INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

REAUTHORIZATION GUIDE

2

Table of Contents

Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

Reauthorization Goals ............................................................................................................................... 3

Reauthorization Requirements ................................................................................................................. 3

Institutional Report ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Key Outcomes ............................................................................................................................................... 6

Candidate Coursework Evidence .............................................................................................................. 6

Standards Matrices [link] ...................................................................................................................... 6

Endorsement Coursework Tables ......................................................................................................... 7

Syllabi/Training Modules ...................................................................................................................... 7

Data/Evidence of Candidate Learning/Performance ................................................................................ 7

Rubric: Data Collection and Use for Continuous Improvement ........................................................... 9

Submission and Review of Materials .......................................................................................................... 10

Reauthorization Site Visit ............................................................................................................................ 11

Expectations and Protocol for Reauthorization Site Visits ......................................................................... 11

Expectations and Protocol ...................................................................................................................... 11

Schedule & Lodging ................................................................................................................................. 12

Final Determinations ................................................................................................................................... 14

3

Overview

The reauthorization process is an in-depth review of educator preparation programs with the goal of continuous improvement. The Colorado Department of Higher Education (DHE) and the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) want reauthorization to be meaningful to all parties. To this end, we hope that this guide will provide you with the information necessary to create a transparent process.

Reauthorization Goals

Evaluate alignment of educator preparation programs to statutory performance measures (C.R.S.

§23-1-121).

Evaluate alignment of educator preparation program content to the CDE Rules and Regulations.

Evaluate quality and depth of candidate experience so as to ensure that statutory performance

measures (C.R.S. §23-1-121) and CDE Rules and Regulations are met within the educator

preparation program.

Provide opportunities for reflection about the educator preparation program and support a

process of continuous improvement.

Reauthorization Requirements

Institutional Report

Key Program Outcomes o Coursework/training evidence o Data/evidence of candidates’ learning/performance

The DHE and CDE shall review each educator preparation program (EPP) offered by an institution of

higher education (IHE) not more frequently than once every five years for reauthorization. Your EPP is

comprised of all endorsement areas that are located within your IHE. These endorsement areas may be

housed within the College of Education, but there may also be some endorsement areas that are outside

the College of Education. For instance, if your IHE has been approved for a School Social Worker (Ages

Birth-21) endorsement, it may be housed outside of the College of Education in, perhaps, a Department

of Social Work. However, for the purposes of the reauthorization process, CDE and DHE consider this

endorsement and all others to be a part of your EPP. You may, therefore, need to work across your IHE

to communicate about the reauthorization process and to fulfill reauthorization requirements.

As you begin to prepare for reauthorization, the Academic Policy Officer at the DHE will provide you

with a list of all endorsements your EPP is authorized to offer. If there are discrepancies between your

understanding of the endorsements offered at your IHE and the list, please contact the Academic Policy

Officer. There may be endorsements on this list that have not been offered at your IHE for a long time.

You can decide either to include them in your reauthorization or request that the DHE remove them

from your offerings.

The Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) approves educator preparation programs at Colorado institutions of higher education. The State Board of Education (SBE) approves the content and content delivery to ensure that candidates meet requirements for licensure [§23-1-121 Colorado

4

Revised Statute]. The DHE and CDE will conduct a review of your EPP at the same time. Certain aspects of your program will be a focus for both the DHE and CDE. However, other aspects of your program will be reviewed solely by either the DHE or CDE. State statute guides the review requirements for the DHE and CDE. The following flow chart provides a summary of the materials requested by the DHE and CDE, as well as the state agency responsible for their review. It also serves to highlight the intention of DHE/CDE to enter into the reauthorization process as a conversation about continuous improvement as an integral and ongoing system within the EPP.

