Domain Worksheets
Overview
This document is designed to support the development of an accurate and complete submission for an
offsite review for program approval. The offsite review is a document review. The Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) has structured the organization and targeted the content for
this review. In so doing, ESE ensures that documentation supplied by the Sponsoring Organization (SO) is
directly linked to criteria on which the review is evaluated. This supports a more effective and efficient
review process by:
 Requiring SOs to submit only what is absolutely necessary for the review, and
 Ensuring reviewers have everything they need to complete a thorough evidence-based
evaluation.
Formal v. Informal Review
The information provided below is relevant to the offsite review for both formal and informal approval.
See the Guidelines for Program Approval for a complete description of formal and informal review and
the processes that guides each.
For the formal review, the offsite review is one part of the review; additional evidence is reviewed and
evaluated during the onsite review (site visit) and in conjunction with relevant output measures.
For the informal review, the offsite review is the primary evidence based upon which the decision
regarding approval is made. Similar to formal review, informal review also uses output measures (where
available) as a component in the overall review determination. Informal review occurs in two instances:
1. Existing Sponsoring Organization (already approved as an educator preparation provider in MA)
wishes to put forth a new program(s) (New Program)
2. New organization would like to become an approved educator preparation provider in MA (New
Organization)
The submission requirements vary depending on the type (formal v. informal) or instance (new program
v. new organization) of the review. Any interested new organization should contact
edprep@doe.mass.edu for full and complete guidance. Any currently approved educator preparation
provider should contact edprep@doe.mass.edu to indicate your intent to put forth a new program(s).
Organization of Submission
Domains & Strands
All Sponsoring Organizations are accountable for the program approval standards set forth in 603 CMR
7.03. For the purposes of review, ESE has organized the Program Approval Standards and Indicators into
categories, called domains, and then further into strands.
Strand
Domain
Program
Approval
Standards &
Indicators
Strand
Strand
Strand
Domain
Strand
Educator Preparation Review
1
Domain Worksheets
Overview
Organizing the submission this way minimizes duplicate efforts in terms of both preparing and
evaluating evidence. With these domains, evidence that would otherwise be collected and considered in
two standards (i.e., Standard A – Continuous Improvement and Standard G – Program Impact) are now
required, and subsequently evaluated, only once. The domains and strands are listed below. See pages
4-7 for a complete crosswalk of Standards and Indicators to domains and strands.
The Organization
 Leadership
 Resources
 Faculty and Staff
Partnerships
Continuous Improvement
The Candidate
 Recruitment
 Admission
 Advising
Instruction
 Design
 Delivery
 Assessment
Field-Based Experiences
 Structure
 Placement
 Supervision
Worksheets
Worksheets are the primary component of the offsite submission. Worksheets outline all required
documents and prompt SOs to craft narratives that directly respond to the criteria on which the
organization is evaluated. The worksheets standardize the review process, creating consistency across
organizations and allowing reviewers to improve evaluative judgments through increased calibration.
There is a worksheet for each domain. All domains, with the exception of the Instruction Domain, are
evaluated at the organizational level. Sponsoring Organizations, as the educator preparation provider
seeking approval, will submit one set of evidence for each of these domains. In the case of the
Instruction Domain, however, SOs will submit one set of evidence per program. For example, each
Sponsoring Organization will submit a single set of evidence in support of The Candidate Domain,
whereas for the Instruction Domain both the elementary program and the math program will each
submit their own set of evidence.
For informal reviews, Educator Preparation Specialists will work with individual SOs to determine which
domain worksheets will be required for submission.
Educator Preparation Review
2
Domain Worksheets
Overview
Completing the Worksheets
ESE recognizes that the worksheet structure is a new approach for many Sponsoring Organizations in the
state. Below are some helpful hints in preparing an accurate and thorough submission.
Adhere to word limits.
For each narrative, ESE has imposed a word limit to encourage concise, clearly articulated answers to
each prompt. The narrow margin of space for responses will focus efforts of the SO and ensure that
reviewers get only the most crucial information.
Include only the strongest evidence.
It is in the best interest of SOs to be selective in their choice of evidence; we don’t need every example,
we want your most compelling. An abundance of documentation and data can prevent the reviewer
from seeing the most critical information to and undercut the effectiveness of the review. SOs have the
opportunity to provide evidence in two ways:
In narratives: Narratives are generated in response to prompts. Prompts vary in structure, some
ask for examples, others for impact data, and some are process-oriented. Regardless of the
prompt, ESE would always prefer to see evidence that speaks to impact or data related to
effectiveness. Strong evidence is representative of the work done by the SO during the time
period of the review. Strong evidence is not an anomaly, but rather emblematic of a system or
structure that is in place to yield similar results.
