Paper for review and comment From the SASB Task Force on Program Standards

This cover note describes a paper titled “Policy on Guidelines for SPA Standards” that has been prepared for adoption by the NCATE Specialty Areas Studies Board (SASB). The policy would provide guidance for Specialized Professional Associations (SPAs) when they write new or revised program standards for use in NCATE accreditation. The authoring Task Force requests comments prior to August 17, 2009. The paper is available on the NCATE website.

Background

The NCATE Specialty Areas Studies Board (SASB) created a Task Force on Program Standards in October 2007 with a charge to “rethink” SASB guidelines for SPA standards writing. The Task Force was charged to examine “current research, national experience, and constructive feedback” and make comprehensive recommendations for development of SPA program standards used in the NCATE accreditation process.

NCATE has continued to gather opinions about both program standards and reviews, and the larger context for its accreditation activities. Its own Executive Board had a lively discussion of these issues last October, and since then, President Cibulka has met with diverse policy makers, stake holders, interest groups, and policy analysts. The Executive Directors of NCATE-affiliated associations discussed these issues last December and again on June 4. And participants from states and specialized professional associations discussed them at the NCATE Clinic held in Louisville May 20-22. NCATE has heard that:

• the national policy community often perceives the roles of colleges of education, and of education accreditation, as not relevant to national education reform efforts;
• NCATE must take forceful steps to be associated with measures that will improve schools and student learning; and
• the nation’s economic slump has given all of these perceptions more urgency but does not change the underlying analysis of the context in which NCATE is working now.

What the Task Force has recommended for “review and comment”

Over a year and a half, the Task Force has held five meetings and three conference calls; presented and discussed at two NCATE Clinics; reviewed current research; participated in discussions with representatives of INTASC and NBPTS; solicited comments by email from SPAs generally and, in addition, from SPAs that write standards for secondary programs and SPAs that write standards for “other school professionals;” solicited email comments from university representatives and states; sent extensive draft recommendations out for review; met with SASB; and participated in a joint meeting of UAB and SASB. It has completed a lengthy and contextualized paper setting out policy recommendations for SASB adoption that would also serve as guidelines for SPA standards writers. The paper is available for review and comment prior to August 17, 2009.

The Task Force retains three current guidelines that underlie SPA standards:

• Standards focus on student learning
• Standards describe and use the knowledge base and evolution of state and national standards
• Standards describe what candidates should know and be able to do

But it makes significant changes in other areas where there are no current guidelines:

First, it proposes four “principles” to guide SPA standards (See the June 17 paper, p. 4 “highlights,” and pp. 8-17 descriptions of the four principles)

• This means that common topics will be covered in standards, so institutions will perceive them as consistent.
• The four principles are: content knowledge; content pedagogical knowledge and skills; learning environments; and professional and collaborative skills.
• There could be adaptations as appropriate for “other school professionals”
• The model of principles that guide and structure standards is borrowed from experience under NBPTS and INTASC.

Second, the principles draw from consensus about research findings on key topics in educator preparation, and would be applied uniquely for each specialty (See June 17 paper, p. 5 “highlights,” p. 8 point on principles “founded on the knowledge base,” and pp 8-18 descriptions of the knowledge bases for each of the principles)

• The topics are, particularly: learning, child and adolescent development, use of assessment to enhance learning, clinical and field experiences, and the curriculum in standards-based instructional environments.
• Standards will be built from a strong research base (embedded in the principles) and SPAs will both adapt this research to their specialty field and apply research unique to their specialty in support of their standards.
• SPAs may make a case for a field and clinical standard—apart from standards that describe candidate knowledge and skills—if they have a compelling requirement that differs from the norm.

Third, guidelines for formatting would create a common structural framework for standards, and also limit the number of SPA standards and elements (See p. 5 “highlights,” p. 7 point on the principles “as a concept-driven structure,” and pp. 17-21 section on “formatting of SPA standards)

• The principles would act as an organizing framework for standards, much as the NBPTS core propositions do for that organization’s standards; from an institutional perspective, this should provide more coherence across SPA standards
• There would be at least 4 standards but not more than 7; elements would not exceed 4 per standard.
• The intent is to ensure focus on the most critical concepts in each SPA, not just all those “nice to know.”

And fourth, on evidence for program reports, guidelines would limit the number of SPA assessments that could be required and also limit program review decisions to “preponderance of evidence” that each standard is met (See p. 5 “highlights” point on the Policy Guidelines functioning “in consort with the NCATE/SPA program review process,” and p. 24, section on “Guidelines for evidence”)

• The number limit is intended to leave room for institutions to supplement report evidence within the current 6 to 8 program assessments if they choose.
• The “preponderance” restriction is intended to keep reviewer focus on the most important issues and to prohibit SPAs from insisting on exhaustively detailed evidence.

What is next?

These ideas have already been discussed at the NCATE May Clinic, attended by SPA and state representatives. In addition to the conversation with Executive Directors on June 4, we plan:

• email contact with all NCATE institutions,
• general notification about, and access to, Task Force documents on the NCATE web site,
• two or three webinar sessions announced well in advance and scheduled early in the summer and again near the reopening of schools in August, and
• contacts with each SPA to gather information on what efforts would be required to write their standards following the proposed guidelines.

The input from all of these events will be the basis for a final conference call and decisions about what the Task Force will take to SASB for approval in October.

EJE; NCATE; June 18, 2009