november 17, 2010 ensuring educator excellence. ctc and cde btsa induction interagency task force ...

BTSA Induction Directors Meeting

November 17, 2010

Ensuring Educator Excellence

2

CTC and CDE BTSA Induction Interagency Task Force

Welcome and Introductions Reviewing the Agenda Process for sending in afternoon questions

[email protected]

BTSA Induction Directors Meeting 2010

3

Cluster 1◦ Commission on Teacher Credentialing

Cluster 2◦ Ventura County Office of Education◦ Contra Costa County Office of Education

Cluster 3◦ Fresno County Office of Education,

Cluster 4◦ Los Angeles County Office of Education Center

East Cluster 5

◦ San Diego County Office of Education◦ Orange County Office of Education

Cluster 6◦ Riverside County Office of Education

Cluster Webcast Locations

4

BTSA Induction Cluster Region Directors

◦ Meeting logistics

◦ Lunch details

◦ Introductions

◦ Activating Activities

Talk to you again at 10:15!

Local Venue Information

5

SB 2042 (1998) allows an individual a route to earn a Clear Multiple or Single Subject Teaching Credential by completing an approved BTSA Induction Program

AB 2210 (2004) states that Induction is the required route to earn the general education Clear Teaching Credential

BTSA Induction

6

Provide job-embedded, differentiated support and professional development for beginning teachers

Provide the pathway for preliminary credential holders to earn a clear credential

Goals of the Induction Program(EC 44279)

7

Selected findings from2009-2010

Statewide Consent Forms

A Statewide Look at BTSA Induction:

8

As of October, 2010

169 BTSA Induction Programs 114 Single district programs; 48 Consortia All but 5 school districts in CA participate in BTSA Induction

1 university-based Induction Program 17,991 Participating Teachers (PTs)

Credential Distribution:Multiple Subjects - 43%Single Subjects - 55%Special Education - 8%

BTSA Induction Programs

9

BTSA

Percentage of Males 28.5%

Percentage of Females 71.5%

BTSA

African American 4.6 %

Native American 2.2 %

Asian, SE Asian 8.8 %

Filipino/Pacific Islander 3.0 %

Hispanic 22.8 %

White 62.7 %

Unknown 3.5 %

Profile of BTSA Induction Participants

10

8,020 in 2009-2010

94% have taught 6 or more years

13% Full-time release (FTR)

7% retired educators

31% participated in the BTSA Induction program as a participating teacher

BTSA Induction Support Provider Profiles

11

2009-2010Statewide Program Evaluation Surveys

Participating Teachers (PT) Support Providers (SP) Site Administrators (SA)

Selected findings from

12

How many responded to the survey?

04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10

PT responses

17,217 20,841 24,769 25,592 20,726 15,209

PT rate 75.0% 80.7% 87.6% 85.0% 86.0% 84.6%

SP responses

8,337 9,404 10,754 10,907 8,750 6,725

SP rate 79.7% 80.4% 85.4% 84.8% 81.8% 83.7%

SA number responded

3,622 3,711 4,300 4,641 3,617 2,953

13

More than three-fourths Support Providers (76%) are full-time classroom teachers

Half Support Providers support more than one participating teacher

More than three-fourths Support Providers (81%) have served as a SP more than two years.

Support Provider Responsibilities

14

SP and SA understanding of BTSA Induction Program “Moderately Clear and Very Clear”

Support Provider

Site Administrator

Goals and Design 92.6% 87.9%

Roles and Responsibilities of PT 94.9% 90.8%

Roles and Responsibilities of SP 94.5% 90.0%

Roles and Responsibilities of SA 72.4% 85.2%

Induction Requirements 90.2% 79.0%

15

Communication – PT were asked…On average, how frequently did you meet , IN PERSON, with your SP?

Daily 3.8%

2-3 times per week 10.4%

Weekly 51.0%

Twice per month 20.8%

Once per month 9.4%

Less than once per month 4.0%

Never met with my SP 0.2%

16

Communication – PT continued…On average, how long were the IN-PERSON meetings with your SP?

Fewer than 30 minutes 9.0%

31-60 minutes 58.5%

61-90 minutes 24.9%

More than 90 minutes 6.9%

Never met with my SP 0.2%

17

SP-PT Match: PT were asked… How closely matched with your SP?