Colorado Department of Higher Education

Colorado Revised Statute 23-1-121

Review of:

Faculty/Instructor Qualifications

Faculty Demographics

Admission Requirements

Field/Clinical Experience and

Partnerships

Agreements with 2-year colleges

Candidate Demographics

Candidate Advising, Ongoing

Screening, & Counseling

Colorado Department of Education

Colorado Revised Statute 22-2-109

Review of:

Faculty/Instructor Qualifications

Admission Requirements

Field/Clinical Experiences and

Partnerships

Course Content Consistency

Endorsement Coursework Progression

Candidate Coursework Alignment to

Colorado Rules and Regulations

Candi

REAUTHORIZATION: INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Institutions of Higher Education: Process of Continual Improvement

Evaluate no more than every five years

5

Institutional Report The IR should be written in the template [link to template] provided. This report is meant to be a summary introduction to the unit (all departments, schools or colleges involved in the preparation of candidates) and its programs. Responses should include information on initial and advanced programs. There are a suggested number of characters for each response. Institutions should not feel compelled to use all available characters to respond to prompts. In many cases, direct and succinct responses will not require the maximum number of characters. The overall length of the report should not exceed 50 pages, including tables, figures, and links to key exhibits. Tables, figures, and links to key electronic exhibits may be included for each prompt. Institutions may copy and paste from their CAEP, Title II, Higher Learning Commission, and other reports where appropriate and applicable. In writing responses for this report, institutions may refer to SPA reports, Colorado Department of Higher Education Legislative reports, student handbooks, and any other document that is either linked, included as appendices, or available online. For instance, some institutions have found it helpful to identify the key

Year 5 Improvements

Year 1 Improvements

Year 2 Improvements

Year 3 Improvements

Year 4 Improvements

Data

Analysis

Based on

Evidence of

Candidate

Learning and

Performance

Institutions of Higher Education submit:

Institutional Report

Coursework Evidence

Data/Evidence of Candidate Learning/Performance

CDHE and CDE conduct joint site visit.

Final Report

Recommendation to State Board

6

exhibits or evidence that they believe will support the claims that they make in their responses to each prompt. Your EPP may choose to complete one IR template or a number of IR templates depending on the number and type of endorsements for which your EPP is approved, the organizational structure of your EPP, similarities between the systems and processes used to operate various endorsement areas, or other factors that affect the extent to which certain faculty/staff actually work together with particular endorsement areas. If your EPP chooses to fill out more than one IR, there may be particular sections that only apply to one program. For instance, section C3.a-c applies to the preparation of principals and administrators. If this section is not applicable to your particular endorsement, you may leave it blank.

Key Outcomes

In addition to the IR, you will submit key outcomes. Both the DHE and CDE will review the IR and your submission of data/evidence of candidate learning/performance. Because the CDE is required to review the alignment of candidate educational experiences to CDE Rules and Regulations, the CDE will also review candidate coursework evidence for each endorsement offered at the IHE.

Candidate Coursework Evidence

Standards Matrices [link]

Matrices with information on course/training outcomes aligned to the CDE Rules and Regulations.

The Colorado Rules and Regulations were updated in spring 2016. All endorsement areas must be

aligned with the current CDE Rules and Regulations.

Rationale: Provides the CDE with an opportunity to evaluate the alignment of all required

coursework in each endorsement area to the CDE Rules and Regulations.

Example:

# Standard Description Course Outcome(s)/Evidence

8.02(10) The elementary educator is able to develop fluent, automatic reading of text:

8.02(10)(a)

understanding the role of fluency in word recognition, oral reading, silent reading, comprehension of written discourse and motivation to read.

TED 330

Reading: Reutzel/Cooter (2013), Chapter

Notecatcher on Reutzel/Cooter Ch. 7

8.02(10)(b)

understanding reading fluency as a stage of normal reading development, as the primary symptom of some reading disorders and as a consequence of practice and instruction.

TED 331

Text level identification assignment

Guided reading lesson plan designed for instructional level text

Matrix columns cannot be changed, but rows can be expanded to allow for more space.

7

Endorsement Coursework Tables

Separate tables with required coursework for each endorsement area, including course number,

course title, number of credits, and sequence.

Rational: Provides the CDE with an overview of the experience of the candidate as they progress

through the endorsement area.

Example:

Required Coursework for Elementary Education (K-6) Endorsement

Course

Number

Course Title Credits Sequence

EDUC 325 Math Content for Elementary Teachers 3 Year 1-FA

EDUC 335 Mathematics Methods for Elementary Teachers 3 Year 1- SP

Syllabi/Training Modules

Submission of all syllabi, including tables that list CDE Rules and Regulations (standard number

and description) aligned with course outcomes.

