Search Go

SUU Home | A to Z Index | Contact Info

Professional Education Unit

Program Reports
 

Units must submit program reports, responding to professional standards, to NCATE as part of its accreditation review if the institution is located in a state that does not have a partnership with NCATE or the state partnership agreement requires submission of program reports for national review. Otherwise, submission of program reports is optional. However, the program must meet professional standards to be listed as nationally recognized in NCATE publications and on the website.

Options for Program Review under NCATE 2000

As NCATE and NCATE institutions make the transition to a performance-based accreditation system, NCATE has developed several options for program review submission that allow institutions to respond to current program standards in the most appropriate way. In some cases, NCATE institutions and/or programs may have fully developed performance assessment systems that cannot be appreciably reviewed under program standards that have not yet undergone the revision to performance-based standards (see chart below). In other cases, it may be the institution and/or program that does not yet have a fully developed assessment process and performance data that would allow it to have a fair review under program standards that are performance-based. In order to cover both ends of this spectrum, NCATE has four program report options:
 

1. Full Program Report - for programs that have not met professional standards and for programs for which the standards have been significantly revised since the last review. 

2. Interim Report - for programs that met the professional standards as part of the unit's last review if the standards have not been significantly revised since the last review.

3. Performance Assessment System Plan - for programs that are developing performance-based systems. 

4. Performance-Based Evidence - for programs that are already performance-based and have been collecting and compiling data on candidates' performances.

The charts below should help your institution make a decision on which option it should choose for each area of program submission. The first chart lists the program standards according to whether or not they have undergone current, performance-based revisions. The second chart describes the options you may want to consider for submission of your program documents.
 

1. Performance-Based Standards (have undergone revision in the past few years)	2. Input-Based Standards ( have not yet completed the revision process)
educational computing and technology educational leadership elementary education* English education  mathematics education  physical education  reading education  science education social studies education technology education	early childhood education (revision due in 2001) educational communications and technology (revision due in 2000) health education (revision due in 2001) middle level education (revision due in 2002) school library media specialist (revision due in 2000) school psychology (revision due in 2000)  special education (revision due in 2001)

* Performance-based elementary education standards were adopted by NCATE's Specialty Areas Studies Board in October 1999, and must be addressed by institutions submitting program reports in February 2001. Institutions submitting program reports in September 2000 may respond either to the current input-based standards or the new performance-based standards.
 

Status of Institution's Program and Applicable Program Standards	Respond to Current Program Standards	Submit an Assessment System Plan	Submit Performance-Based Evidence
Program is fully performance-based; NCATE standards are performance-based (Column 1)			X
Program is moving toward a performance-based system; NCATE standards are performance-based (Column 1)	X or X
Program is fully performance-based; NCATE standards are input-based (Column 2)			X
Program is moving toward a performance-based system; NCATE standards are input-based (Column 2)	X or X
Institution's elementary education program is fully performance-based	Performance Evidence Required with 2/01 Reports		X
Elementary education program is moving toward a performance-based system	Performance Evidence Required with 2/01 Reports	X

Option 1: Full Program Reports

A full program report (formerly referred to as a folio, and now called a program report) must be submitted by units seeking initial accreditation. Units already accredited by NCATE and planning a continuing visit must submit a full program report under the following conditions:

• The program did not meet the national program standards as part of the previous NCATE review.
• A major revision of the program standards occurred since the previous review. 
• Program standards have been approved by NCATE's Specialty Areas Studies Board since the last review.

The program review document generally includes four sections:

1. Cover sheet with general information about the program and institution. The cover sheet lists all of the documents that must be submitted with the program report and requires a signature verifying that the report is accurate. (The cover sheet can be downloaded in Word with the matrices under program standards.) 

2. Overview or context of the program that describes the relationship to the unit's conceptual framework and provides other contextual information to help the program reviewer understand the program. The contents of the overview section are outlined on the cover sheet. (This section should not exceed 12 pages in length.)

