1 Pacha Lead Article - National Forum Journals - Dr. Kritsonis
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 1 Pacha Lead Article - National Forum Journals - Dr. Kritsonis as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 3,405
- Pages: 14
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL VOLUME 25, NUMBER 1, 2007--2008
NCATE COLLABORATIVE ASSESSMENTS: HOW THREE UNIVERSITIES WORKED TOGETHER TO PRODUCE NCATE ELCC STANDARD ACCREDITATION ASSESSMENTS Joseph Pacha Illinois State University
T
his is a story of how three universities working in collaboration created common NCATE ELCC Standard assessments for determining student attainment of the standards and furthermore serves as the introduction to these assessments that follow this introduction. The universities that worked on these assessments make no claim that the assessments are NCATE approved, but they have been produced in a spirit of collaboration and are shared in that spirit. Further, universities may use these assessments in different ways depending upon the format and framework of their own NCATE assessment process. The NCATE Process The NCATE mission statement (2007) gives the vital reason for its existence: NCATE is the teaching profession’s organization to help establish high quality teacher, specialist, and administrator preparation. Through the process of professional accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education, NCATE works to make a difference in the 4
5
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
quality of teaching, teachers, school specialists and administrators. NCATE believes every student deserves a caring, competent, and highly qualified teacher (p. 1). NCATE uses an accreditation process to fulfill its mission. This accreditation process for schools or departments of educational administration preparation means each institution has passed a structured accreditation review. Accreditation is a method for assessing and enhancing academic and educational quality through voluntary peer review. Accreditation informs the public that the accredited college or university operates at a high level of educational quality and integrity. NCATE accreditation is the process by which a professional education unit is recognized by the profession as meeting national standards for the content and operation of the unit. A nationally recognized program has been approved by its specialty professional association (SPA). In addition, if a program is approved by a state in which the state’s program review process has been approved by the relevant SPA, that program will be nationally recognized (NCATE Facts, 2007). The SPA (Specialty Professional Association) to which most institutions seeking NCATE accreditation for administrator preparation is the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) which provides the Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership, commonly referred to as the ELCC Standards. These standards can be accessed electronically at http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/ELCCStandards%20_502.pdf. These standards govern the practice of administrator preparation programs by requiring each program to demonstrate how their students are meeting each specific standard and standard element through an assessment and data gathering process. Three Universities and How They Got Together It is this assessment process that brought together three Illinois educational administration preparation programs at Eastern Illinois University located at Carbondale, Illinois; Illinois State University located at Normal, Illinois; and Western Illinois University located at
Joe Pacha
6
Macomb, Illinois. All three institutions are members of the Illinois Council of Professors of Educational Administration (ICPEA) an affiliate of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) organization. It was at a meeting of ICPEA that the idea for collaborative work on NCATE assessments was born. All three university programs are NCATE member institutions and are under the ELCC and NCATE Accreditation process. The author had previously worked with each institution independently, giving a three hour faculty work session on NCATE assessment development. While discussing the issues that surrounded this process at an ICPEA meeting, members of the three institutions “wondered out loud” whether or not some “common assessments” could be put together to help everyone in their work to meet the accreditation requirements to gather valid and reliable data for NCATE review. Creating good assessments for the NCATE process was proving to be a more difficult endeavor than was previously believed. Two of the department chairs and the assistant chair from the three institutions decided that they could work together collaboratively to develop assessments, scoring rubrics for the assessments, and data tables that all aligned to the ELCC Standards and standard elements as required as partial fulfillment of the accreditation process. Since the department assistant chairperson (and author of this introductory article) was an NCATE program reviewer, it was determined that he should be the “retreat” facilitator to help the faculty from these three institutions come together in a retreat format to develop common assessments that could be used by the participating universities. The Retreat Frameworks and Timeline: The retreat facilitator was given the assignment of creating a process that would bring faculty members together to produce quality ELCC Standard assessments, scoring guides, and data collection tables for the accreditation process. It had been decided that a retreat format would be used for the meeting which meant the faculties would come together for a dinner meeting on Sunday evening and continue their
7
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
collaborative work on the following Monday. The three university programs were able to secure funding and support for the project from Illinois State Action for Education Leadership Program (IL-SAELP). The facilitator designed the following format for the retreat. Sunday evening: (1) meal with a conversation of the retreat’s goals; (2) breakout work session for assessment development with a partner; (3) report-out by partners of work accomplished; and (4) review of work agenda for the next morning. Monday: (1) review the work of Sunday; (2) in pairs, use the newly created assessments for work on scoring rubrics to align with the assessments to the standard and standard elements being assessed; (3) report out work on the scoring guides; (4) plan for future continued work and development; and (5) celebrate successes. The facilitator prepared several handouts for the faculty members to use to help in their deliberations and creative processes. Copies of the ELCC Standards were made available for review. Templates, created by the facilitator to help faculty members organize their ideas, were made ready for distribution (see examples in Appendix A and B). An agenda was created and sent to the department chairs of each department for review prior to the retreat. All was ready. The Retreat Work- What Happened: The retreat day was to start on Sunday afternoon, and as luck would have it, it was the first warmest day of the year. Since the air conditioning was not yet on, the meeting room was quite warm – not a good sign to start off a working retreat where, to begin with, the participants were not really enthusiastic. One good omen was that the evening meal was excellent and ready for the group as they arrived. The faculty members took time introducing themselves to each other as everyone settled in to eat the evening meal. This time of fellowship and getting to know each other soon turned into the real conversation for the meeting; namely NCATE assessments.