With supplemental documents: These are documents chosen by the SO in support of
narratives. If included (they are optional), they should be referenced within the narrative.
Supplemental documents must be artifacts of practice or data-related, extended narratives will
not be accepted as supplemental documentation. Portions of long artifacts, such as a page out
of a student handbook, further focus the reviewer’s eye on the strongest evidence. SOs should
refer to the list of required documents and use the “potential” list as a guide post for what or
what not to include.
Refer to required or supplemental documents in the narrative responses.
With only limited space, SOs should not repeat or duplicate information that is available elsewhere in
the submission. Supplemental documents should be referenced so that reviewers understand why they
were included in the submission. SOs should consider any state collected output measure (i.e.,
employment data, survey data, etc.) as another evidence source reviewers will consider. SOs are
welcome to reference this data in narratives as well.
Remember that the offsite is a starting point for the review.
Especially in the case of formal reviews but also true of informal reviews, the offsite is the beginning of
evidence collection and evaluation. ESE intends to work with SOs as reviewers triangulate evidence from
the offsite, the onsite, and available output measures. The process is designed to be comprehensive and
support complex decision making.
Toolkit resources, including worksheets, may be updated or revised. SOs should work with their Educator
Preparation Specialist to determine the correct version for the period of review.
Educator Preparation Review
3
Domain Worksheets
Overview
Program Approval Standards and Indicators and Domain/Strand Crosswalk
Domains and Strands
The Organization
 Leadership
 Resources
 Faculty and Staff
Partnerships
Program Approval
Standards (603 CMR 7.04)
Standard (C) Capacity:
Create, deliver and sustain
effective preparation
programs.
Standard (B) Collaboration
and Program Impact:
Collaborate with school
districts to ensure positive
impact in meeting the
needs of the districts.
Standard (A) Continuous
Improvement
Continuous
Improvement
Standard (G) Educator
Effectiveness
Program Approval Effectiveness Indicators (Guidelines for Program Approval)
C. 10 Faculty are qualified to teach assigned courses and model current best professional
practices (e.g., scholarship, service and teaching)
C.11. Clearly defined organizational structure and support for program sustainability by the
Sponsoring Organization
C.12. Clearly articulated agreement(s) and/or memorandum of understanding between
organizations describing relationship(s) related to satellite programs, fully online/hybrid courses,
etc.
B. 1. Deep interactive partnerships with districts to inform program effectiveness
B. 2. Strategic plan utilizing feedback and data collected from partner districts that are:
(a) Aligned with Sponsoring Organization’s strategic plan
(b) Focused on meeting district needs
B. 3. Focused recruitment, enrollment, retention and employment that address the needs of
districts.
Conduct an annual evaluation to assess program compliance, effectiveness, and impact using a
data driven system to ensure continuous improvement.
A. 1. Educator preparation licensure programs conduct an annual evaluation to support
continuous improvement
A. 2. Consistent collection and ongoing use of data to inform strategic decisions impacting the
Sponsoring Organization, education unit and programs, candidate and employing organizations
Analyze and use: aggregate evaluation rating data of program completers, employment data on
program completers employed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, results of survey data,
and other available data to improve program effectiveness.
G.1. Effective use of state administered surveys of licensure candidates at the point of:
enrollment, completion of all coursework but practicum/practicum equivalent, and program
completion
G. 2. Solicits and analyzes feedback from internal and external stakeholders, including
candidates, graduates, district and school personnel, and employers
G. 3. Effective use of state reported employment and evaluation data for licensure preparation
Educator Preparation Review
4
Domain Worksheets
Overview
Domains and Strands
The Candidate
 Recruitment
 Admission
 Advisement
Program Approval
Standards (603 CMR 7.04)
Standard (c) Capacity:
Create, deliver and sustain
effective preparation
programs.
Standard (d) Subject
Matter Knowledge
Program Approval Effectiveness Indicators (Guidelines for Program Approval)
program completers
C. 1. Outreach and recruitment efforts to enroll and retain a diverse candidate pool
C. 2. Robust and rigorous admission standards and process
C. 4. Advising process effectively supports candidates
C. 7. Waiver policy and documentation of waivers granted
C. 8. Transcripts for current candidates; transcripts with endorsement statements for all
program completers
C. 9. Career development and placement services that support candidate effectiveness and
employment
Initial License - Subject Matter Knowledge (SMK): Ensure that program completers have content
mastery based on the subject matter knowledge requirements; 603 CMR 7.06, 7.07, 7.09, and
7.11, at the level of an initially licensed educator.