Rationale: Provides the CDE with an opportunity to review how CDE Rules and Regulations fit

within the structure of each course and how the alignment of coursework to CDE Rules and

Regulations is communicated to candidates, adjunct faculty, and other stakeholders.

Example:

Objective: Standard/Competency Outcome(s)/Evidence

8.02(5) The elementary educator is highly knowledgeable about literacy development, is able to develop oral and written learning, as well as: 8.02(5)(a) understand and explain the language processing requirements of proficient reading and writing including phonological (speech sound) processing; orthographic (print) processing; semantic (meaning) processing; syntactic (sentence level) processing; discourse (connected text level) processing. 8.02(5)(b) understand and explain other aspects of cognition and behavior that affect reading and writing including attention, executive function, memory, processing speed and graphomotor control.

Notecatcher: Philosophies of Reading Instruction

Reading Autobiography Student Case Study Qualitative Reading

Inventory Record on three students: Devonte, Cynthia, and Pam

Read Aloud

Data/Evidence of Candidate Learning/Performance

Evidence used by the IHE to inform a continuous process of improvement.

8

Rationale: If data are aligned with CDE Rules and Regulations, these forms of data enable

CDE/DHE and IHE faculty/personnel to evaluate the content of the endorsement for strengths and

areas of growth.

In the IR, the IHE will describe the systems and processes in place for collecting and using data/evidence of learning/performance. You should submit data/evidence that reflects a range of candidate outcomes. For each endorsement, the IHE should submit one to two forms of data/evidence of learning/performance. The data should provide quantitative and qualitative feedback from stakeholders after candidates have left the EPP and should reflect the collection methods your EPP has used for the five years since the last reauthorization.

The IHE will submit actual candidate outcomes and not just the generic descriptions of outcomes, forms, or surveys. If the data are candidate performance assessments, work samples, or individual fieldwork evaluations, the IHE should include the rubric used for evaluation and a range of quality that provide the CDE/DHE with three examples demonstrating range of performance such as high, medium, and low quality. The IHE should submit only one to two forms of data for each endorsement. If applicable based on the form of data, three candidate samples, demonstrating a performance range, is sufficient. The DHE/CDE do not want to see samples of outcomes from every candidate in your program or be presented with overwhelming amounts of data. All candidate identifiers should be removed from data prior to submission.

The list of forms below is not exhaustive but provides examples of possible data/evidence of candidate learning/performance. The IHE may also use other forms.

Major assignments, key learning experiences, or observational tools that are used by the endorsement area to measure candidate progress across multiple courses and/or through multiple semesters/quarters

o Units developed over a series of courses or semesters/quarters Example: Backward Design units Suggestions: Include two Backward Design units developed in successive semesters that show progression of the candidates’ thinking and ability to plan units

o Fieldwork evaluation ratings

Example: Excel spreadsheet that lays out numerical ratings of candidates based on specific

performance indicators

Suggestions: Include all candidates’ ratings or summaries of ratings that reveal trends in the

data. For instance, perhaps there is a trend by the spring semester that reveals candidates are

generally performing at a proficient range in delivering lessons that are culturally relevant but

are performing at a developing level in classroom management.

o Fieldwork qualitative descriptions

Example: A table of comments about candidate performance based on specific indicators from

your fieldwork observation tool.

Suggestions: Include a variety of comments that indicate performance levels from candidates

who achieved mastery to candidates who demonstrated a need for improvement and delineate

how these comments correspond to a particular rating on your observation rubric.

9

Smaller assignments directly related to discrete courses that are important indicators of a milestone in the professional development of the candidate.

o Candidate work samples

Example: Lesson plans created by candidates

Suggestions: Include the actual candidate lesson plan with the instructor grade and any

comments written on the lesson plan by the instruction.

o Candidate performance assessments

Example: Lesson demonstrations that candidate perform with peers and an instructor has

evaluated based on a rubric

Suggestions: In addition to the actual candidate lesson plan with the instructor grade and any

comments written on the lesson plan by the instruction, include the instructor’s ratings and

qualitative notes on the demonstration of the lesson in class

Surveys and other instruments used to measure the perceptions of stakeholders in regard to candidate performance

o Stakeholder survey results

Example: Results of a survey sent to completers, employers, or district administrators

Suggestions: Include ratings, comments of all survey responders, and graphs or charts that

reveal trends, programs strengths and areas of growth.

o Stakeholder focus group findings

Example: Meetings with completers, employers, or district administrators.