Joe Pacha
8
Although it was not agreed upon that this had to done, there was about an hour of the first meeting time spent on “storming and norming” – terms often used by group facilitators to designate the level at which a group is functioning (which in this instance was at the lowest levels for groups). The facilitator used a tactical decision to allow some of the “venting” to occur in order to allow most of the participants to “get it out of their system” in the hope that better work and products would be produced. Fortuitously, one of the participants ended a long conversation among the participants by looking directly at the facilitator and asked the following. “What can we do about that and what are we going to get done tonight since we have already used up over an hour just talking about things? [Referring to an hour long conversation about NCATE assessments and the NCATE process.]” The facilitator answered, “There is nothing that we can do about the issues that are being discussed because they are policies that are out of our control; what we are going do is start right now to work on the real work of the evening to create assessments; so, everyone needs to get a partner...” With that, the real work began. The facilitator quickly reviewed a power point presentation that both faculties had reviewed in their prior training sessions with the facilitator. Next the facilitator reviewed the first template created for the groups to guide their work. This template detailed how to design and make assessments for each of the seven NCATE required assessments. Then faculty members were paired up – preferably with a faculty person from another university – and were asked to reflect upon an assessment that they were already using; review the ELCC standards and standard elements to consider if their assessment could assess one or more of them; and then decide how. Next, each pair was asked to commit to a standard they would work on and develop/refine the ideas on the assessment of that standard and its standard elements. Fortunately nearly all the standards were addressed by at least one pair of faculty working together. The facilitator gave the groups about an hour to “write out or flesh out” their assessment and how it aligned to the standard and standard elements. While the teams worked the
9
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
facilitator moved between each group answering questions, listening to and commenting on ideas and giving support as the groups went about their work. Some interesting things started to happen as the groups worked. The initial rather stoic and somber mood did not last long. After a period of quiet sharing of ideas, the mood/tone shifted to the positive, with laughter, and common quick give-and-take between participants. As the groups worked, more and more enthusiasm became evident as the groups realized they could do this work; their ownership and pride in the quality of their activities along with expanded ideas continued to flow. Having a partner to bounce ideas off or to help add ideas really helped the process. There was no special written format used at this time – a free-flow of ideas to make the connection between the standard and standard elements and the assessments being created. The groups came back together when the facilitator had checked and found most everyone to be done with their assigned work. Each group reported out their assessment ideas and how they related to the standard and standard elements they were addressing. Some questions and other ideas were offered to each group as they reported out. Kudos and applause were given to each group for their excellent work. The enthusiasm for the work was a complete turnaround from the beginning of the retreat. Participants followed up with discussion and celebration of the good work accomplished. One participant said,” I would never has guessed that we would have gotten so much accomplished, felt so good about it, and be ready to work tomorrow, after the way we started out.” The final thing to do for this first session was to plan for Monday’s work and to get a good night’s rest. The start was successful. One of the universities had brought along a graduate student whose job it was to take everything that was created and to make sure that an electronic copy was made of it so that nothing was lost from all the efforts and hard work of the participants. Assessments
Joe Pacha
10
were created for standards 1 through 7. The work for Monday was to continue their refinement and to create scoring rubrics for them. Monday began with continued enthusiasm for the project. After a brief question and answer session about some logistics of some the items, the format issue was discussed. A common framework was agreed upon and the group was ready to start the next scope of its work; creating common scoring rubrics to determine if candidates had truly met the standard or standard element that was being assessed. The facilitator continued to repeat what he had been saying on Sunday evening, “This is an alignment process; the assessments must align to the standard and standard elements and the scoring guide must align to the assessment and to the standard and standard elements. It’s all about alignment!” The facilitator distributed another template to help with the creation of a scoring guide (see Appendix B). Using the template each group began their work on creating a