The Pennsylvania Association of Colleges and Teacher Educators

A State Unit of the Association of Teacher Educators
and The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

 

PAC-TE Survey of 2001-2002 PDE Reviews
Under the New Chap 49/354

PAC-TE Committee

Mary M. Dupuis, Chair
Richard Frerichs
Lynn Orlando
Report presented at TEA October 31, 2002

This is a summary of data received from the 15 colleges and universities who completed a five-year major review by PDE under the new Chapter 49/354 regulations during the academic year 2001-2002. The data demonstrate many positive comments and reactions to the new process. The survey was developed by a committee PAC-TE charged to conduct it at last year's TEA. The complete data are available to any PAC-TE member.

The PA Academic Standards K-12 were useful in preparing materials, and the organization of the preview process was clear (3.43).

Respondents felt that the on-site preparation of the materials for the review was relatively clearly defined, and the roles and responsibilities of the reviewers were somewhat well developed (3.29.)

The General Standards were relatively clearly discussed before the review and the Guidelines for specific certificates were relatively clearly presented before the review (3.38).

Areas that score lower included the evidence required for examination needed greater clarity (3.21); the policies and procedures were clear and consistent (3.15); and the rubrics for the evaluation of all programs were clear (3.00).

General Comments

The respondents were asked to indicate their reaction and experience to all the various elements of the review process, from the pre-visit to the final report. The first section asks their reaction on a t-choice Likert style statements. The second section asks them to offer any comments they have on many elements of the review process. The Likert items showed relatively high marks on the 18 questions, using the 5-point scale.

The respondents felt that the Orientation, Pre-Visit, and Professional Educator Approval Guides were very helpful in conducting the review (4.07).

Suggestions for Growth

The committee identified these suggestions for potential discussion and change in the review process:

Continue to train and update the reviewers and carefully select team members.

Present models for performance-based reports and samples of materials to demonstrate what students should and be able to do.

Communicate clearly with liaisons regarding pre-visit and visit.

Share examples of rubrics for evaluation of programs and how they are utilized.

Discuss comments on interpretation of standards and how they relate to post baccalaureate programs in relationship to undergraduate programs.

Develop clearly the evidence and documentation required for examination by the team on-site.

Continue to review the self-study process and options for colleges and universities in order for continued growth and change in programs.

Additional Comments

The following summarizes comments offered on individual sections of the review process in Section 2 of the survey.

  1. Technical Assistance/Pre-Visit: The technical assistance or pre-visit 6-9 months in advance of the visit was informative and helpful. This visit provided insight into PDE expectations.

  2. Clarity of Expectations: Faculty had difficulty switching paradigms from old to new standards. Expectations were clear, but the experience of the visit provided the understanding of the documentation needed. Chap 354 needs to be clearly interpreted in terms of the documentation and artifacts needed for the visit.

  3. On-Site Preparation of Materials: As a result of the visit, faculty have a clear understanding of the documentation needed. This clarity needs to be available in advance of the visit.

  4. Standards and Guidelines: Booklets were clear and helpful. Liaison's interpretation of the guidelines needs to be consistent across liaisons and across contacts.

  5. Format of the Review: Needs to be reviewed in terms of format and timeframe. Time needs to be scheduled within each area being reviewed.

  6. Approval process handbooks: Very helpful and each revision provides greater clarity. Often the information seemed vague and it was unclear what was expected. What might have been planned as openness to allow for variations in institutions turns out to be less clear than is useful.

  7. Roles of the Reviewers: Reviewers need to be prepared for the depth of their roles and to be clear on the process of the review. Team members need to be fair, probing, and clearly well prepared to ask questions and verify the self-study.

  8. Self-Study: Self0-Study for the content areas needs to be developed with performance assessment in mind. This is the most valuable part of the process.

  9. Timeline and Schedule: More adequate time to get materials ready for the review and for us to present evidence of the strength of the program. It remains the view of several that a review of this magnitude can't be effectively conducted in so short a timeframe.

  10. Organization of the Team Report: Team report was outlined clearly and well organized. Some institutions need clearer guidance on how to achieve passing status (rubrics).

  11. Additional comments: The chair and liaison make the whole process acceptable. It would be useful if PDE also shared with institutional representatives the information that is being shared to train and update team chairs.

psl 11/2002