3. Matrix for the specific program area on which candidate performance data, courses, and/or experiences are listed as evidence for meeting standards. (The matrix can be downloaded in Word under program standards.) The introduction to each set of standards includes "Instructions for Preparation of the Program Review" that outlines the information to include in the matrix and provides suggestions for completing the matrix. A program area may have multiple matrices to cover different age or grade levels for which candidates are being prepared. Some require a different matrix for specialties within the field; for example, science has a matrix for biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Others have separate matrices for initial and advanced preparation programs. 

4. Supporting documentation that provides detail for the evidence cited on the matrix. Each set of standards includes information regarding the documentation that should be submitted for the specific program. Each item in this section should be correlated and/or cross-referenced to the matrix.

If programmatic information is presented, it should be limited to syllabi, course descriptions, and/or uniquely specific information listed on the matrix. Some secondary program areas require the syllabi for the education courses listed on the matrix, but will accept catalog descriptions for most arts and sciences courses, especially if those descriptions clearly indicate that a standard is met. Check the cover sheet and introduction for each set of standards to determine the syllabi that must be submitted.

NCATE does not have, nor does it require, a generic syllabus format, but many professional education units have found it helpful to develop one for their own purposes. Syllabi for each section of a course should NOT be submitted; instead, attach a generic syllabus for the course.

The program must submit four or five copies of the program report to NCATE by February 1 or September 15; see the directions with each set of standards for the exact number of copies required for each program area.

Top of page

Option 2: Interim Program Reports

Interim Reports are an option only for accredited institutions with continuing accreditation visits. The interim five-year review of programs parallels the continuing accreditation process. It provides an opportunity for the institution to assess the condition of programs against professional standards and to report progress made on correcting previous weaknesses. The professional associations provide feedback to program faculty on changes between reviews. Submission of the report is required to maintain approval for the next five years and to remain on NCATE's list of nationally recognized programs.

If a program met national guidelines as part of the unit's last NCATE visit and the standards have undergone only minor revisions since the previous review, an interim report may be submitted. The interim report requires the institution to describe changes, evaluations and improvements that have occurred in the program since the last review, and also requires the institution to address any weaknesses, concerns, and/or unmet standards from the last review.

The interim report for each program must include (1) the cover sheet, (2) a copy of the last program review, and (3) a response to each of the following six items, which should not exceed 6 pages in length: 

1. Describe progress toward addressing each specific standard/competency found to be unmet or not addressed during the most recent folio review/critique. 

2. Describe progress toward addressing each weakness/recommendation noted during the last review. A copy of this critique should be included with the interim report.

3. Describe any other changes in the program since the last review and explain how those changes impact the compliance of the program with the standards of the professional association identified on the cover sheet. 

4. Describe any institutional/programmatic circumstances or "special" considerations that were or were not included in the initial program report that would help the reviewers better understand the program. 

5. Describe any changes in program resources such as faculty, technology or a major project or study and explain how these changes have affected the program.

6. Describe plans (e.g., added faculty resources, new emphases or areas of study) for the continued development of this program over the next five years.

Supporting documentation should not be submitted with the interim report. If documentation is required, it will be requested by the professional association in their response. 

An interim report form, cover sheet, and directions for preparing the report can be downloaded from this website; they also are mailed to institutions with an accreditation package approximately two years before the onsite visit. 

To view and download this document, you need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader version 3 or 4 installed on your computer. You can download the free Reader software at www.adobe.com.

The program must submit five copies of the brief interim report to NCATE on February 1 or September 15. The professional associations determine whether the program retains national recognition. If the standards are no longer met, the program has the opportunity to submit a full program report (i.e., Option 1). 

Top of page

Option 3: Plan for a Performance Assessment System

The NCATE 2000 standards incorporate a timeline for institutions to make the transition to a full performance-based system that includes both external and internal performance data. This transition plan also applies to the related program review process. Therefore, institutions with visits in fall 2001 through fall 2003 may choose to submit its plan for developing, gathering, and using evaluative information on candidate proficiencies along with a summary of available performance data if the following conditions are met:

• The unit is accredited by NCATE,
• The program met national standards at its last review, and 
• The program standards have not been significantly revised since the previous review.

Program reviewers will provide a critique of the performance data and identify strengths and weaknesses of the plan. The professional association's report will indicate the soundness of the institution's approach and the likelihood that data expected under the plan will be appropriate and sufficient when they are summarized for program review decisions in the future. However, future program reviews will depend primarily on candidate performance. 

The program report for a performance assessment system plan must include the following three parts: (1) context statement, (2) summary of performance data currently available, and (3) a description of the unit and/or program's plan for a performance assessment system together with its stages of implementation. The three sections are described below.

1. Context

Each institution has unique attributes that influence preparation programs. These attributes will be considered when the performance assessment plan is judged. The contextual statement, ranging from 20-30 pages, should contain information that institutional representatives believe reviewers should take into account while judging the quality of a program. (The same contextual statement might apply across programs or be adapted for each program area being submitted for review.) It should be concisely written as a summary of key points, not an extended, nuanced, cross-referenced paper with numerous attachments. The context statement should include the following: 

basic information on the program including grades or ages of students with which the candidate will work, number of candidates enrolled and completing the program each year, and the degree level; 

relevant policies and practices affecting the program, including the relationship of the program's conceptual framework to the unit's conceptual framework; 

the unit's own evaluation of its program strengths, candidate proficiencies, and overall performance in relation to its mission and goals and in the context of the appropriate professional standards; 

quality assurance processes built into the program, plans to assure credibility (i.e., accuracy, consistency, fairness, and avoidance of bias) of the assessment and evaluation system, and the manner in which results of assessments will be used to evaluate and improve programs; and 

Any unique state requirements for the program that may affect implementation of the professional standards or performance of candidates, with an explanation of how the unit accommodates differences between NCATE and state standards.

2. Summary of Performance Data 

The second part of the submission must include a summary of data currently available about the performance of candidates and graduates of the program. These data should include all of the following that are available to the institution at the time of the submission. If data are not available, an explanation should be provided.

• results on state licensure examinations,
• results on assessments conducted in the first year of practice, 
• projects, essays, exam results or other evidence of mastery in the content area(s),
• assessments of student teaching or internships, and 
• other data used at the time of submission to determine if candidates know their content, are able to teach, and can help students learn.

Data should be presented in a user-friendly format so that the reader can clearly ascertain (a) the time period covered by a given set of data; (b) any codes or abbreviations that may be used in charts; and (c) the meaning of numerical data, i.e., what constitutes a high, low or cut-off score. 

The summary should indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the available data and show how the assessment system plan will complement this information.

3. Performance Assessment System Plan

The third part of the submission must describe the unit and/or program's plan for a performance assessment system and its stages of implementation. The plan should include a detailed description of the nature of the evidence to be collected and components of the plan as outlined below.

Nature of Evidence. The assessment system plan should elaborate on the nature of evidence that the unit and program uses, or is developing, to address program standards. The nature of evidence refers to both the type of assessments and their source. 

Types of assessments are meant to be the full range of assessment forms, including multiple choice (which may be useful to gauge proficiencies in standards calling for candidate knowledge) and also observations, reflections, teaching demonstrations, analytic work, student work samples, and other forms of evaluative information demonstrating proficiency. The plan should indicate how the institution plans to secure information that reliably assesses candidate ability to have positive effects on student learning.

The term sources is used to identify assessment information provided about candidates from any source, either within the education unit or outside. Examples of assessment sources from within the education unit include end-of-course evaluations but could encompass tasks used for instructional purposes such as projects, journals, observations by faculty, comments by cooperating teachers, samples of student work, and other information that commonly would be available for faculty use in determining the adequacy of the candidate's accomplishments in a course. Examples from outside the unit are candidate performance evaluations during induction years; follow-up studies; performance on state licensure exams; especially any of those adapted from INTASC models (e.g., the portfolios for teaching competence or the test of teaching knowledge); teacher knowledge exams in which content is consistent with the Program Standards or with equivalent state standards; and academic subject knowledge, end-of-course examinations, essays, and other demonstrations of achievement.

