Updated June 17, 2005

The BOE Report

The BOE report represents the formal, written findings of the team’s review. It is the means by which the team informs the institution and the UAB of its decisions and the rationales behind them. The university president, unit head, faculty, members of the state boards or committees, and members of the UAB read the BOE report. Sometimes an institution places the BOE report on its website. Occasionally, the report is the focus of a newspaper article praising or criticizing the institution.

The institution prepares its rejoinder or written response based on the BOE report. A well written, detailed, informative BOE report is critical to the accreditation process. The BOE report and the unit’s rejoinder are the primary sources of evidence upon which the UAB bases its accreditation decision. Next to the professional behavior of the team members during the site visit, the written report is the institution’s most lasting impression of NCATE. A poorly written report reflects negatively on the team and NCATE.

Team chairs should assign the writing of each standard to a primary and secondary writer. These individuals should work together to prepare a well-written response by editing each other’s work as necessary. During the team work-session on Wednesday morning, team members must share their writing with each other. Some team members will have better writing skills than others; therefore, members should operate as a team that edits and rewrites each other’s sections to ensure consistency in writing style and detail throughout the report. The submission of a quality report should be one of the team’s goals. Team members should critique each other’s rationales and statements of areas for improvement to ensure clarity and to eliminate redundancy and contradictions.

By the end of the on-site visit, the team should have completed the first draft of the report. Team members should take a copy of the full report with them to use as a reference while the report is finalized over the few weeks following the visit. The team chair should leave the visit with the first draft both on paper and on a computer disk. It is the team chair’s responsibility to compile drafts from individual team members and ultimately produce a final BOE report. While the report is the effort of several individuals, the final report must be a polished, coherent document that speaks with “one voice.” Therefore, team chairs are charged with editing the report so that it is a professional, unified document rather than merely a collection of different reports, written in different styles and formats.

Updated June 17, 2005

Timeline for Submission of the BOE Report

The BOE report should be edited, reviewed by institutional representatives for factual errors, and finalized within 30 days of the on-site visit. Some chairs stay over on Wednesday night of the visit to complete the compilation and editing of the first draft of the report completed by the team that morning. Other chairs complete this work when they return home. It is important for teams to follow the timeline so institutions have time to prepare a rejoinder to the BOE report and BOE team chairs have time to respond to the rejoinder prior to the next UAB meeting.

Updated June 17, 2005

When sending the draft BOE report to the unit for factual corrections, the team chair should be specific about the timeline for a response from the unit, which is generally five working days (unless there are extenuating circumstances). Chairs should not wait indefinitely for a response from the unit. If the chair has not received a response from the unit within the specified timeframe, he/she should contact the unit head to indicate that the report is being finalized.

If team chairs require additional time to finalize the BOE report, they must inform the NCATE office of the delay and provide an estimate of when the report will be completed. NCATE understands that extenuating circumstances may prevent a chair from meeting the timeline above, but staff members need to know how to respond when institutions call about not receiving their
reports. In some cases, staff members may be able to assist the chair with completing the report.

Final reports may be submitted to NCATE as an e-mail attachment. If a hard copy is sent, it should be sent via UPS, Federal Express, overnight mail, or another form of secure, traceable delivery. BOE reports should not be sent via regular mail; they are often lost. To send a report via Federal Express, the chair may request the NCATE account number so that the expense will be billed directly to NCATE.

Updated May 1, 2007

Content of the BOE Report

The BOE report contains six sections as described in the following table. The template for the BOE report, which can be  downloaded from the website, includes each of these sections with prompts about the information that should be included. BOE report samples are available on NCATE’s website as a model to teams as they prepare their own BOE reports.

Updated June 17, 2005

I.  Front Pages

Cover Page, with  the names of BOE team members, state team members (if a joint visit with the state) and/or the state education agency consultant, and the NEA or AFT representative.

Table of Contents, with page numbers for sections of the report.

Summary of Findings for the Standards, with a table showing standards “Met” and “Not Met” at the initial teacher preparation and/or advanced preparation levels.

