120 likes | 257 Vues
PESB Standards. Standard 2: Accountability and Program Improvement. How Standards are Judged. Standards are deemed unmet, met or exemplary. A standard is deemed ‘met’ if: A program offers credible evidence which is related to the standard being addressed.
E N D
PESB Standards Standard 2: Accountability and Program Improvement
How Standards are Judged • Standards are deemed unmet, met or exemplary. • A standard is deemed ‘met’ if: • A program offers credible evidence which is related to the standard being addressed. • A program offers evidence which reflects the program. • A program offers evidence from a multitude of sources. • Some of the evidence is student- or candidate-based. • The evidence as a whole is persuasive.
How Standards are Judged Continued • A standard is deemed ‘exemplary’ if: • All of the requirements under the ‘met’ rating are addressed. • The requirements listed under met are addressed. • The committee members demonstrate initiative by presenting cohesive, innovative data.
Standard 2: Accountability and Program Improvement • This standard largely has to do with the alignment of instruction, program content and the standards to which candidates will be upheld.
Standard 2.1a Alignment of Programs with Standards • Data from each program is to be collected and assessed to ensure that applicable standards are addressed. • This standard will also enable programs to evaluate progress on their own goals. • Programs should aim to make the data readily accessible to faculty and staff associated with endorsed programs. • Evidence includes a written assessment plan, rubrics defining program goals and faculty interviews.
Standard 2.1b Gathering Evidence of Student Learning and Program Operation • The data should be gathered with consistency for all students in each program. • It is best that multiple forms of data be presented to demonstrate a candidate’s knowledge, skills and disposition. • For an exemplary rating, programs may update student files as needed. • Evidence includes a plan detailing how data is to be collected, interviews with faculty and clear documentation of students admitted into an endorsed program.
Standard 2.1c Collection of Candidate Work Samples and Documentation • A program is expected to collect data which represents a teaching candidate’s ability to assess and reflect on the influence they have upon their own students. • It is the responsibility of each student to provide extensive documentation to the program with which they are affiliated. • Evidence includes work samples as well as interviews with P-12 partners.
Standard 2.1d Aggregation of Key Data Overtime • The data is to be synthesized so that it may lead to meaningful adaptations of a program. • The data is to be entered into an electronic database (Charlie Potter). • Evidence includes tables, charts, descriptions of the aggregated data and the meaning thereof, as well as faculty interviews.
Standard 2.1g Regular Analysis and Assessment Results • A program should strive to have open communication amongst faculty members and the PEAB. • The data can be offered for discussion by the PEAB. • Evidence includes records of the data being reviewed as well as faculty interviews.
Standard 2.1h Data is Linked to the Decision-Making Process • In order to meet this standard, a program must demonstrate what improvements have been inspired by the data. • In order to receive an exemplary rating, the programs must demonstrate communication with school partners.
Standard 2.2a Adherence to the Professional Educators Standard Board • Each program is expected to demonstrate with working of PESB within the annual memorandum. • In order to achieve an exemplary rating, programs may show initiative in collecting and presenting additional data which they feel to be beneficial. • Evidence includes the memorandum of understanding.
Source for Information • All information is paraphrased from the Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB) website.