Not Matche

d

Somewhat

Matched

Fairly Matched

Very Matche

d

Grade level 6.9% 17.1% 28.8% 46.7%

Subject Matter 15.5% 17.9% 23.4% 42.6%

Knowledge of student population

1.8% 7.4% 21.0% 69.1%

Familiarity with site resources

2.5% 9.0% 22.4% 65.4%

Schedules (prep period) 14.8% 15.0% 25.4% 43.8%

Personality, disposition, working style

2.4% 8.7% 26.8% 61.4%

Teaching philosophy 2.0% 9.6% 33.3% 54.3%

Familiarity with colleagues and site administration

3.4% 10.1% 23.6% 62.1%

18

SP-PT Match: PT were asked… How important to you were the following factors in a match with SP?

Not Importa

nt

Somewhat

Important

Fairly Important

Very Importa

nt

Grade level 3.5% 12.0% 30.0% 54.0%

Subject Matter 5.9% 15.3% 28.5% 49.7%

Knowledge of student population

1.1% 6.9% 27.6% 63.5%

Familiarity with site resources

4.5% 15.2% 29.9% 49.5%

Schedules (prep period) 12.8% 21.6% 31.4% 33.3%

Personality, disposition, working style

1.2% 7.9% 30.5% 59.5%

Teaching philosophy 1.3% 8.8% 36.1% 52.8%

Familiarity with colleagues and site administration

5.7% 19.0% 34.3% 40.3%

19

Collected in fall, annually

This year, matched with BTSA Consent database and SEID information from PAIF data from CDE

May become even more important with the flexible funding in 2009-10

Retention Data

20

Retention Rate for BTSA InductionCompiled, Fall 2010

6-yr retention rate

5-yr retention rate

4-yr retention rate

3-yr retention rate

2-yr retention rate

23.8%

24.1%

27.0%

25.8%

14.1%

1.6%

1.9%

0.7%

0.5%

0.5%

74.6%

74.7%

72.3%

73.7%

85.4%

Teaching Admin & Counseling No Information

21

Update on program statusNumber Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6

Programs09-10 23 31 25 35 33 16

Active 22 31 25 32 30 16

Inactive 1 0 0 2 3 0

Withdrawn 0 0 0 1 0 0

22

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 4

Cluster 5

Cluster 6

PT reduction

36% 28% 27% 39% 34% 39%

Funding by LEA

Implementation varies across programs.

LEAs have absorbed some Tier III funds but are supporting the needs of the reduced-sized programs, including administrative support and SPs.

All programs are participating in accreditation activities.

LEA Charging PT

0 0 0 1 6 0

Update on program status (continued)

23

Budget Information

New administration +

New legislature +

New Superintendent of

Public Instruction =

WAIT AND SEE

24

Commission on Teacher

Credentialing:

Accreditation System

25

K-12 Members

Joyce Abrams Retired Teacher, Chula Vista Elementary

Kiran Kumar Teacher,Pomona Unified School District

Joseph Jimenez BTSA Induction Cluster Region Director

Carol Leighty Superintendent, Temecula Valley Unified

Sally Plicka BTSA Director,Davis Joint Unified School District

Nancy Watkins Teacher, Placentia-Yorba Linda

COA MembersPostsecondary Members

Ellen Curtis-Pierce Associate Vice Chancellor, Brandman University

Iris Riggs Professor, CSU San Bernardino

Anne Ford Jones Director,UC Riverside

Gary Kinsey Associate Dean, Cal Poly Pomona

Reyes Quezada Professor, University of San Diego

Pia Wong Professor, Sacramento State University

26

Must continuously meet

Common Standards Program Standards, and Preconditions

regardless of state funding levels, how the local program sponsor elects to allocate its

funding, and whether or not candidate fees are collected.

Approved Program

27

Annually, collect and analyze data, if necessary modify program

Years 1, 3, 5: Biennial Reports

Year 4: Program Assessment

Year 6: Site Visit

Year 7: Follow up activities to the site visit

Accreditation SystemSeries of activities over 7 years

28

Accreditation System

are Common Standards and Program Standards implemented in an integrated, effective manner?

Biennial Reports

are programs effective in preparing competent educators?

are programs aligned with standards?

Site Visit

Program Assessment

29

California education professionals who have attended the Commission training sessions

Representatives from IHE, school districts, and county offices of education

BIR members ◦ Review Initial Program Review and Program Assessment

documentation◦ Serve on site visit teams◦ Training sessions occur twice a year

January summer

Board of Institutional Reviewers (BIR)

30

Due in fall of the year following the Biennial Report year…so fall 2010 for Orange, Blue, and Violet cohorts; fall, 2011 for Red, Green, Indigo.

4-6 key assessments◦ Candidate Competence and

◦ Program Effectiveness

Template available from CTC Web page;BTSA template available on btsa.ca.gov

Reports on prior 2 years of data

Biennial Report

31

New this year: All programs will be required to submit Part B, a verification that the report has been reviewed by the Superintendent or designee

Reports are emailed to the CTC:

[email protected], with a copy to CRD

Commission staff will review and respond to the report

Response will be provided to the institution (Superintendent with a cc to the program director) with 6-12 weeks

Biennial Reports

mailto:[email protected]

32

Candidate Progress through

formative assessment Categorization and

frequency of Focus Questions or Inquiry Topics

Self assessment based on evidence on CSTP

Completer surveys

Program Effectiveness State Survey data

◦PT, SP and SA Qs◦Matching SP and

PT Focus group findings Feedback on PD

offerings Local evaluation

tools

Possible ‘Key Assessments’ 2009

33

Handout #1: The Frankenstein Report

Put together from “parts” of many Biennial Report submissions

Like Frankenstein, it doesn’t fit together well or make much sense, but fits our purposes

Highlights of the 2010 Biennial Reports (so far)

34

Section A, Part I: Contextual Info and Program

Status

Sample 1

35

Section A, Part I: Contextual Info and Program

Status

Sample 2

36

Look for patterns in the data Consult multiple years to identify trends Avoid individual questions Select data that illuminates your focus

question It’s not just presentation, but also analysis Steps to using state survey well

◦ Read it for content first◦ Identify common themes within each survey◦ Work across stakeholder groups◦ Include perspectives of all groups

Using the State Survey. . .

37

Data that is too global to help determine its effect on effectiveness or competence

• For example: district pd that all personnel attended and completed evaluations for, or program completion rate of your candidates

Data that you have no influence upon• For example: retention data

Data that is not tied to standards For example: evaluations with room temp &

food quality comments

Three things to avoid. . .

38

Section A, Part II: Assessments of Candidate Competence and Program

Effectiveness

Sample 3

39

Section A, Part III: Presentation and Analysis of Data

Sample 4

40


Sample 5

41


Sample 6

42


Sample 7

43


Sample 8

44


Sample 9

45


Sample 10

46


Sample 11

47


Sample 12

48


Sample 13

49


Sample 14

50


Sample 15

51


Sample 16

52


Sample 17

53


Sample 18

54


Sample 19

55


Sample 20

56

Section A, Part IV: Changes made to program design

Sample 21

57


Sample 22

58


Sample 23

59

Section B Unit Review of the Report

Sample 24

60

Section B Unit Review of the Report

Sample 25

61

BTSA web page, your CRD, and your cluster meetings Commission’s Accreditation web pages

◦ Biennial Reports

◦ Program Assessment

◦ Site Visits

Technical Assistance meetings-archived webcasts◦ Accreditation 101 (February 19, 2009)

◦ Preparing for an accreditation site visit

◦ Program Assessment (December 2, 2009)

Upcoming Technical Assistance Meeting◦ Biennial Reports-December 16, 2010

Accreditation Handbook PSD Weekly E-News

Resources

62

LUNCH!

63

We’ll be back at 2:00 for Questions and Answers

[email protected]

Local Cluster Activities

Generate, Sort & Synthesize

Individually

Record ideas from today’s topic “Biennial Reports”, each on a separate index card, that address:

1. effective practices for the BR process

2. things to avoid in this process

Generate several ideas for each of these areas. Adapted from: Groups at Work – Copyright MiraVia LLC – All rights

reserved

Table Groups:

Share ideas from cards using a round-robin protocol (one at a time, in sequence).

Decide as a table what ideas to put on the wall charts. Post cards with table’s ideas on corresponding chart.

At the signal, walk-around to read each groups ideas

What are some ‘ahas’ you have?

Adapted from: Groups at Work- Copyright 2010 – MiraVia LLC –

All rights reserved

66

1. If a program is inactive in 2010-2011 and have a Biennial Report due in the fall, do we report on the 2009-2010 data only?

Questions and Answers:

67

2. How do we report the anomalies in program design this year, caused by the temporary budget crisis (e.g. PT numbers, implementation changes) when we expect to return to the program as written as soon as possible?

Questions and Answers

68

3. Is there a minimum number of candidates needed to make a Biennial Report viable or required?


69

4. The different formats for the state survey have caused difficulties in comparing data from one year to another. Will there be a third format in 2010-2011?