II.  Introduction, with an overview of the institution, including type (i.e., state, religious affiliation), mission, description of the service area, and population served. It describes the professional education unit—enrollment, programs and degrees offered, off-campus programs offered—and, for continuing visits, any major changes in the unit since the previous visit.

III.  Conceptual Framework, with a description and analysis of the unit’s conceptual framework and the extent to which it is integrated into the unit’s courses, experiences, and assessments. The team should write a general description of the conceptual framework as an introduction to this section and a separate response to each area of evidence (vision, coherence, etc.) listed in the NCATE standards.

IV.  Findings for Each Standard,  with subsections corresponding to each of the six standards. The team should report its findings for each standard at each level (initial teacher preparation/advanced preparation), presenting a description and analysis of the evidence as it relates to the “Elements of the Standard” found in the rubrics for each of the six standards. The narrative should clearly articulate the strengths and challenges demonstrated by the unit in regard to the standard. The team will indicate for each standard whether it is met and cite any areas for improvement that the unit might address after the visit. (In a continuing visit, weaknesses or areas for improvement from the previous visit will be reported as either corrected or continued.) The findings for each standard should include the following parts:

A.    Level (initial teacher preparation and/or advanced preparation).

B.    Findings (narrative description).

C.    Overall assessment of the standard (summary paragraph).

D.    Indication of the standard being met (Met or Not Met).

E.    Areas for improvement.

V. Sources of Evidence, with a list of all individuals interviewed, documents reviewed, and schools and classes observed by the BOE team during the on-site visit.

VI.  Corrections to the Institutional Report, with a description of any substantive corrections to the institution’s report.  (It is not necessary to cite insignificant typographical errors.)

Updated May 1, 2007

Guidelines for Writing the BOE Report

To ensure a well written, informative, and consistent BOE report, team members should adhere to the following  content and style guidelines in their writing. All team members are expected to familiarize themselves with these guidelines. While the chair is charged with ensuring the overall consistency and coherence of the report, individual team members are responsible for the content and quality of their writing. Chairs should copyedit final reports for typographical and grammatical errors before transmitting the report to NCATE.
See also  BOE Report Style Guide.

Updated June 17, 2005

Conceptual Framework

Using the “Evidence for the Conceptual Framework(s)” from NCATE’s standards, the team provides a description and analysis of the unit’s conceptual framework and the extent to which it is integrated into the unit’s curriculum, instruction, and assessments. The team’s findings for the conceptual framework should use the headings that correspond to the evidence for the conceptual framework. Any concerns about the conceptual framework should be discussed in this section. These concerns should foreshadow any areas for improvement related to the conceptual framework cited later in the report.

Updated June 17, 2005

Findings for Each Standard

The team’s findings for each standard must include a rationale—the reasons, facts, evidence, quantitative data, and observations that support the team’s decision of whether the standard is met or not met—and the citation (if any) of areas for improvement. The findings address everything the team found, the positive and the negative, strengths and concerns or challenges, regardless of whether the standard is met or not met. When writing this narrative, teams should follow these guidelines:

• The findings should use the headings that correspond to the elements of the rubric in each standard. Each element must be addressed in its own section.
• The narrative should be as descriptive and provide as many details as possible to help the reader understand the team’s decision.
• Summaries of data such as test scores, pass rates, faculty publications, and candidate diversity should be presented in the report.
• When indicating that the unit uses journals, portfolios, etc., for assessing candidates, the contents and purpose of these artifact should be described. What knowledge, skills, or dispositions are they intended to demonstrate? To what standards are they correlated? How are they assessed? By whom? What were the summarized results?
• The findings should include an “Overall Assessment of the Standard” that summarizes (in one paragraph) the team’s findings.

The findings must support any areas for improvement cited. When the narrative identifies concerns that are not of a critical enough nature to be formally cited as an area for improvement, the team must indicate the mitigating circumstances for not citing these concerns as areas for improvement (for example, “the issue was resolved through an agreement between the faculty union and the university,” etc.). At the same time, the rationale should not attempt to justify the unit’s inability to meet the standard by making excuses for the unit (for example, “the institution is located in a rural area where there is little diversity, which impacts the unit’s ability to recruit a diverse student body”; “it is a small institution with very limited resources that are more urgently needed in areas other than technology”).