scoring guide that aligned to the assessment and the standard and standard elements that were being assessed. Once again the enthusiasm of the groups and the work they were able to produce was definitely pronounced. By mid-morning each group was ready to report out their work on their scoring guide and alignment to the standard and standard elements. In the report out session that followed, various techniques were exemplified to demonstrate that there is not just one way to align the assessments to the scoring guides and to the standards, but rather, many and varied ones. There was growing enthusiasm among group participants as the morning came to a close because of the amount and the quality of the work produced. The graduate student took copious notes and documented the work to make sure that nothing was lost. The retreat ended by setting a date at the next ICPEA meeting to come together again and to share completed assessments, scoring guides, and data tables. This assignment would keep people on task to finalize ideas, flesh out structures, and ensure that products were complete for sharing among the member institutions who participated.
11
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
What is Next? The ICPEA meeting was held and group representatives shared their assessments, scoring guides, and data tables. The quality of the work continues to improve as peer review continues to provide ideas for improvement. The process is working. Quality assessments are being created, reviewed by fellow faculty members, and are available for use by those participating in the process. But this process did not just stop at this meeting. Because of the pride of ownership and the quality of the assessments and work that was produced, those who worked with the process felt that it needed to be shared with others so that they could benefit from it, learn from it, and share through it. The process was shared with the other college and university members at an ICPEA meeting. It was enthusiastically agreed by the meeting participants that a common agenda item for the group would be to have an NCATE assessment sharing session at each meeting to present, review, and discuss NCATE assessments, scoring guides and data tables. Mike Schmoker (2006) writes in his book, Results Now, “Professional learning communities have emerged as arguably the best, most agreed-upon means by which to continuously improve instruction and student performance.” The spirit of collegial learning is what we as professors of educational administration should demonstrate and instill in our students. This process is allowing us to do what we say we want our students to be doing in field. We are creating a learning community that shares ideas and builds upon the strengths of each other. We are collegially sharing ideas about common ELCC assessments and giving suggestions for improvement. We are talking about and discussing important ideas about teaching and learning. Let’s continue.
Joe Pacha
12
The assessments that were created in collaboration by the members of the three universities follow this introductory article. They represent at least one comprehensive assessment for each of the seven ELCC standards that covers the many of the standard elements contained in that standard. These assessments are being shared in the spirit of collaboration in which they were produced.
13
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
REFERENCES National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (n.d.). About us - mission. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://ncate.org/public/aboutNCATE.asp National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (n.d.). Facts about NCATE. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://ncate.org/public/faqaboutNCATE.asp?ch=1 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (n.d.). Quick facts. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://ncate.org/public/factsheet.asp?ch=1 National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) (2002). Standards for advanced programs in educational leadership: For principals, superintendents, curriculum directors, and supervisors. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/ELCCStandards%20_5-02.pdf Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Joe Pacha
14
Appendix A Collaborative Work Session Assessment Template NCATE Assessment # 1 Assessment #1 • Is to assess content knowledge • Usually is addressed by a state licensure test or professional examination • If no state test or exam, substitute another assessment • Do not duplicate another assessment already listed NCATE Assessment # 2 Assessment #2 • To assess content knowledge • ELCC standards and elements to be assessed should include but not be limited to: 1.1, 1.4, 2.3, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 6.1 • Examples of assessments include comprehensive examinations, essays, case studies, etc. (A word of caution about comprehensive examinations: there must be a valid scoring guide and data table that aligns to this assessment.) NCATE Assessment # 3 Assessment #3 • This assessment should focus on the application of content knowledge in educational leadership • ELCC standards and elements to be addressed could include but not limited to: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 6.1 • Examples of assessments include: action research projects or portfolio tasks
15
