Program Approval Committee
May 9, 2018
3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
.........................................................................................................................................
To join by phone only: 1-971-337-2281 | Conference ID: 17170955
Meeting location: TSPC Conference Room ● Map/Directions ● 250 Division St. NE ● Salem, OR 97301
.........................................................................................................................................
 
 
Agenda
                                                                           
Welcome and introductions (Chair Judy Brizendine)   
 
Definitions of AFIs at the Program Review Level: Candace Robbecke 
 
 
CAEP definitions of AFIs and Stipulations: 
 
Areas for Improvement (AFI):
 
AFIs describe components of standards that must be improved by the time of the next accreditation visit. Progress reports on remediation of AFIs are submitted as part of the annual report. EPPs may submit AFIs for review by the Accreditation Council with sufficient evidence to determine corrections were made. AFIs are reviewed in the subsequent accreditation visit if not removed. AFIs not removed by a subsequent accreditation visit may become stipulations if evidence is not sufficient to determine corrections were made.  
 
Stipulations:
 
Stipulations describe serious deficiencies in meeting CAEP Standards and must be brought into compliance in order to continue accreditation. All stipulations and relevant evidence must be submitted for review by the Accreditation Council by the end of the second year from the assignment of those stipulation(s). Failure to correct the condition leading to the stipulation within the specified two-year period results in revocation of accreditation. 
 
  •  “AFI” means one thing at the program review level and another at the unit review level: 
    • Program review: The state has two general types of AFIs and does not issue stipulations;
    • Unit review: CAEP issues AFIs and Stiupations.  
  • For greater clarity, staff recommend the following terms be considered by the full Commission for the state program review process:
    • AFI-M (monitor) for minor concerns that must be reported in the annual report; and
    • AFI-R (remedy) for more major concerns that require a remedy and follow-up actions.
  • If supported by PAC members, staff will include this change in an action item going to the Commission for consideration at the June meeting. It will be included in an item of substantive changes to the Program Review and Standards Handbook, which will needed largely due to April program rule revisions.
  • One program review (Northwest Christian University) needs to be considered at the June Commission meeting so that report will not include these designations; however, the other program reviews underway would include them.
  • Questions for PAC members:
    • Do PAC members support the recommendations?
    • If yes:
      • Is there a break-point over which an EPP could not receive full state program recognition because they have too many AFI-Ms?
      • If yes, how many AFI-Ms could be issued and the program still receive full state recognition (without conditions)?
      • Do PAC members support that any AFI-Rs would result in an EPP receiving either program approval with conditions or non-approval (but they could not receive full approval without conditions)?
      • Do PAC members support flexibility in determining how many AFI-Rs a program can receive before the program must be non-approved?
      • Do PAC members support having this information clarified in a June Commission meeting action item that includes substantive changes to the Program Review and Standards Handbook?
 
Review of possible program rule changes: Tamara Dykeman
 
1. NEW RULE: 584-420-0070 Secondary Mathematics Instructional Leader Specialization: Program Standards 
 
Staff recommendation: The rule concept: 
 
o    Requires the candidate hold the advanced mathematics endorsement to be eligible for the program;  
o    Requires the candidate to have three full-time, or six part-time, successful years of experience teaching mathematics in grades 6-12.  
o    Requires the candidate to successfully complete a supervised mathematics leadership practicum at both the middle and high school levels;  
o    Includes content, pedagogy, and leadership standards based on:  
o    Standards for the Preparation of Teacher of Mathematics (Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE), 2017);  
o    Mathematics Education of Teachers II (Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences, 2012),  
o    National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)/ Council of Accreditation of Teacher Educators (NCATE) Standards for Teachers for Secondary Middle Grades (2012); and  
o    2012 NCTM/CAEP Program Standards for Elementary Mathematics Specialists.
 
Background Information:
 
o    At the April Commission meeting, the Commissioners voted to create a new type of specialization: the Secondary Mathematics Instructional Leader Specialization.  This rule concept includes the program standards for the new SMIL specialization.  All EPPs would need to meet these standards to offer this program.
 
Question for PAC members: Do PAC members wish to accept the staff recommendation or make changes? 
__________________________________
 
 
2. 584-420-0650  Elementary Mathematics Instructional Leader Specialization: Program Standards 
 
Staff recommendation: The rule concept:
 
o    Updates the rule to align with the new Secondary Mathematics Instructional Leader Standards;  
o    Adds the requirement of three years of full-time (or six years of part-time) successful K-8 mathematics teaching experience to the program standards;   
o    Adds the Foundational Math endorsement as one of the options for the required underlying license;  
o    Removes the “twenty-four quarter or sixteen semester hour” credit requirement to align with other program standards. 
 
Background Information:
 
o    The Elementary Mathematics Instructional Leader Specialization was created by the Commission in April 2014.  Because this specialization was adopted prior to redesign, it requires some revisions to align with current practices.  
o    In current rule, the math teaching experience is only a licensure requirement for the specialization. The agency would like the experience to be a program standard so that the EPPs can verify the K-8 math experience.  The PEER forms do not delineate elementary experience by subject area so it can be difficult for evaluators to know if the educator taught the required number of years of math.  
o    The agency is suggesting removing the credit requirements because almost all other program standards do not require a certain amount of credits.  In recent years, the Commission has focused on ensuring candidate outcomes, rather than completing credits.
 
Question for PAC members: Do PAC members wish to accept the staff recommendation or make changes?  
__________________________________  
 
3. 584-400-0160 Candidate Program Completion and Recommendation
 
Staff recommendation: The rule concept:
 
o    Creates a start date of January 1, 2019, for the three year “recency” requirement for EPP recommendation.  
o    Clarifies that the “three years” is from the actual program completion date, not the date the EPP submitted the Program Completion Report.
 
Background Information:
 
o   Under program rule redesign, the EPPs requested that the three-year “shelf-life” for EPP recommendations be re-instituted.  Because requirements and practices can change, the EPPs do not feel comfortable with the agency using a licensure or endorsement recommendation that is more than three years old.   
o    The Commission adopted the three-year recency requirement for EPP recommendations at the April Commission meeting, as part of the program rule redesign.  The new rule, however, did not contain a start date for the three-year provision.  TSPC licensure staff has requested that the rule contain a specific start date for the requirement so that it is very clear which candidates will be required to obtain a new program completion recommendation.  In addition, the staff requested that the three year period begin with the date of completion and not the date the Program Completion Form is submitted.  The form can often be submitted long after the program completion date.  
 
Question for PAC members: Do PAC members wish to accept the staff recommendation or make changes?  
__________________________________
  
4. NEW RULE: 584-420-0480 Special Education: Early Intervention/Early Childhood: Program Standards 
 
Staff recommendation: The SPED: EI/ECSE workgroup is meeting on Monday, May 7, 2018.  After receiving the input from these stakeholders, the agency will provide recommendations on the standards for the PAC members.
 
Background Information:
 
The Commission created a stakeholder workgroup to provide input on the development of program standards for the SPED: Early Intervention endorsement.   Under current rules, the Commission only has program standards for SPED: Generalist and SPED: Deaf and Hard of Hearing. 
 
Question for PAC members: Do PAC members wish to accept the staff recommendation or make changes?  
__________________________________
 
5. 584-018-0305 Preliminary School Counselor License: Program Standards
 
Staff recommendation: The rule concept:
 
o    Updates the title from the Initial School Counselor License: Competency Standards to the Preliminary School Counselor License: Program Standards;  
o    Adds the option for EPPs to use the 2016 CACREP standards, instead of the Commission-adopted 2009 CACREP standards for the program review of their school counseling program.  If the EPP selects to use the 2016 CACREP standards, the EPP must notify TSPC and use the SPA process for their program review.   
 
Background Information:
 
o   These suggested amendments are to provide a “stop-gap” measure for EPPs with school counseling programs.  Originally, the agency believed that the adoption of the 2016 standards could wait until the redesign process for school counseling licenses.  Because administrator redesign is taking longer than expected, the school counselor stakeholders would like the option of using the updated standards before the redesign process is completed.  
o    The agency would like the EPP to use the SPA process for the 2016 standards is because the agency has not developed training for these updated standards for the TSPC program review. 
 
Question for PAC members: Do PAC members wish to accept the staff recommendation or make changes?  
__________________________________
 
6. 584-018-0305 584-420-0630 Dual Language Specialization: Program Standards
 
Staff recommendation: The rule concept:
 
o    Adds the Oregon-developed sub-standards to the Dual Language program standards.
 
 Background Information:
 
o    Typically, the Commission-adopted program standards are based on national standards.  Because of this, the agency only includes the main standards in rule, knowing that EPPs can reference the national standards for the sub-standards.  
o    The Dual Language standards are Oregon-developed standards, without equivalent national standards. Staff was unaware that the Dual Language Standards were Oregon-only and had mistakenly removed the Oregon sub-standards from the rule.  This rule concept would remedy this circumstance, by adding back the Oregon-created sub-standards to the Dual Language: Program Standards.
 