When conducting a review of programs for initial teacher preparation and advanced preparation, findings may be substantially different for some standards at the different levels. For example, a standard may be met at the initial level and not met at the advanced level, or the standard may be unmet at both levels but the concerns and areas for improvement cited may be substantially different for each level. In these cases, the team:

• must be very clear in the rationale for why the standard is met at one level and not the other.
• has the option of writing separate rationales for the initial and advanced levels when the findings for the two levels are substantially different.

At times, teams are unable to locate evidence related to a particular element of a standard and will simply avoid addressing that element because very little detail can be provided. However, it is critical that the UAB know that the lack of description about a particular standard or part of a standard is due to the lack of evidence available rather than an oversight on the part of the team. When the unit has not provided documentation and evidence in relation to a standard or part of a standard, it is very important that teams:

• communicate in the BOE report findings section that documentation was not available.
• cite areas for improvement related to the standard or element.

The BOE report is not a “consultant’s” report. The report must avoid giving advice or telling the unit how to correct problems and should avoid editorializing or preaching to the unit. Teams must avoid statements such as “the unit should...,” “the unit ought to...,” “the unit could be doing better in this area...,” and “If the unit does not do ABC, then XYZ will happen.”

In describing findings for the standards, it is not necessary to cite processes and procedures used by the team, nor should sources of evidence be cited in the rationale (for example, do not write “The team interviewed 30 candidates and five cooperating teachers and observed 12 classes and concludes that ...” or, “The institutional report, p. 24, indicates that the unit...”). The full listing of sources of evidence should be provided in the last section of the BOE report.

Updated June 17, 2005

SPA Program Reviews

Standard 1 indicates that candidates should acquire the knowledge, skills, and dispositions outlined in state, institutional, and professional standards. Program reviews from the specialized professional organizations (SPA reports) and state program review reports represent important sources of evidence for candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions.

If the SPA or state report indicates that a program meets standards, the BOE team should consider this as strong evidence that elements of Standard 1 related to content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge are met. BOE teams should note, however, that a positive SPA or state report does not preclude the citation of program-specific areas for improvement in other elements of Standard 1 or in Standards 2–6.

Serious concerns indicated by SPA or state reports should trigger follow-up and investigation by the BOE team. The team should consider whether the unit has addressed the concerns identified by the specialty organization or has plans in place to address them. When the unit has not properly addressed the concern(s), the team should determine the effects of the concern(s) on candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions and cite an area for improvement. In other words, the team should cite areas for improvement that clearly link the stated SPA or state concerns to candidate proficiencies.

Candidate proficiencies are critical in the NCATE standards, which emphasize candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Observations and areas for improvement cited in the BOE report must go beyond listing deficiencies written in the SPA or state reports or stating that the program did not meet the SPA standards. Areas for improvement should clearly state the deficiencies in candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions as outlined, based on the team’s follow-up of concerns cited in SPA or state reports. For example, rather than stating, “The elementary education and early childhood programs do not meet the professional association standards,” an area for improvement should indicate a specific concern that has been confirmed: “Candidates in the elementary education and early childhood programs do not have the pedagogical skills needed to work successfully with exceptional populations.”

It is possible that in investigating concerns cited in SPA and state reports, the team will find that the unit can demonstrate that candidates have acquired the knowledge, skills, and dispositions in question. Assessment data may indicate candidate proficiencies. Similarly, comments from cooperating teachers, employers, faculty, and candidates may indicate that candidates have the required proficiencies. In such cases, the narrative section of the BOE report should state this countervailing evidence and its sources.

Updated June 17, 2005

Examples of Responses to Program Review Findings

The first response does not provide any information about why elementary education did not receive specialty area recognition or the problem that led to a rejoinder for reading education. It did not indicate any follow-up on the part of the BOE team regarding the implications for candidate performance-whether candidates can or cannot, in fact, demonstrate the proficiencies that were found lacking by the program review. The area for improvement cited is general and not performance-oriented; it gives no indication of the relationship to candidate performance.