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
NCATE Assessment # 4 Assessment #4 Assessment of professional skills in instructional leadership School Based Programs
District Based Programs
ELCC standards and elements could include: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 5.1, 5.2, & 5.3
ELCC standards and elements could include: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 5.1, 5.2, & 5.3
Examples of assessments: school improvement plans, needs assessment projects, or faculty intervention plans
Examples of assessments: district improvement plans, needs assessment projects, or district curriculum redesign projects
NCATE Assessment # 5 Assessment #5 • Assess professional skills in internship/clinical practice • ELCC standards and elements included but not limited to this assessment: 1.3, 3.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 • Example assessments include: faculty evaluations of candidate performances, internship/clinical site supervisor’s evaluations of candidates’ performances, and candidates’ formative and summative logs and reflections • Must show required internship/clinical activities aligned to specific ELCC standard elements • Must provide evaluation instrument for measuring candidate proficiency on specific internship/clinical activities
Joe Pacha
16
NCATE Assessment # 6 Assessment #6 Assess professional skills in organizational management and community relations School Based Programs
District Based Programs
ELCC standards and elements could include: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3
ELCC standards and elements could include: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3
Examples of assessments: school-based strategic plans, school simulations, or school intervention plans
Examples of assessments: district-based strategic plans, district simulations, or district intervention plans
NCATE Assessment # 7 Assessment #7 • Assesses the effects on student learning • Assessment demonstrates candidates’ ability to support student learning and development • ELCC standards and elements that could be addressed include but are not limited to: 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 6.3 • Examples of assessments include: post graduate surveys, employer satisfaction surveys, or community feedback surveys of candidates and graduates
17
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
NCATE Assessment # 8 Assessment #8 This is an optional assessment Appendix B Collaborative Work Session Scoring Guide Template Scoring Guides are instruments that measure candidate mastery of the ELLC Standards and Standard Elements and Standard Element Indicators • •
•
Scoring guides must be specific to the assessment activity or activities described. Examples of scoring guides may be rubrics or Likert type of scale measurements. They must be able to translate levels of performance into a numeric data system. Further, what is proficient or meeting the standard element must be clearly defined. Scoring guides must specifically measure the performance expectation that is “proficient” or “meets” the specific ELCC standard element(s) to which the assessment is aligned.
Example of a scoring guide framework: ES
SE
SE Indicator:
Assessment Description:
ES = ELCC Standard SE = ELCC Standard Element SEI = ELCC Standard Element Indicator
Does Not Meet the Standard:
Meets the Standard
NCATE COLLABORATIVE ASSESSMENTS: HOW THREE UNIVERSITIES WORKED TOGETHER TO PRODUCE NCATE ELCC STANDARD ACCREDITATION ASSESSMENTS Joseph Pacha Illinois State University
T
his is a story of how three universities working in collaboration created common NCATE ELCC Standard assessments for determining student attainment of the standards and furthermore serves as the introduction to these assessments that follow this introduction. The universities that worked on these assessments make no claim that the assessments are NCATE approved, but they have been produced in a spirit of collaboration and are shared in that spirit. Further, universities may use these assessments in different ways depending upon the format and framework of their own NCATE assessment process. The NCATE Process The NCATE mission statement (2007) gives the vital reason for its existence: NCATE is the teaching profession’s organization to help establish high quality teacher, specialist, and administrator preparation. Through the process of professional accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education, NCATE works to make a difference in the 4
5
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
quality of teaching, teachers, school specialists and administrators. NCATE believes every student deserves a caring, competent, and highly qualified teacher (p. 1). NCATE uses an accreditation process to fulfill its mission. This accreditation process for schools or departments of educational administration preparation means each institution has passed a structured accreditation review. Accreditation is a method for assessing and enhancing academic and educational quality through voluntary peer review. Accreditation informs the public that the accredited college or university operates at a high level of educational quality and integrity. NCATE accreditation is the process by which a professional education unit is recognized by the profession as meeting national standards for the content and operation of the unit. A nationally recognized program has been approved by its specialty professional association (SPA). In addition, if a program is approved by a state in which the state’s program review process has been approved by the relevant SPA, that program will be nationally recognized (NCATE Facts, 2007). The SPA (Specialty Professional Association) to which most institutions seeking NCATE accreditation for administrator preparation is the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) which provides the Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership, commonly referred to as the ELCC Standards. These standards can be accessed electronically at http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/ELCCStandards%20_502.pdf. These standards govern the practice of administrator preparation programs by requiring each program to demonstrate how their students are meeting each specific standard and standard element through an assessment and data gathering process. Three Universities and How They Got Together It is this assessment process that brought together three Illinois educational administration preparation programs at Eastern Illinois University located at Carbondale, Illinois; Illinois State University located at Normal, Illinois; and Western Illinois University located at
Joe Pacha
6
Macomb, Illinois. All three institutions are members of the Illinois Council of Professors of Educational Administration (ICPEA) an affiliate of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) organization. It was at a meeting of ICPEA that the idea for collaborative work on NCATE assessments was born. All three university programs are NCATE member institutions and are under the ELCC and NCATE Accreditation process. The author had previously worked with each institution independently, giving a three hour faculty work session on NCATE assessment development. While discussing the issues that surrounded this process at an ICPEA meeting, members of the three institutions “wondered out loud” whether or not some “common assessments” could be put together to help everyone in their work to meet the accreditation requirements to gather valid and reliable data for NCATE review. Creating good assessments for the NCATE process was proving to be a more difficult endeavor than was previously believed. Two of the department chairs and the assistant chair from the three institutions decided that they could work together collaboratively to develop assessments, scoring rubrics for the assessments, and data tables that all aligned to the ELCC Standards and standard elements as required as partial fulfillment of the accreditation process. Since the department assistant chairperson (and author of this introductory article) was an NCATE program reviewer, it was determined that he should be the “retreat” facilitator to help the faculty from these three institutions come together in a retreat format to develop common assessments that could be used by the participating universities. The Retreat Frameworks and Timeline: The retreat facilitator was given the assignment of creating a process that would bring faculty members together to produce quality ELCC Standard assessments, scoring guides, and data collection tables for the accreditation process. It had been decided that a retreat format would be used for the meeting which meant the faculties would come together for a dinner meeting on Sunday evening and continue their
7
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
collaborative work on the following Monday. The three university programs were able to secure funding and support for the project from Illinois State Action for Education Leadership Program (IL-SAELP). The facilitator designed the following format for the retreat. Sunday evening: (1) meal with a conversation of the retreat’s goals; (2) breakout work session for assessment development with a partner; (3) report-out by partners of work accomplished; and (4) review of work agenda for the next morning. Monday: (1) review the work of Sunday; (2) in pairs, use the newly created assessments for work on scoring rubrics to align with the assessments to the standard and standard elements being assessed; (3) report out work on the scoring guides; (4) plan for future continued work and development; and (5) celebrate successes. The facilitator prepared several handouts for the faculty members to use to help in their deliberations and creative processes. Copies of the ELCC Standards were made available for review. Templates, created by the facilitator to help faculty members organize their ideas, were made ready for distribution (see examples in Appendix A and B). An agenda was created and sent to the department chairs of each department for review prior to the retreat. All was ready. The Retreat Work- What Happened: The retreat day was to start on Sunday afternoon, and as luck would have it, it was the first warmest day of the year. Since the air conditioning was not yet on, the meeting room was quite warm – not a good sign to start off a working retreat where, to begin with, the participants were not really enthusiastic. One good omen was that the evening meal was excellent and ready for the group as they arrived. The faculty members took time introducing themselves to each other as everyone settled in to eat the evening meal. This time of fellowship and getting to know each other soon turned into the real conversation for the meeting; namely NCATE assessments.
Joe Pacha
8
Although it was not agreed upon that this had to done, there was about an hour of the first meeting time spent on “storming and norming” – terms often used by group facilitators to designate the level at which a group is functioning (which in this instance was at the lowest levels for groups). The facilitator used a tactical decision to allow some of the “venting” to occur in order to allow most of the participants to “get it out of their system” in the hope that better work and products would be produced. Fortuitously, one of the participants ended a long conversation among the participants by looking directly at the facilitator and asked the following. “What can we do about that and what are we going to get done tonight since we have already used up over an hour just talking about things? [Referring to an hour long conversation about NCATE assessments and the NCATE process.]” The facilitator answered, “There is nothing that we can do about the issues that are being discussed because they are policies that are out of our control; what we are going do is start right now to work on the real work of the evening to create assessments; so, everyone needs to get a partner...” With that, the real work began. The facilitator quickly reviewed a power point presentation that both faculties had reviewed in their prior training sessions with the facilitator. Next the facilitator reviewed the first template created for the groups to guide their work. This template detailed how to design and make assessments for each of the seven NCATE required assessments. Then faculty members were paired up – preferably with a faculty person from another university – and were asked to reflect upon an assessment that they were already using; review the ELCC standards and standard elements to consider if their assessment could assess one or more of them; and then decide how. Next, each pair was asked to commit to a standard they would work on and develop/refine the ideas on the assessment of that standard and its standard elements. Fortunately nearly all the standards were addressed by at least one pair of faculty working together. The facilitator gave the groups about an hour to “write out or flesh out” their assessment and how it aligned to the standard and standard elements. While the teams worked the
9
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
facilitator moved between each group answering questions, listening to and commenting on ideas and giving support as the groups went about their work. Some interesting things started to happen as the groups worked. The initial rather stoic and somber mood did not last long. After a period of quiet sharing of ideas, the mood/tone shifted to the positive, with laughter, and common quick give-and-take between participants. As the groups worked, more and more enthusiasm became evident as the groups realized they could do this work; their ownership and pride in the quality of their activities along with expanded ideas continued to flow. Having a partner to bounce ideas off or to help add ideas really helped the process. There was no special written format used at this time – a free-flow of ideas to make the connection between the standard and standard elements and the assessments being created. The groups came back together when the facilitator had checked and found most everyone to be done with their assigned work. Each group reported out their assessment ideas and how they related to the standard and standard elements they were addressing. Some questions and other ideas were offered to each group as they reported out. Kudos and applause were given to each group for their excellent work. The enthusiasm for the work was a complete turnaround from the beginning of the retreat. Participants followed up with discussion and celebration of the good work accomplished. One participant said,” I would never has guessed that we would have gotten so much accomplished, felt so good about it, and be ready to work tomorrow, after the way we started out.” The final thing to do for this first session was to plan for Monday’s work and to get a good night’s rest. The start was successful. One of the universities had brought along a graduate student whose job it was to take everything that was created and to make sure that an electronic copy was made of it so that nothing was lost from all the efforts and hard work of the participants. Assessments
Joe Pacha
10
were created for standards 1 through 7. The work for Monday was to continue their refinement and to create scoring rubrics for them. Monday began with continued enthusiasm for the project. After a brief question and answer session about some logistics of some the items, the format issue was discussed. A common framework was agreed upon and the group was ready to start the next scope of its work; creating common scoring rubrics to determine if candidates had truly met the standard or standard element that was being assessed. The facilitator continued to repeat what he had been saying on Sunday evening, “This is an alignment process; the assessments must align to the standard and standard elements and the scoring guide must align to the assessment and to the standard and standard elements. It’s all about alignment!” The facilitator distributed another template to help with the creation of a scoring guide (see Appendix B). Using the template each group began their work on creating a scoring guide that aligned to the assessment and the standard and standard elements that were being assessed. Once again the enthusiasm of the groups and the work they were able to produce was definitely pronounced. By mid-morning each group was ready to report out their work on their scoring guide and alignment to the standard and standard elements. In the report out session that followed, various techniques were exemplified to demonstrate that there is not just one way to align the assessments to the scoring guides and to the standards, but rather, many and varied ones. There was growing enthusiasm among group participants as the morning came to a close because of the amount and the quality of the work produced. The graduate student took copious notes and documented the work to make sure that nothing was lost. The retreat ended by setting a date at the next ICPEA meeting to come together again and to share completed assessments, scoring guides, and data tables. This assignment would keep people on task to finalize ideas, flesh out structures, and ensure that products were complete for sharing among the member institutions who participated.
11
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
What is Next? The ICPEA meeting was held and group representatives shared their assessments, scoring guides, and data tables. The quality of the work continues to improve as peer review continues to provide ideas for improvement. The process is working. Quality assessments are being created, reviewed by fellow faculty members, and are available for use by those participating in the process. But this process did not just stop at this meeting. Because of the pride of ownership and the quality of the assessments and work that was produced, those who worked with the process felt that it needed to be shared with others so that they could benefit from it, learn from it, and share through it. The process was shared with the other college and university members at an ICPEA meeting. It was enthusiastically agreed by the meeting participants that a common agenda item for the group would be to have an NCATE assessment sharing session at each meeting to present, review, and discuss NCATE assessments, scoring guides and data tables. Mike Schmoker (2006) writes in his book, Results Now, “Professional learning communities have emerged as arguably the best, most agreed-upon means by which to continuously improve instruction and student performance.” The spirit of collegial learning is what we as professors of educational administration should demonstrate and instill in our students. This process is allowing us to do what we say we want our students to be doing in field. We are creating a learning community that shares ideas and builds upon the strengths of each other. We are collegially sharing ideas about common ELCC assessments and giving suggestions for improvement. We are talking about and discussing important ideas about teaching and learning. Let’s continue.
