Site Visit Training

1
Site Visit Training

• OSPI
• April 2008

2
Welcome and Introductions

• Name
• Affiliation
• Reason for attending this training

3
Day 1

• Overview
• Fishbowl
• Gathering Evidence
• Exhibits
• Interviews
• Exhibit Review
• Fishbowl
• Debrief

4
Day 2

• Interviews with students and faculty
• Fishbowl
• Writing the Report
• Writing Exercise
• Debrief

5
Performance-Based Program Review

• Required by the state
• All programs leading to state certification
• Teacher, Principal, Counselor, Psychologists,
  Social Workers at Residency and Professional
  Level
• Five program approval standards
• Peer Review
• High stakes

6
What does performance-based program review mean?

• Performance-based program review means continuing
  approval based on results, results that
  demonstrate that candidates know the subject
  matter and can teach effectively so that all
  students learn.
• Programs are expected to develop systems to
  evaluate and monitor candidate learning and to
  use data for program improvement

7
Purpose of Visit

• Accountability
• Met
• Not Met
• Exemplary
• Program Improvement
• Accolades
• Recommendations
• Self-study

8
Site Visit Guidelines

• Visits last 3-5 days
• Typically 6 members
• Review 5 program approval standards
• 2006 Protocol
• Educator Preparation Programs
• Teacher
• Administrator
• ESA
• NCATE-State Concurrent Visits

9
5 Approval Standards

• Professional Education Advisory Board
• Accountability
• Governance and Resources
• Program Design
• Knowledge and Skills

10
NCATE

• National Council of Accreditation of Teacher
  Education
• State-level partnership with NCATE
• NCATE accredits the unit
• State approves individual programsprincipal,
  teacher, counselor, ProCert, etc.

11
Who Can Serve on the Team

• Complete state training session OR have served
  on NCATE BOE team OR have previously served as
  state team member
• No conflict of interest
• Connections with the institution
• Financial benefit

12
Qualities of effective reviewers

• Understanding of program review standards
• Strong interpersonal skills (tact friendliness
  active listening collaborative attitude)
• Ability to observe confidentiality
• Objectivity and open-mindedness
• Ability to ask thoughtful questions
• Stamina

13
Qualities of ineffective reviewers

• Unwillingness to do advance preparation
• Advocacy for particular curricula, strategies,
  or points of view
• Gotcha mentality
• Sense of entitlement

14
Key Things to Remember

• Team members are working on behalf of the State
  Superintendent and the PESB
• Site Visit is a snapshot of the program
• Fair review-the team is not trying to catch a
  program
• Confidentiality

15
Big Question

• Is the program preparing quality candidates who
  can be effective educators?
• How do we know?

16
Timeline After the Visit

• Reports submitted to SPI within two weeks
• Compilation of final report
• Back to team for check
• Then to institution for review
• PESB

17
(No Transcript)
18
Summary of Results

• Since residency program review began in 2001
• 51 programs have been reviewed (teacher,
  administrator, ESA)
• 73 of criteria were judged to be Met
• 11 of criteria were judged to be Unmet
• 16 criteria were judged to be Exemplary
• General upward trend

19
Fishbowl 1

• Initial Team Meeting on Day 1

20
Exhibit Review
21
Exhibit Review

• Review exhibits as though you are on an actual
  visit
• As a team you may decide to divide the standard
• Share/discuss with eachother throughout
• Take notes-you will be writing a section of a
  report based on your findings
• Jot down process questions for discussion at the
  end

22
Fishbowl 2

• Evening Team Meeting Sharing Initial Findings

23
Day 1 Debrief

• Respond to the questions on the salmon colored
  sheet
• Share with your group
• Question and Answer
• Turn in reflection to the in-box

24
Day 2

• Interviews with students and faculty
• Fishbowl
• Writing the Report
• Writing Exercise
• Debrief

25
Interviews
26
Fishbowl 3

• Final Team Meeting

27
Writing the Report
28
Things to Remember

• Report is a professional document
• Report has an important role in the approval
  process
• The final report is a public document
• Report is not an editorial

29
Tips for Writing

• Under each heading, address all programs under
  review (this doesnt pertain to Standard 5)
• Avoid citing specific names in the report text
• Avoid using I
• Refer to college/university students as
  candidates so as to avoid confusion with P-12
  students
• Refer to college/university instructors as
  faculty so as to avoid confusion with P-12
  teachers
• Write clear concise statements based on evidence
  that you have seen or heard. Include
  illustrations and examples of observations and
  findings that support your conclusions.

30
Tips for Writing

• Note if evidence could not be found
• Use complete sentences
• Avoid making recommendations or prescriptive
  statements
• Use the rubrics described in the protocol as the
  basis for making your recommended rating
• Acknowledge both strengths and concerns in your
  narrative.
• Dont make excuses for the program not achieving
  a Met rating

31
Writing the Report

• Work alone or in groups of two or three
• Select one or two of the Criteria in Standard IV
• Draft a few paragraphs addressing the Criteria
• Use your notes from the exhibit review,
  interviews, and team meetings

32
Conclusion

• Please complete the evaluation and turn into the
  in-box
• Remaining questions

33
(No Transcript)