The second response indicates specifically why elementary education did not receive specialty organization recognition and the specific problem reading education was rejoining. It indicated that the BOE team followed up these reviews to determine whether candidates were able to demonstrate these proficiencies. In the case of elementary education, it provided feedback about problems with candidate performance that support the area for improvement cited. In the case of reading education, the team received feedback that indicated the problem cited by the specialty area did not appear to be impacting candidate performance.

Updated June 17, 2005

Areas for improvement that may be cited after each set of findings identify areas in which improvements need to be made to ensure that high quality programs are offered and that candidates are as well prepared as possible. Areas for improvement can and should be the impetus for positive change and can serve as leverage for the unit in gaining the necessary resources to improve programs and candidate performance.

Teams should keep in mind that the unit has the opportunity to rejoin any areas for improvement cited. The UAB removes areas for improvement that have been successfully rejoined. On the other hand, the UAB may also cite areas for improvement indicated in the narrative of the report but not cited explicitly by the team. BOE teams are encouraged, when in doubt, to err on the side of citing the area for improvement. It is fairer to the unit to provide the opportunity to rejoin an area for improvement and have it removed by the UAB than to have a previously uncited area for improvement added by the UAB.

When both the initial teacher preparation and advanced preparation levels are under review and areas for improvement are substantially different for each level, or areas for improvement are found for one level and not the other, the team must be clear about the level to which the areas for improvement apply (unless a separate rationale has been written for each level). The following are examples of the correct way to write such statements:

• Assessment instruments do not reflect the knowledge and skills outlined in the conceptual framework for advanced level programs.
• (Advanced level only) The unit does not systematically select clinical sites to ensure that candidates have the opportunity to work with students from diverse backgrounds.
• (Initial level only) Field experiences do not provide candidates with the opportunity to use technologies to support student learning.

When an area for improvement statement does not specify a particular level, it is assumed that the area for improvement applies to both levels.

Professional education units are encouraged to discuss in their annual reports progress made in addressing areas for improvement, and they will be evaluated on their progress during the next on-site visit. Therefore, the BOE should write statements of areas for improvement that clearly identify the problem related to the standard. In writing about an area for improvement, teams should remember that the statement should be:

• a concise, factual statement of a problem that has been discussed in the narrative section of the findings.
• one sentence in length. Do not begin the statement with “As noted in the rationale...” or “As indicated above...”
• a complete sentence, with a subject and verb.
• a statement of an area that should be improved. It is not a pre-scription or recommendation. As in the narrative, a statement that begins “The unit should...” or “ The unit needs to ...” is inappropriate.
• performance/outcome-oriented whenever possible, especially for Standard 1.
• followed by a one- or two-sentence rationale for citing it.

Standard 1 focuses on what candidates know and can do. Teams should be looking for outcomes (evidence that candidates are acquiring the appropriate knowledge, skills, and dispositions) and not just for inputs (what is provided in the unit’s curriculum and experiences). In interviews with candidates, faculty, cooperating teachers, administrators, and others, questions should focus not only on what the unit is providing in courses and experiences (inputs) but also on what candidates are gaining from the unit’s courses and experiences and how well they can demonstrate what they have learned (outcomes/performance). When it is not evident that the unit is providing the appropriate inputs into curriculum and experiences, the team should determine what impact this has had on candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Teams are encouraged to relate areas for improvement to performance if at all possible, as shown below:

Updated June 17, 2005

Note that the examples of areas for improvement above are accompanied by a “rationale.” All area for improvement statements should be followed by a brief rationale summarizing information from the team’s findings that provides the reasons for citing the area for improvement. The rationale should reiterate information already in the narrative so that it is clear how the area for improvement stems naturally from the team’s findings.

Updated May 1, 2007

Examples of Areas for Improvement

See also  Areas for Improvement Samples.

The following table provides examples of inappropriate statements of areas for improvement followed by the preferable versions of the statements and an explanation of the problems with the original language.