Other Components of the Plan. The plan should also describe other aspects of the performance assessment system that are being developed. These might include:

• steps taken to align the assessment system information with the professional standards candidates are expected to meet; 
• procedures being planned or refined to demonstrate that the institution's performance assessments and evaluations provide credible performance evidence (for example, a peer review, an evaluation by external experts, or a formal validation study); 
• the decision-making process being developed or used to judge acceptable attainment of the standards by its education candidates; 
• development or refinement of rubrics for judging levels of candidates' knowledge, skills, and performances as acceptable; and 
• the design for summarizing and sampling performance evidence and for ensuring that it is representative of the performance of candidates.

Top of page

Option 4: Performance-Based Evidence

A program may submit performance data--not exceeding 100 pages including attachments--that summarizes the proficiencies of candidates. Even though the upper limit of this material is set at 100 pages, it may be possible to convey the necessary information in 50-75 pages. This would be possible, especially, if an institution regularly synthesizes data from its monitoring of candidate progress and puts the results into forms useful for discussions about how the program can be strengthened.

The evidence must be comprehensive in its breadth, yet concise and deep in its contents. The intent is to inform reviewers about candidate proficiencies in relation to the standards for the field. Therefore, performance evidence must be provided for each of the standards.

The program report with performance-based evidence must include two parts: (1) context and (2) performance evidence. Both parts are described below.

1. Context

Each institution has unique attributes that influence preparation programs. These attributes will be considered when the performance assessment plan is judged. The contextual statement, ranging from 20-30 pages, should contain information that institutional representatives believe reviewers should take into account while judging the quality of a program (the same contextual statement might apply across programs or be adapted for each program area being submitted for review). It should be concisely written as a summary of key points, not an extended, nuanced, cross-referenced paper with numerous attachments. The context statement should include the following:

basic information on the program including grades or ages of students with which the candidate will work, number of candidates enrolled and completing the program each year, and the degree level; 

relevant policies and practices affecting the program, including the relationship of the program's conceptual framework with the unit's conceptual framework. 

the unit's own evaluation of its program strengths, candidate proficiencies, and overall performance in relation to its mission and goals and in the context of the appropriate professional standards; 

an explanation of the strengths and qualities of the program, including courses and experiences the institution offers candidates. This information should (1) explain how the candidates are provided opportunities to learn and practice the knowledge and skills contained in the program standards and (2) describe the experiences of faculty members in the program that qualify them to judge candidates as competent professionals. 

quality assurance processes built into the program, plans to assure credibility (i.e., accuracy, consistency, fairness, and avoidance of bias) of the assessment and evaluation system, and the manner in which results of assessments will be used to evaluate and improve programs; and 

any unique state requirements for the program that may affect implementation of the professional standards or performance of candidates, with an explanation of how the unit accommodates differences between NCATE and state standards. 

2. Performance Evidence

The bulk of the institution's program report should provide information demonstrating candidate proficiencies. It is the achievement of candidate proficiencies as they relate to the standards that will be the basis for judgments about program quality and national recognition. This information should be organized around the categories of standards for the program being presented. The narrative should address all of the standards for candidates, even though the institution may give much less emphasis to some than to others. 

The following types of evidence will help reviewers know that candidates meet the standards: 

candidate proficiency results that are aggregated and summarized through averages, range of scores, and distributions of scores. These summaries are made meaningful through illustrations such as samples of exam questions, examples of written responses, and analytic materials intended to inform reviewers of the proficiencies that candidates achieve in relation to the standards. The results should be aligned with the standards for candidate knowledge and skills.

rubrics or criteria for judging candidates' proficiency levels and information on the proportion of the program enrollees or completers who attain each level; 

selected samples of candidates' work from the cohort of candidates completing the program in a specific academic year and previous completers so that information about performance of candidates from their entire preparation experience and into employment is available for demonstration of candidate performance. Some samples should illustrate candidate work at three levels of performance (such as best, average, and below the institution's standard).

multiple data types and sources that illustrate different points of assessment during the preparation program, the range of standards, and the different types of skills expected in the standards (i.e., knowledge, ability to apply the knowledge in teaching situations, dispositions, and ability to have positive effects on student learning).

Please look at the example of the Status of National Program Reviews. To view and download this document, you need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader version 3 or 4 installed on your computer. You can download the free Reader software at www.adobe.com.

Top of page

| Archives | Professional Education Unit | College of Education |