Suggestions: Ask targeted questions that provide the IHE with specific input on strengths of

and areas of growth. As well, provide opportunities for stakeholders to make more general

observations or voice issues that may not even be a current consideration. Include the record,

notes, or minutes that detail stakeholder comments and the summary of findings.

Information from other sources, such as the Colorado Department of Education, the Colorado Department of Higher Education, or accreditation agencies o Example: Colorado Department of Higher Education Legislative Report

The following rubric will be used for the purposes of evaluation of data and data use:

Rubric: Data Collection and Use for Continuous Improvement

Not Present Establishing Operationalizing Optimizing

Depth Data is not present. -and/or-

Data is too shallow or vague to provide insight into program strengths and areas of

Data provides indicators that may be used to make program and course improvements, but data is not currently at a depth that provides

Data provides significant, targeted, measurable indicators that can be used to make substantive program and course

Data provides significant, targeted, measurable indicators that can be used to make substantive program and course improvements in

10

growth. necessary information to make substantive program and course improvements.

improvements.

order to optimize strengths and fully address areas of growth.

Breadth Qualitative and quantitative data points are not used.

-and/or- Data is not highly relevant.

-and/or- Range of data does not include two of these forms: course-specific, program-wide indicators, or stakeholder feedback.

Few qualitative and quantitative data points are used and/or data is not highly relevant.

-and/or- Range of data does not include one or more of these forms: course-specific, program-wide indicators, or stakeholder feedback.

-and/or- 1 year of data has been established.

A satisfactory number of qualitative and quantitative data points are used that are highly relevant.

-and- Range of data includes course-specific outcomes, program-wide indicators, and stakeholder feedback.

-and- 2-4 years of data have been established.*

Multiple qualitative and quantitative data points are used that are highly relevant.

-and- Range of data includes course-specific outcomes, program-wide indicators, and stakeholder feedback.

-and- 5 years of data have been established.*

Analysis Faculty/personnel do not meet regularly to analyze data.

-and/or- Data is analyzed solely by an employee or system that is disconnected from the daily operations of the endorsements.

Appropriate faculty/personnel are beginning to meet regularly to create a process for data analysis.

-and/or- Analysis provides shallow or incomplete understanding of strengths and areas of growth.

Appropriate faculty/personnel and other leadership collaboratively analyze data on a quarterly basis or once a semester.

-and- Analysis provides deep insight into strengths and areas of growth.

Process for data analysis involves appropriate faculty/personnel and other leadership who collaboratively interact in a manner that systematically provides the ability to make timely changes within the quarter or semester.

-and- Analysis provides deep insight into strengths and areas of growth.

Use Data is not used. -and/or-

Data is being used solely for the purposes of program compliance.

A system is currently being put in place to use data.

-and/or- The system for data use does not allow for change to occur in timely manner that produces substantive changes.

Systems are in place to make relevant, timely, and substantive changes based on data.

-and- Changes are made in a timely manner that affects the pool of candidates from whom the data is collected.

Systems are in place to make relevant, timely, and substantive changes based on data.

-and- Changes are made in a timely manner that affects the pool of candidates from whom the data is collected. Processes for change are communicated to candidates in order to provide insight into how the EPP is using data for continual improvement.

* Measures evolve and improve over time. CDE is not suggesting that a tool be kept static just to meet this purpose.

Submission and Review of Materials

11

At least 6 weeks prior to your site visit, submit the IR electronically (including any supplemental

documents that serve as evidence) to [link].

Upon receiving the IR and key program outcomes, the DHE, the CDE, and a team will conduct a

document review prior to the site visit. Your EPP may choose a blind review process or a double-blind

review process. For either process, the content reviewers of your materials will be anonymous. For a

double-blind review, the EPP would need to remove all identifiers from all materials in order to increase

the likelihood of anonymity for the IHE. Both the DHE and the CDE will review the IR and data/evidence

of candidate learning/performance. In addition, the CDE and content review teams will review candidate

coursework evidence. Content review teams consist of internal and external experts. Internal experts

are CDE colleagues such as experts in literacy, the content areas, and special education. External

experts are practitioners, teacher educators and leaders from around the state. The Educator

Development Specialist in the CDE Educator Talent unit synthesizes all feedback from the review team.