Updated June 17, 2005

Areas for Improvement in Continuing Accreditation Visits

In a continuing accreditation review, the team must address weaknesses or areas for improvement that were cited at the previous visit. Before the visit, the team will receive the Accreditation Action Report and/or letter issued by the UAB for the last BOE visit. These are the official documents that indicate the areas for improvement the unit should be addressing between visits. The team should refer to these documents when citing the previous weaknesses or areas for improvement that need to be addressed in the BOE report.

Findings related to a previous weakness or area for improvement should be discussed in the narrative for the standard to which it is related. For example, weaknesses cited under the 1995 Standard I.H, Quality of Field Experiences, would likely be related to Standard 3, Field Experiences and Clinical Practices, in the current NCATE Standards. Areas for improvement cited under the 1995 Standard I.A, Conceptual Framework, should be addressed in the new standard to which they are related. The unit’s annual reports since 2000 show the previous weakness under the appropriate new standard. In the section on areas for improvement for each standard, the team should indicate under the appropriate heading whether previous weaknesses or areas for improvement are “corrected” or “continued,” as shown below:

Updated June 17, 2005

The table below shows the relationship between the 1995 and current NCATE standards. In many instances, there may not be a one-to-one relationship between the old and current standards. If the team is not sure of the current standard under which a previously cited weakness falls, it should check the unit’s 2000 or later annual report. The current standards do not include a standard that corresponds to the 1995 Standard I.B, General Studies. However, the explanation for Standard 2 lists general education knowledge as one of multiple indicators of potential success that should be assessed.

Updated June 17, 2005

1995 Standards				2001 Standards
I.A.		Conceptual Framework(s)		Conceptual Framework and 1-6		Integrated throughout all standards
I.B.		General Studies		2		(May be part of multiple assessments used for admission to initial preparation programs)
I.C.		Content Studies		1 4		Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions; Diversity
I.D.		Professional and Pedagogical Studies		1 4		Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions; Diversity
I.E.		Integrative Studies		1 4		Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions; Diversity
I.F.		Advanced Professional Studies		1 3 4		Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions; Field Experiences and Clinical Practice; Diversity
I.G.		Quality of Instruction		4 5		Diversity; Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development
I.H.		Quality of Field Experience		1 3 4		Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions; Field Experiences and Clinical Practices; Diversity
I.I		Professional Community		2 3 5		Assessment System and Unit Evaluation; Field Experiences and Clinical Practice; Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development
II.A.		Qualifications		2		Program Assessment and Unit Evaluation
II.B.		Composition		4		Diversity
II.C.		Monitoring and Assessing Progress		1 2		Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions; Program Assessment and Unit Evaluation
II.D.		Ensuring Competence		1 2		Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions; Program Assessment and Unit Evaluation
III.A.		Qualifications		4 5		Diversity; Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development
III.B.		Composition		4		Diversity
III.C.		Professional Assignments		5 6		Faculty Qualifications,  Performance and Development; Unit Governance and Resources
III.D.		Professional Development		5		Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development
IV.A.		Governance and Accountability		6		Unit Governance and Resources
IV.B.		Resources for Teaching and Scholarship		6		Unit Governance and Resources
IV.C.		Resources for Operations		6		Unit Governance and Resources

Printer-friendly version of 1995/current Standards comparison

Updated June 17, 2005

Writing Style

The following stylistic conventions should be used consistently throughout the BOE report:

• In general, the present tense should be used in the report when describing how the unit meets standards and describing conditions and activities that existed at the time of the visit. Examples of areas for improvement written in the present tense include:
• The unit lacks current computer and information technology to support candidate learning.
• Candidates are unable to articulate and demonstrate the dispositions outlined in the unit’s conceptual framework.
• “Candidates” should be used to refer to individuals enrolled in   professional education programs; “students” should be used to refer to children and youth in P–12 classrooms.
• The word “unit” is not capitalized. “Unit” may be used synonymously with the actual name of the professional education unit (e.g., College of Education).
• All pages should be numbered consecutively.

Updated June 17, 2005

Common Problems in BOE Reports

The following areas have been identified by the UAB as areas that are commonly overlooked or not adequately addressed in BOE reports: