The NCATE Program Recognition Report

The NCATE Program Recognition Report is the formal document that you complete and submit to NCATE. Your team leader, using individual reviewer reports and other input will complete the team report that will be submitted to NCATE. The SPA Audit team will have access to all the individual reviewer reports as well as the final report. A Program Recognition Report should be completed for each program report you review.

The NCATE Program Recognition Report has 7 sections. The following information provides information about each section and describes how to use information from the Reviewer Worksheet to complete the report.

Introductory Information

Complete this information for each program. This information can be copied from the Cover Sheet of the Program Report.

Part A: Recognition Decision

A.1. - SPA Decision on NCATE Recognition of the Program

In this section put your final decision, taken from the Reviewer Worksheet, Section G.  There are three possible decisions: Nationally Recognized, Nationally Recognized with Conditions or Further Development Required/Recognized with Probation.

A.2 - Test Results

The information on the 80% pass rate can be taken from the Cover Sheet in the Program Report. There is place for you to add comments if appropriate.

A.3 - Summary of Strengths

It is important that you cite strengths of the program that you have noticed. These can be taken from your notes on the Reviewer Worksheet. Strengths could be either specific aspects of the program (e.g. diversity of clinical sites) or more global statements (e.g. a major focus on teaching in urban settings), but should not be just a reiteration of the sections of the SPA standards that were approved.

To give you some guidance, here are a couple of examples of well written “Summary of Strength” statements:

  • emphasis on reflective practitioner throughout education coursework

  • use of an action research project that focuses candidates on their effect on student learning

  • review process is data driven and there is evidence of revisions/program changes resulting from examination of collected assessment data. Assessments included in review clearly demonstrate evidence that most candidates are meeting Professional Standards. Rubrics are detailed, easy to understand, clear in their analysis and aligned with relevant program standards

Part B: Status of Meeting SPA Standards

In this section cite each individual standard as Met, Met with Conditions or Not Met. Take this information from Column F of the Reviewer Worksheet. If a standard is found Met with Conditions or Not Met, you must include a comment to explain why it is met with conditions or not met. The comment should provide enough information for the program to be able to understand the issue. Some guidelines for writing the comments:

  • Use objective, impartial language

  • Be complete so no other information is needed to understand why standard is “not met.”

  • Explanation must be related only to the standard

  • Be as clear and specific as possible

  • Use direct language without being harsh or unprofessional

  • Don’t use modifiers that appear tentative or uncertain

  • Cite weaknesses if these have not already been addressed

  • Be careful about including specific instructions for remediation (e.g. the faculty should develop a new course). Any “suggestions” from the reviewers will be taken as “commands” by the faculty. It is not the reviewers’ role to proscribe programmatic changes, but to provide explanation for why particular standards were not met.

To give you some guidance, here are a couple of examples of well written comments for Part B:

  • The assessment cited for this standard does not refer specifically to critical thinking and judgment; rather it is focused on planning lessons that improve student understanding through the use of various reading processes.

  • The program cites assessment 5, the rubric and data table based on the state assessment, as providing evidence that this standard has been met.  However, reviewers found no mention of building family and community relationships in this assessment tool.  Also, reviewers found no scoring guides or rubrics in the information provided to help understand how a candidate is rated as “distinguished, “proficient” or “developing”.  Again, there was no information specific to the relationship of the state assessment and the NAEYC standards, including standard 2

Part C: Evaluation of Program Report Evidence

In Part C you are asked to evaluate how well the program’s assessments and candidate data address content knowledge, pedagogical and professional content knowledge skills and dispositions, and candidate impact on student learning. The information in Part C summarizes the program report evaluation in a way that will be extremely useful to the Board of Examiners when they evaluate the unit against Unit Standard 1.

In this section, reviewers should discuss how appropriately the SPA standards were addressed in each of the three categories, C.1, C.2, and C.3; whether the assessments were of sufficient quality to address the SPA standards; how effective the scoring guides were in identifying appropriate levels of proficiency, and to what extent candidates are meeting the standards. To complete Part C, you should use the chart in Section III of the Program Report. To complete section C.1, find those standards that have “Content Knowledge” checked in the second column and summarize your decisions for those standards (or components of those standards). For C.2, find those standards in the Section III chart that are cited for “Pedagogical/Professional Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions. For C.3, find those standards that are cited for “Effect on Student Learning.”