If questions arise, DHE/CDE will compile a request for additional information from the institution of

higher education (IHE).

Reauthorization Site Visit

The on-site review to follow will include a thorough examination of the evidence. Reauthorization site visits are jointly conducted by CDE and DHE and consist of interviews with members of stakeholder groups (including, but not limited to: current students, program graduates, instructors and faculty, institutional leaders, school leaders). DHE and CDE jointly compile a draft report of the findings and submit it to the IHE within 60 days of the site visit. The IHE may respond to the draft report in a rejoinder and provide additional information or address any concerns within 30 days of receiving the draft report. The IHE is expected to address areas for improvement identified during the visit.

Expectations and Protocol for Reauthorization Site Visits

Expectations and Protocol

Colorado Department of Higher Education (DHE) and Colorado Department of Education (CDE) will cooperate with the Institution of Higher Education (IHE) to determine appropriate on-site visitation dates.

The Institutional Report (IR) Template and other information for preparing for the review are available on DHE’s website at http://highered.colorado.gov/Academics/TeacherEd/Educators.html

Information for preparing for the content review is available on CDE’s website at http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeprof/EPP_index.htm

Copies of the IR are due to both DHE and CDE no later than 60 days prior to the on-site visit. Evidence room: A completely electronic evidence room, to the extent possible, is preferred.

Please do not fill the evidence room with photocopied documents. One computer per team

12

member that is connected to the IHE’s Ethernet (access to IHE’s internal networks/drives and Internet) should be available and up and running before the team arrives in the morning. Access to individual candidate files, work samples, syllabi, a curriculum map/matrix, general course catalog, assessment instruments, teacher candidate portfolios, new teacher survey data, faculty data (such as vitas) and other documents as appropriate (if they have not already been provided in the IR). A password may need to be provided for site visit team members to access online files (such as those in Taskstream or Banner). All electronic evidence provided on CD-ROMs should also be downloaded onto each computer’s desktop. Make sure the computers and Ether/internet connections work and that electronic evidence on the desktop will open before the team arrives in the morning.

Toward the end of the first day of the visit or on the second day, Jami Goetz should meet with the institution’s President and Provost to discuss the site visit thus far.

The Deans of each college involved in the preparation of teachers and principals should be available to the site visit team throughout each day of the visit.

Please ensure that your students know we will be visiting your programs, every faculty member wears a name badge during the visit, and your partner schools and cooperating teachers know we will be visiting.

Within 60 days after the on-site visit, the IHE will receive a draft copy of the DHE/CDE report summarizing the findings of the on-site visit.

The IHE will have 30 days to write a rejoinder in response to the DHE/CDE draft report in order to correct any errors of fact and to further explain any issues or concerns identified in the report.

Following receipt of the rejoinder, a final report will be prepared and submitted to the Colorado SBE. The SBE will make its recommendation to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE).

Each agency will address its unique areas of responsibility.

The team will generally consist of:

Brittany Lane, Director Educator Preparation, Colorado Department of Higher Education or his designee;

Mary Bivens, Director of Educator Development, Educator Talent, Colorado Department of Education

Jennifer Kral, Educator Development Specialist, Educator Talent, Colorado Department of Education

A building-level administrator, a practicing or retired teacher, and other DHE/CDE-affiliated educator(s) familiar with the delivery of educator preparation programs;

A representative of the next IHE that CDE and DHE are scheduled to visit;

Additional members of the Colorado Department of Education and the Colorado Department of Higher Education with experience in educator preparation and institutional review as needed.

Schedule & Lodging

Note: The following schedule is flexible and is dependent on specific circumstances at each IHE. DHE will provide examples of schedules if asked:

13

Lodging should be reserved for each of the team members even if the IHE is located within the Denver metropolitan area. Also, a meeting room or some type of suite that can be used as a work space should also be reserved at the hotel for the site visit team to use as a work space in the evenings. Please ensure the hotel knows NOT to ask the team members for credit cards upon check in and that all costs incurred at the hotel should be charged to the IHE.

Day One (Optional)

o Evening. Reception and dinner. Opening reception and dinner to include: the review team; the leadership of

the IHE; education program leadership/staff; relevant Arts & Sciences representatives; a SBE member and a CCHE Commissioner who represent the region in which the IHE is located (if available).

Brief remarks by any elected official[s] attending, DHE, CDE and representatives of the IHE and educator preparation programs. Note: The intended objective of the opening event remarks will be to emphasize

the importance of the reauthorization visit, as well as to hear from the IHE

leadership on the role and status of the educator preparation programs at the

IHE, a brief overview of the programs, or anything they want to showcase.

o After dinner. Transport team to lodging.

Day Two

o Breakfast at hotel o 8:30-9:00 a.m. Transport team from lodging to IHE. o 9:00-9:30 a.m. Official welcome and team meeting with administrators. o 9:45-11:00 a.m. Team work time. o 11:00a.m.-12:00p.m. Concurrent meetings with education program and Arts & Sciences

faculty and leadership. o 12:00-1:00 p.m. Working lunch or lunch with students in the programs (light

salads/sandwiches are sufficient). o 1:15-2:45 p.m. Concurrent interview sessions with faculty, advisors, admissions staff,

field placement coordinator, other appropriate individuals. o 2:45-3:45 p.m. Team work time. o 4:00-5:15 p.m. Two team members meet with President and Provost. Other team

members: observe classes and/or concurrent after-school interview sessions with cooperating teachers, current candidates in your program and/or recent graduates.

o Transport team to lodging.

Day Three

o Breakfast at hotel.

o 9:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. Suggested concurrent activities (adjustable – according to the number of team members available for each activity.)

14

Observation(s): Teacher candidates in elementary and secondary setting(s) (at a nearby school) (if applicable) and meet briefly with principal and cooperating teacher.

Purpose:

1. observe pre-lessons/lessons/observations/briefings/coursework 2. interview cooperating teacher(s) and school leadership personnel, etc. 3. interview college/university faculty who mentor candidates at this school.

Interview Teacher Education faculty members. Interview: Content area faculty members.

o 11:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. E-portfolio or Teacher Work Sample demonstration or other. o 12:00-1:00 p.m. Team working lunch, may include further requested interviews or

documents. o 1:15-2:00 p.m. Concurrent meetings –

Observation(s): Teacher education class(es) at the IHE Interview: Advisory group to education programs Interview: Current student teachers Interview: First-year teachers/alumni of the program

o 2:00-3:00p.m. Team work time. o 3:00-3:30 p.m. Exit interview (attendance is generally limited to Department Chairs and

higher). o Transport team to lodging, airport or other (if necessary).

*Note: The hotel accommodations, lunches and proposed dinner/reception may be as minimal as

budget realities dictate and this will in no way have any bearing on the review of the educator

preparation program.

The IHE is responsible for the following costs:

Dinner/reception and other meals

Hotel accommodations

Transport of review team, including travel to the site and transportation while on site (between dinner, hotel and IHE)

Non-public institutions are also responsible for DHE staff hours dedicated to the reauthorization process (as specified in C.R.S. 23-2-104.5). A fee schedule will be provided for your use.

The DHE is responsible for the following costs:

Honoraria paid to practitioners

Preparation and dissemination of materials prior to visit

Final Determinations

If standards are met based on a review of the materials submitted and information gathered from the reauthorization visit, a recommendation for reauthorization is submitted to the SBE. If standards are not met, the Educator Development Specialist works with IHE leaders to formulate a plan that addresses

15

any areas of concern. The SBE votes on reauthorization of the content of all educator preparation programs in Colorado’s IHEs. Once all statutory performance criteria have been met and DHE has received SBE’s approval, DHE will make a recommendation to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education for its final determination of approval. If you have any questions, please contact: Brittany Lane, Ph.D. Director, Educator Preparation Colorado Department of High Education 303-862-3006 brittany.lane@dhe.state.co.us Jennifer Kral Educator Preparation Specialist Colorado Department of Education 303-866-6898 Kral_j@cde.state.co.us