D. 4. For post-baccalaureate candidates, assessment of content mastery through a transcript
review process and other assessment of SMK
Field-Based
Experiences
 Structure
 Supervision
 Placement
Instruction
 Design
 Delivery
 Assessment
Standard (C) Capacity:
Create, deliver and sustain
effective preparation
programs.
Standard (C) Capacity:
Create, deliver and sustain
effective preparation
programs.
Standard (D) Subject
Matter Knowledge
C. 5. Pre-practicum experiences in settings with diverse learners (e.g., students from diverse
ethnic, racial, gender, socioeconomic, and exceptional groups)
C. 6. Practicum/practicum equivalent tied to seminar; the program must deem
practicum/practicum equivalent placement to be an effective placement
C.3. Program of Study design and delivery
(a) Baccalaureate preparation program requirements
(b) Post-baccalaureate preparation program requirements
(c) Educator-licensure requirements, including the involvement of Arts and Sciences
Faculty and district involvement in the design and delivery
Initial License - Subject Matter Knowledge (SMK): Ensure that program completers have content
mastery based on the subject matter knowledge requirements; 603 CMR 7.06, 7.07, 7.09, and
7.11, at the level of an initially licensed educator
D. 1. Arts and Sciences and Education Faculty and Instructors collaboratively analyze subject
matter knowledge (SMK) standards and assess programmatic design, delivery and sequencing of
Educator Preparation Review
5
Domain Worksheets
Overview
Domains and Strands
Program Approval
Standards (603 CMR 7.04)
Program Approval Effectiveness Indicators (Guidelines for Program Approval)
content through completion of ESE’s SMK matrix, including key Output assessments
D. 2. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of current MA Curriculum Frameworks
D. 3. Candidates provide evidence that demonstrates license specific content knowledge in
practice (License Specific Questions are found in the Guidelines for Preservice Performance
Assessment)
Professional License – Advanced Subject Matter Knowledge: Ensure that program completers
have advanced content mastery based on the subject matter knowledge requirements; 603 CMR
7.06 and 7.07 at the level of a professionally licensed educator.
D. 1. Arts and Sciences and Education Faculty and Instructors collaboratively analyze subject
matter knowledge (SMK) standards and assess programmatic design, delivery and sequencing of
content through completion of ESE’s SMK matrix, including key Output assessments
Initial License – Professional Standards for Teachers: Ensure that program completers have been
assessed and mastered the Professional Standards for Teachers, 603 CMR 7.08 at the level of an
initially licensed teacher.
Standard (E) Professional
Standards for Teachers
E. 1. Education Faculty collaboratively analyze the Professional Standards for Teachers (PSTs)
and assess programmatic design, delivery and sequencing of pedagogical, professional
knowledge, skills and behaviors required of all candidates through completion of ESE’s PST
matrix, including key Output assessments
E. 2. Candidates demonstrate application of current MA Curriculum Frameworks
E. 3. Candidates provide evidence that demonstrates knowledge of pedagogy/content pedagogy
in practice through the completion of ESE’s Performance Assessment for Initial License
Professional License – Advanced Professional Standards for Teachers: Ensure that program
completers have been assessed and mastered the Professional Standards for Teachers at the
level of a professionally licensed teacher.
E. 1. Education Faculty collaboratively analyze the Professional Standards for Teachers (PSTs)
and assess programmatic design, delivery and sequencing of pedagogical, professional
knowledge, skills and behaviors required of all candidates through completion of ESE’s PST
Educator Preparation Review
6
Domain Worksheets
Overview
Domains and Strands
Program Approval
Standards (603 CMR 7.04)
Program Approval Effectiveness Indicators (Guidelines for Program Approval)
matrix, including key Output assessments
Standard (F) Professional
Standards for
Administrative Leadership
Standard (G) Educator
Effectiveness
Ensure that program completers have been assessed and mastered the Professional Standards
for Administrative Leadership at the level of an initially licensed administrator.
F.1. Education Faculty collaboratively analyze the Standards and Indicators for Administrative
Leadership and assess programmatic design, delivery and sequencing of pedagogical, content,
professional knowledge, skills and behaviors required of all candidates through completion of
ESE’s Administrative Leadership Indicators matrix, including key Output assessments
Analyze and use: aggregate evaluation rating data of program completers, employment data on
program completers employed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, results of survey data,
and other available data to improve program effectiveness.
G. 4. Collect and analyze candidate results from Performance Assessments
Educator Preparation Review
7