Joe Pacha
12
The assessments that were created in collaboration by the members of the three universities follow this introductory article. They represent at least one comprehensive assessment for each of the seven ELCC standards that covers the many of the standard elements contained in that standard. These assessments are being shared in the spirit of collaboration in which they were produced.
13
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
REFERENCES National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (n.d.). About us - mission. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://ncate.org/public/aboutNCATE.asp National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (n.d.). Facts about NCATE. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://ncate.org/public/faqaboutNCATE.asp?ch=1 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (n.d.). Quick facts. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://ncate.org/public/factsheet.asp?ch=1 National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) (2002). Standards for advanced programs in educational leadership: For principals, superintendents, curriculum directors, and supervisors. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/ELCCStandards%20_5-02.pdf Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Joe Pacha
14
Appendix A Collaborative Work Session Assessment Template NCATE Assessment # 1 Assessment #1 • Is to assess content knowledge • Usually is addressed by a state licensure test or professional examination • If no state test or exam, substitute another assessment • Do not duplicate another assessment already listed NCATE Assessment # 2 Assessment #2 • To assess content knowledge • ELCC standards and elements to be assessed should include but not be limited to: 1.1, 1.4, 2.3, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 6.1 • Examples of assessments include comprehensive examinations, essays, case studies, etc. (A word of caution about comprehensive examinations: there must be a valid scoring guide and data table that aligns to this assessment.) NCATE Assessment # 3 Assessment #3 • This assessment should focus on the application of content knowledge in educational leadership • ELCC standards and elements to be addressed could include but not limited to: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 6.1 • Examples of assessments include: action research projects or portfolio tasks
15
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
NCATE Assessment # 4 Assessment #4 Assessment of professional skills in instructional leadership School Based Programs
District Based Programs
ELCC standards and elements could include: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 5.1, 5.2, & 5.3
ELCC standards and elements could include: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 5.1, 5.2, & 5.3
Examples of assessments: school improvement plans, needs assessment projects, or faculty intervention plans
Examples of assessments: district improvement plans, needs assessment projects, or district curriculum redesign projects
NCATE Assessment # 5 Assessment #5 • Assess professional skills in internship/clinical practice • ELCC standards and elements included but not limited to this assessment: 1.3, 3.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 • Example assessments include: faculty evaluations of candidate performances, internship/clinical site supervisor’s evaluations of candidates’ performances, and candidates’ formative and summative logs and reflections • Must show required internship/clinical activities aligned to specific ELCC standard elements • Must provide evaluation instrument for measuring candidate proficiency on specific internship/clinical activities
Joe Pacha
16
NCATE Assessment # 6 Assessment #6 Assess professional skills in organizational management and community relations School Based Programs
District Based Programs
ELCC standards and elements could include: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3
ELCC standards and elements could include: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3
Examples of assessments: school-based strategic plans, school simulations, or school intervention plans
Examples of assessments: district-based strategic plans, district simulations, or district intervention plans
NCATE Assessment # 7 Assessment #7 • Assesses the effects on student learning • Assessment demonstrates candidates’ ability to support student learning and development • ELCC standards and elements that could be addressed include but are not limited to: 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 6.3 • Examples of assessments include: post graduate surveys, employer satisfaction surveys, or community feedback surveys of candidates and graduates
17
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
NCATE Assessment # 8 Assessment #8 This is an optional assessment Appendix B Collaborative Work Session Scoring Guide Template Scoring Guides are instruments that measure candidate mastery of the ELLC Standards and Standard Elements and Standard Element Indicators • •
•
Scoring guides must be specific to the assessment activity or activities described. Examples of scoring guides may be rubrics or Likert type of scale measurements. They must be able to translate levels of performance into a numeric data system. Further, what is proficient or meeting the standard element must be clearly defined. Scoring guides must specifically measure the performance expectation that is “proficient” or “meets” the specific ELCC standard element(s) to which the assessment is aligned.
Example of a scoring guide framework: ES
SE
SE Indicator:
Assessment Description:
ES = ELCC Standard SE = ELCC Standard Element SEI = ELCC Standard Element Indicator
Does Not Meet the Standard:
Meets the Standard
