how to change the program

Compare their program to another program

Critique the readings, assignments, or syllabi

Make recommendations that aren't related to standards

Completed by each reviewer

Summary Findings for each program Individual Program Matrix with documentation for

each standard Program Recommendation Approval Options:

◦ Full Approval◦ Approval with Conditions◦ Not Approved◦ Provisional Approval ( new programs only)

Save Everything!Save Everything!

Completed by co-chairs

Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment & Resources matrices

Ed 609 and ED 610 matrices Summary Findings from each reviewer All matrices submitted to provide

documentation of each standard and the review process

Program Approval Recommendations

Before you leave, submit to co-chairs: Electronic and signed paper copies of Ed 612/614

and Ed 610 matrices and summary findings Your flash drive Program Approval Recommendation form [signed]

Keep copies of documents Maintain confidentiality

Team report is shared with Institution for factual errors.

Council for Teacher Education reviews report.

Institution attends Council meeting and responds to questions from reactors.

CTE makes a recommendation to the State Board of Education.