70

5. Logistics question about the submission electronically:

1 file for Biennial Report AND Program Assessment document?

Program Assessment documents have caused issues with linked documents and zipped files.


71

6. Will the clear Ed. Specialist program be on the same cycle as General Ed. cycle?


72

7. If a program with a Biennial Report is due next fall has been recently approved to serve Ed. Specialist PTs/ should that report include Ed. Specialist?


73

8. If a program is inactive in 2010-2011 and have a Biennial Report due in the fall, do we report on 2009-2010 data only?


74

9. All of the samples shown have a single year of data displayed. For the Biennial Reports being submitted this year, will the focus be on a comparison of two years of data in reports submitted in 2011?


75

10. I’m supposed to be using two year’s worth of data. But what if I use an assessment tool that I gave this year, but not last year? Can I include the analysis of that data?


76

11. In looking at the samples presented today, is it enough to present the data in a table, chart, graph, etc. or do I also have to attach the complete assessment tool?


77

12. Is the standard deviation required on all assessments used? If it is required for all assessments, will it be provided by this year’s state survey?


78

13. If data shows and area of growth, can a program choose not to focus on that area in the Biennial Report?


79

14. Part B: I don’t get it. Who writes it, who signs it? Is there 1 narrative per credential or 1 narrative per program? Narrative vs. last page.


80

15. Sample 11….was it program effectiveness or candidate competence? How did participants in the room feel? What are some examples of how it might be expanded to include both?


81

16. Can you please define completer for induction?


82

17. Can you say more about employment is not required for Induction participation. How is it job-embedded support if they are not working with students? How do they meet the standards if not working with students?


83

18. Members reviewed samples of a BTSA program with multiple programs in a single district. Can you discuss what a Biennial Report would look like of a program with multiple induction programs?


84

19. What does a Biennial Report look like for an LEA that offers a BTSA program and a multiple subject clear credential program?


85

20. Back to charging candidates…re program budgets being reviewed for possible reasons why a program may be charging candidates?


86

21. How major do program changes need to be in order to be listed on the Program Changes section of the Contextual Information and Program Status page?


87

22. If we are on a program site visit, we will have access to the program documents prior to the visit. If we found they have not done any assessment of a particular standard, is the review team expected to go deeper in the review of this standard because the program has done no review on its own?


88

23. Did the reviewers find Sample 10 to be a good example of how to represent data on Exit Interview? Did the readers like this sample?


89

24. Do we have enough rigor in the system to use the Accreditation system in places where LEA are not doing the right thing for their candidates?


90

25. Please confirm that you are requiring 4-6 assessments to be referenced in the Biennial Report.


91

26. Does CTC have a specific expectation for the submission format or can other internet options be used, such as Google, Blackboard, Moodle, etc. for:◦ new program submission? ◦ biennial reports? ◦ other?

OR do we need an “old school” back-up plan such as a cd through snail mail?


92

27. How can program charge PT and get state funding? Isn’t this double-dipping?


93

28. How about last year’s 2nd installment for 2009-2010? When do we receive these funds?

Funding for 2009-2010 have all be sent to LEA.


94

29. What do you anticipate for induction funding in 2013 and beyond? Will dollars be allocated on enrollment?


95

30. In Section A, Part I, how do you report the # of Career Adult Education and community schools and # of PT?


96

31. Where does student achievement enter into the equation as part of measuring candidate growth?


97

32. Still unclear about teacher competence versus completion. Can this be put in writing as a guideline to follow with definitions and suggested evidence?


98

33. Can there be an evidence suggestion calendar year for each cohort to help support our different accreditation activities?


99

34. The statewide survey data is perception data, so how do you measure growth over time. Do you want growth or competence?


100

35. Can we be given the link to the TCGB at CDE when the monies are released so that we know when in happens? (As opposed to waiting for our fiscal people to tell us...)


101

36. With the number of programs charging

in clusters 4 and 5, are they charging for BTSA Induction, or Ed Specialist. Is this a trend we want to embrace in the state? Is there a philosophical shift?


102

37. On Section B (page. 25 of packet), do we need to submit the institutional plan of action for each program?


103

38. Please review the difference between a program “withdrawal” versus “going inactive”.


november 17, 2010 ensuring educator excellence. ctc and cde btsa induction interagency task force ...

Documents

btsa induction programs

induction requirements90

educator excellence

special education

btsa african american

btsa percentage of males

fourths support providers

clear credential