Educator Preparation Advisory Council (EPAC)

Educator Preparation Advisory Council (EPAC) July 31, 2013 A New Framework to Strengthen School Leader Preparation in Connecticut

Agenda Welcome & Purpose for Webinar Discussion of Survey Results & Principles Next Steps

Agenda • Welcome & Purpose for Webinar Sarah Barzee CSDE • Discussion of Survey Results & Principles Berrick Abramson • TNTP • Next StepsSarah Barzee • CSDE

Guiding Beliefs For A New Educator Preparation Framework Do No Harm. The policies governing and requirements for teacher preparation programs must be based on practices that are demonstrated to have a positive impact on teacher effectiveness and student learning. Encourage Innovation. Where there is a reasonable expectation of positive outcomes but limited evidence or data exists, Connecticut should further explore the practice and encourage innovation by preparation programs, districts and other stakeholders. Be Aspirational. The CSDE should lead with high aspirations for the state’s teacher preparation programs, setting rigorous standards and expectations for all educators to ensure every student has an excellent teacher.

The Levers For Strengthening Preparation: 6 Principles for Preparation Reform

The Levers For Strengthening Preparation

Overall Response to Survey Comments/Feedback Wording suggestions were very helpful; next iteration will reflect improved and clarified wording of principles. Questions/suggestions about specific examples of principles will be posted to the “parking lot” for future consideration; the principles are not where the “details” are to be explicated or outlined. Contrasting views posed will be considered but final principle will represent a balance between raising and regulating state standards versus autonomy of preparation; will be worked out via details of accountability and program approval system. Intent of principles is that they apply to all school leader (endorsement #092) programs and candidates. Principles: Feedback Survey

Principle 1: Program Entry Standards

Principle 1: Program Entry Standards Summary of Feedback and Comments • Clarify that knowledge, skills and dispositions (KSD) for school leaders refer to those outlined in the Connecticut School Leader Standards. • Scaffold standards (KSD) required for entry versus those developed during the program and at exit allowing for developmentally appropriate expectations across the preparation program. • Add expectation for demonstration of the following as precursor to program entry: • Collaboration with stakeholders • Shared leadership • Professionalism, manage, inspire • Mentoring and coaching of others • Monitoring and supporting continuous improvement of teaching and learning • Ensure that candidates are committed to being school or district leaders and not completing the degree for other purposes. • Pre-requisite education degree and experience must be required to some extent. Does it support our guiding beliefs? Do No Harm. Encourage Innovation. Be Aspirational.

Principle 2: Staffing & Support of Clinical Experiences

Principle 2: Staffing & Support of Clinical Experiences Summary of Feedback and Comments • Principle clarification 3rd sentence: the intent is that school leader candidates will evaluate and provide feedback on the quality of staffing and support of clinical experiences including supervision from faculty and mentorship from school-based administrators. For example an evaluation instrument (e.g., the School Leadership-Aspirant Self-Assessment) could be developed by stakeholders but administered by the state and used statewide after the program completion to allow candidates to provide feedback about the various elements of the program (e.g., quality of faculty supervision, quality of school-based mentorship, etc.) as they relate to the candidate outcomes represented in the Connecticut School Leader Standards. Does it support our guiding beliefs? Do No Harm. Encourage Innovation. Be Aspirational.

Principle 3: Clinical Experience Requirements

Principle 3: Clinical Experience Requirements Summary of Feedback and Comments • Should principle specify “variety of clinical experiences” to include experience in urban districts or schools with diverse populations? That can be delineated in the future when examples of the standards are outlined. • Term “qualified educators” in first sentence means that the school-based faculty and higher education faculty are selected based on their proven experience as educational leaders. • Clarify second paragraph: similar to Principle 2, what is meant here is that the candidates evaluate the quality and coherence of the clinical experiences in order to develop the requisite skills upon which they will be assessed. Does it support our guiding beliefs? Do No Harm. Encourage Innovation. Be Aspirational.

Principle 4: District-Program Partnerships

Principle 4: District-Program Partnerships Summary of Feedback and Comments • Define collaborative partnerships versus strategic partnerships. • Are both statements needed? First statement refers to the collaborative partnership necessary to ensure quality of clinical experiences. The second statement is about shared responsibility for program development and implementation (i.e., the district has equal input on clinical experience design and facilitation). • The criteria and oversight for determining quality partnerships will be developed in the next phase of the development work. Does it support our guiding beliefs? Do No Harm. Encourage Innovation. Be Aspirational.

Principle 5: Program Completion & Candidate Assessment Standards

Principle 5: Program Completion & Candidate Assessment Standards Summary of Feedback and Comments • Align assessment and criteria with the 6 School Leader Standards as developmentally appropriate to the school leaders in training (and alignment to some extent with the state administrator evaluation criteria) • Assessment of inter-personal skills, problem solving skills—should these be program level assessments or entry requirements? • Should there be specific reference to developing the knowledge and skills relative to special and diverse populations (students with disabilities, ELLs, etc.)? • Specificity of performance assessments will be delineated in the development phase Does it support our guiding beliefs? Do No Harm. Encourage Innovation. Be Aspirational.

Principle 6: Program Effectiveness & Accountability

Principle 6: Program Effectiveness & Accountability Summary of Feedback and Comments • Use external measures of school leader performance, holding preparation institutions accountable for the outcomes and improving efficacy of the programs. • Specific accountability measures to be developed (currently have CAT in place that has provided preparation programs feedback on candidate knowledge and skills related to Instructional Analysis and Teacher Support and School Improvement). • Accountability data on school leader preparation will be made public like the teacher preparation data (CSDE has already begun to compile CAT, administrator certification and employment, etc.). Does it support our guiding beliefs? Do No Harm. Encourage Innovation. Be Aspirational.

Summary of Additional Concerns & Recommendations • Delineate specific standards-based requirements in which candidates must be trained and demonstrate competency, not just guidance • Address alternate routes for administration and for those from outside the field of education or other special service areas • Require demonstration of ability to improve teacher practice/student outcomes • Ensure robust clinical experiences • Dual tracks for general administration versus special education administration • Need more to include training in the following areas • Addressing issues related to diverse student populations • Communicating and building partnerships with families (see SL Standards) • Need rigorous internship experiences and actual leadership experiences with effective feedback to candidates on skills needing development • Need training on systems design and change theories • Address use of technology?

Next Steps • Final Review of School Leader Principles • Presentation to State Board of Education (Sept or Oct) • Development of Work Plan for 2013-14 • Develop performance criteria, assessment and accountability measures, etc. • Review and revise program approval regulations and other policy documents Thank you for your contributions on the survey and in the webinar today. Recorded webinar will be posted to CSDE website.

Educator Preparation Advisory Council (EPAC)