Question for PAC members: Do PAC members wish to accept the staff recommendation or make changes?
__________________________________
 
7. 584-410-0010  State Approval of Unit: General Provisions; 584-420-0050  Preliminary CTE License: Program Standards; 584-400-0070  State Recognition: Continuing Programs (Program Review Process) and 584-400-0160  Candidate Program Completion and Recommendation 
 
Staff recommendation: The rule concept: (The four rules listed above would need to be amended to enact this rule concept.)  
o    Exempts providers who only offer CTE programs from the unit approval process.  
o    Clarifies that unit approval only applies to EPPs that have the authority to recommend candidates for licensure, endorsements or specializations. 
 
Background Information:
 
o    The agency is seeking to clarify which providers are subject to the unit approval process. To provide this certitude, staff is recommending that only providers that have the authority to recommend candidates for licensure, endorsement or specializations be subject to unit approval requirements.  This clarification would exempt providers of only CTE programs from the unit process.  
o    CTE program providers do not recommend completers for CTE licensure or endorsement. After completion of the CTE program, the Oregon Department of Education provides a candidate recommendation to the agency.  
o    Under current rule, CTE programs may be offered by EPPs, school districts, ESDs, Oregon community colleges, and Oregon technical colleges. 
 
Question for PAC members: Do PAC members wish to accept the staff recommendation or make changes?  
__________________________________
 
Program Review and Standards Handbook: Tamara Dykeman
Review substantive program rule revision processes for inclusion in the Program Review and Standards Handbook:  
 
 
(3) To receive state recognition of a new licensure, endorsement, specialization or CTE program, an EPP must:  
(a) Submit evidence that all program standards, as provided in Chapter 584, Division 420, will be met upon implementation of the program; and  
(b) Complete the State Recognition of New Program process, as provided in the Program Review and Standards Handbook.  
 
Staff recommendation: Recommendations are included on the attached New Program Proposal Template.   
 
Questions for PAC members:  
o   Do PAC members want to require collaboration between EPPs and school districts for new programs?  
o   Do PAC members approve the draft template to be forwarded to the full Commission for consideration on the June meeting’s consent agenda?  
o   EPP Capacity section: Former rule required EPPs to provide “financial resources” information. What do PAC members want to know about the financial resources for the proposed new program?  
o   Program goals and objective section: Under the former rule, we have required EPPs to provide evidence of how the goals for new proposed programs relate to the goals of any currently approved programs. Is this valuable information?
 
__________________________________
 
(5) Major modifications include, but are not limited to:  
(b) Substantive changes to Programs, including:  
(B) The core curriculum of the program, as defined in the Program Review and Standards Handbook; 
 
Staff recommendation: Staff recommend “core curriculum” be defined as follows: “The definition of core curriculum is the set of courses that are considered to be basic and essential for completion of the program.” 
 
Question for PAC members: Do PAC members wish to accept the recommendation or make changes?
 
__________________________________
 
(5) Major modifications include, but are not limited to:  
(b) Substantive changes to Programs, including:  
(C) The core clinical practices requirements, as defined in the Program Review and Standards Handbook; 
 
Staff recommendation: Staff recommend “core clinical practices” be defined as follows: “The definition of core clinical practices is the set of clinical experiences that are considered to be basic and essential for completion of the program.”
 
Question for PAC members: Do PAC members wish to accept the recommendation or make changes?  
__________________________________
 
(2) If an EPP has not recommended any candidates from a state recognized program for five continuous years, the Commission may review the state recognition of the program.  
(a) The Commission must notify the EPP if a program will be reviewed due to inactivity.  
(b) If the EPP would like to continue to offer the inactive program, the EPP must submit documentation on the inactive program to the Commission, as provided in the Program Review and Standards Handbook. 
 
Staff recommendation: The EPP must notify the TSPC Liaison to Higher Education that they wish to continue the inactive program and indicate their rationale for retaining the inactive program. 
 
Questions for PAC members:  
o   Do PAC members wish to accept the recommendation or make changes?  
o   If EPPs can retain inactive programs beyond the five years now allowed, how much longer can the program be inactive before it must return to the Commission for re-approval if the EPP wants to re-start the program?  
__________________________________
 
(5) International/Out-of-State Field Placements: EPPs may place a candidate in an international or out-of-state field placement, as provided in the Program Review and Standards Handbook. 
 