The last page of the Reviewer Worksheet has a table to help you organize your response to Part C.  In each of the sections of Part C you should write relatively brief (1-2 paragraphs) that summarize your evaluation of the relevant standards.

To give you some guidance, here are a couple of examples of well written comments for Part C:

  • The institution indicated assessments to address areas of content knowledge essential for elementary teachers. However, evidence from Assessment #2 was not available; other assessments provided only limited data for some areas of content knowledge (i.e., science and social studies); and no evidence was available to indicate knowledge of the arts, health education, and physical education.

  • The institution indicated Assessments #3, #4, and #5 address ACEI’s standards applicable to pedagogical knowledge and skills. However, the elements of the scoring rubrics and the candidate data presented only indirectly or narrowly addressed most of these standards. It was difficult for reviewers to see relationships from the information and candidate data presented that was clearly directed toward and aligned with the applicable standards.     

  • Analysis of student learning is clearly covered in the assessments.  Many of the projects are cross-referenced and cover content, pedagogy as well as student learning impact standards.

Part D: Evaluation of the Use of Assessment Results

In Part D, you should provide your evaluation of the information submitted in Section V of the Program Report. Questions for consideration might include:

  • Is it clear that assessment evidence is used by the institution in evaluating the program, counseling candidates, and revising courses or other elements of the program?

  • Has the institution made program changes based on assessment evidence?

  • Do you find the faculty interpretations consistent with the evidence provided in the program report?

  • Are the implications for programs that appear in this section of the program report derived from the interpretations?

To give you some guidance, here are a couple of examples of well written comments for Part D:

  • Supportive evidence is clear for all assessments and there is a procedure in place for the evaluation and application of that evidence for the improvement of candidate performance and strengthening of the program.

  • The program appears to understand that it has considerable work to do; some significant weaknesses have been identified and the program indicates it knows it must work on these. From this realization can come significant change and strengthening of the program. This review should assist in the process as well.

  • The university has provided evidence that they have made adjustments to their program based on data collected from the first cohort of candidates. In one example from the Contextual Statement, an analysis was made of the match between content expectations of the program and of candidates’ performance on the Praxis II exam as a way to determine monitor trends that may indicate the need for adjustment to the program.

Part E: Areas for Consideration

In this section of the Program Recognition Report, reviewers would address broad, programmatic issues that the review team feels may be affecting the program, but may not be standards based.  This is also a section where the review team can write about any issues that may be affecting the program, even if the program is nationally recognized.  Finally, the review team may choose to use this section to give “guidance” to programs on how to proceed in addressing issues within the program, especially if the decision is Not Nationally Recognized.

Part F: Additional Comments

Part F provides you with the opportunity to make any additional comments that you think are appropriate. In F.1 your comments should focus on the Context Statement and other issues that were not addressed elsewhere in this report. In F.2, you can cite concerns for follow-up by the Board of Examiners. These could be issues that are related to the NCATE Unit Standards but not directly related to the SPA standards. For example, you may be concerned about the number of faculty assigned to the program in relation to the number of candidates or you could be concerned that the clinical practice experiences are not sufficient for the program.

Part G: Conditions Statement

Part G acts as a contract between the SPA and the program.  The conditions should be clear, precise, objective, evidence and standards based.  It should NOT be an opinion or a judgment written by the team.  Remember, the team that looks at the response to conditions report when it is submitted will zero in on this conditions section to determine whether the program is recognized.

To give you some guidance, here are a couple of examples of well written comments for Part G:

  • Assessments #1 and #2: The program needs to address candidate knowledge of content by standard (academic discipline) and by category (sub scores) on the Praxis II exam. They must also present aggregated candidate data (grades) in a table or chart of candidate scores from high to low for each standard.

  • Assessment #5 “Candidate impact on student learning” needs to be addressed by the degree to which secondary students learned from candidate instruction. The unit plan assignment could well yield such data if the candidate taught it in a secondary classroom and conducted something as simple as a pre and post test on the unit.

  • Standard 3.2: The program must identify the instructor(s) of the Social Studies Methods course(s) and indicate their backgrounds in social studies education or in one of the disciplines.

  • Data from all assessments for the next year must be collected and analyzed.  

  • Additional procedures for evaluating post baccalaureate candidates need to be implemented that ensure standards and indicators are met.

  • Concerns cited under Standard 1 must be addressed.