Staff recommendation: Staff recommend the following changes to the current handbook language:
 
Teacher candidates  
The following guidelines are approved Requirements for international/out-of-state teacher candidate field placements:
 
o   The candidate’s cooperating teacher must meet the requirements of cooperating teachers, as provided in OAR 584-017-1037 OAR 584-400-0145.  
o   The teacher candidate must teach to Oregon K-12 standards.  
o   The standards for evaluating the candidate in the international or out-of-state placement are the same as for evaluating candidates in local field placements.  
o   The EPP must report the use of international or out-of-state field placements in their annual report. See the Annual Report section of this publication for additional information.  
o   The EPP is not required to obtain pre-approval of international or out-of-state placements that meet these guidelinesrequirements.  
o   International placements only:  
o      The international school must be accredited or in the “approved for candidacy” status.  
o      The candidate’s teaching experience must be conducted in an English-speaking school (unless the practicum is for a foreign language endorsement).  
o      The international school’s principal must have a valid administrative license/credentials. The license or credential is not required to be from a US institution.  
o   Out-of-state placements only:  
   o  Out-of-state placements may occur in the same settings as in-state placements:  
   o  Public PreK-12 classrooms, including charter school classrooms;  
   o  Private, regionally-accredited PreK-12 classrooms; or  
   o  Alternative education, post-secondary, or other similar teaching settings closely-related to PreK-12 classroom instruction.
 
__________________________________
 
(15) Knowledge of Civil Rights Prior to Formal Clinical Practice: Prior to placing a candidate in student teaching, final internship or practicum experience, an EPP must verify the candidate has demonstrated knowledge of civil rights and ethics, as provided in the Program Review and Standards Handbook. 
 
Staff recommendation: To be determined by PAC members at the meeting.  
__________________________________
 
(12) If the EPP is unable to find a partnering school district for a specific endorsement area, the EPP may use another partner in lieu of the school district. The EPP must develop a plan for utilizing a substitute partner, as provided in the TSPC Program Review and Standards Handbook. 
 
Staff recommendation: To be determined by PAC members at the meeting.  
__________________________________
 
(3) The agency must conduct a field audit during the unit review process, in the form and manner adopted by the Commission, as provided in the Program Review and Standards Handbook and as provided.  
 
Staff recommendation:  
 
Field Audits (OAR 584-410-0100
Field audits are conducted to ensure EPPs meet the standards for recommending candidates for licensure, endorsements, and specializations. Audits are conducted as part of unit reviews (site visits), by a review of a portion of the EPP’s student files. 
 
On the first full day of the on-site visit, agency staff will provide EPP staff with a list of student names that were randomly selected for the EPP’s current state recognition period, including five percent or 15 completer records, whichever is greater. EPP staff will make those student files available for review by noon of the second day of the on-site visit. 
 
The candidate records will be reviewed for evidence of completion of the following: 
o   Fingerprinting and background clearance; 
o   Teacher performance assessments, if required; 
o   Clinical practices, including records of supervision, observations and evaluations; 
o   Content assessment(s);  
o   Required coursework;  
o   Waiver(s) of program requirements;  
o   Protecting Student and Civil Rights in the Educational Environment exam, workshop or evidence that the candidate holds or has held a TSPC-issued license; and 
o   Program completion forms (aka C-2 reports). 
 
Question for PAC members: Do PAC members wish to accept the recommendation or make changes?
 
__________________________________
 
9. Policy discussion of the implications of an approved program standard that is higher than the TSPC minimum standard: 
 
Staff recommendation: Staff recommend this statement be added to the Program Review and Standards Handbook: “When an EPP approved program has a standard that is higher than the rule standard, the EPPs are responsible for assuring candidates complete the program as it was approved, not as it appears in rule.” 
 
Question for PAC members:  
o   Example: A candidate is unable to complete the clinical practice requirements as approved for the program; however, they can meet the clinical practice requirements as provided in rule, which is less than the program’s approved standard. Does this require a waiver that must then be reported in the annual report?  
 
 
Site Visit Schedule – Long-term planning: Trent Danowski 
  •  Discuss long-term planning for site visits. 
  • Handout: SVS.pdf
 
Information items:   
 
Eliminating Barriers Executive Director Advisory Group meeting: Dr. Anthony Rosilez
 
CTE proposal from Clackamas Community College: Trent Danowski

CAEP feedback to partnership proposal:
Dr. Anthony Rosilez

Future meetings:
  • TBD
Adjournment
 
 
 
Page created: May 7, 2018 (CR)