The Education Professional
Standards Board
KATE Conference
September 26, 2014
EPSB Mission Statement
The Education Professional Standards Board,
in full collaboration and cooperation with its
education partners, promotes high levels of student
achievement by establishing and enforcing rigorous
professional standards for preparation, certification,
and responsible and ethical behavior
of all professional educators in Kentucky.
www.epsb.ky.gov
1
www.epsb.ky.gov
2
Pilot States
Kentucky
Connecticut
Georgia
Idaho
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Washington
The states will work individually and collectively to support
transformation of educator preparation and entrance to
the profession.
www.epsb.ky.gov
3
Four Major Buckets
State licensure systems
State program approval standards
State data systems
Partnerships
www.epsb.ky.gov
4
Licensure
1. States will revise and enforce their licensure standards for teachers and principals to
support the teaching of more demanding content aligned to college- and careerreadiness and critical thinking skills to a diverse range of students.
2. States will work together to influence the development of innovative licensure
performance assessments that are aligned to the revised licensure standards and
include multiple measures of educators’ ability to perform, including the potential to
impact student achievement and growth.
3. States will create multi-tiered licensure systems aligned to a coherent developmental
continuum that reflects new performance expectations for educators and their
implementation in the learning environment and to assessments that are linked to
evidence of student achievement and growth.
4. States will reform current state licensure systems so they are more efficient, have true
reciprocity across states, and so that their credentialing structures support effective
teaching and leading toward student college- and career-readiness.
www.epsb.ky.gov
5
Program Approval
5. States will hold preparation programs accountable by exercising the state’s authority to
determine which programs should operate and recommend candidates for licensure in
the state, including establishing a clear and fair performance rating system to guide
continuous improvement. States will act to close programs that continually receive the
lowest rating and will provide incentives for programs whose ratings indicate exemplary
performance.
6. States will adopt and implement rigorous program approval standards to assure that
educator preparation programs recruit candidates based on supply and demand data,
have highly selective admissions and exit criteria including mastery of content, provide
high quality clinical practice throughout a candidate’s preparation that includes
experiences with the responsibilities of a school year from beginning to end, and that
produce quality candidates capable of positively impacting student achievement.
7. States will require alignment of preparation content standards to PK-12 college- and
career-ready standards for all licensure areas.
8. States will provide feedback, data, support, and resources to preparation programs to
assist them with continuous improvement and to act on any program approval or
national accreditation recommendations.
www.epsb.ky.gov
6
Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting
9. States will develop and support state-level governance structures
to guide confidential and secure data collection, analysis, and
reporting of PK-20 data and how it informs educator preparation
programs, hiring practices, and professional learning. Using
stakeholder input, states will address and take appropriate action,
individually and collectively, on the need for unique educator
identifiers, links to non-traditional preparation providers, and the
sharing of candidate data among organizations and across states.
10. States will use data collection, analysis, and reporting of multiple
measures for continuous improvement and accountability of
preparation programs.
www.epsb.ky.gov
7
First Year Priorities
Development of a continuous assessment model for
shared educator preparation accountability.
Alignment of the Kentucky’s educator growth and
effectiveness system with the Kentucky Teacher
Internship Program.
Adopt/Align the Kentucky Teacher Standards with the
InTASC Standards
Field testing teacher performance assessments within
educator preparation programs
Adopting CAEP Standards for teacher preparation
accountability.
www.epsb.ky.gov
8
Priority: KTIP/PGES
Kentucky Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness
System (TPGES) / Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (KTIP)
www.epsb.ky.gov
9
Kentucky Framework for Teaching Component:
Kentucky Teacher Standards:
Domain 1 – Planning and Preparation
1A - Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2
1B - Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
1.2, 2.2, 3.3, 4.2, 5.4
1C - Selecting Instructional Outcomes
1.2, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.5
1D - Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
4.3, 4.4, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4,
1E - Designing Coherent Instruction
1.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.5, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2
1F - Designing Student Assessment
1.1, 1.5, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3
Domain 2 – Classroom Environment
2A - Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport
1.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 6.5
2B - Establishing a Culture for Learning
3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 4.5
2C - Managing Classroom Procedures
3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.3, 4.4
2D - Managing Student Behavior
3.4, 3.5
2E - Organizing Physical Space
4.4, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4
Domain3 – Instruction
3A - Communicating with Students
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.5, 3.2, 4.1, 4.3, 4.5
3B - Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 4.5, 5.6
3C - Engaging Students in Learning
1.3, 2.4, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 4.1, 5.6
3D - Using Assessment in Instruction
1.3, 2.3, 3.5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6
3E - Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 4.1, 4.2
Domain 4 – Professional Responsibilities
4A - Reflecting on Teaching
7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 9.4
4B - Maintaining Accurate Records
7.1, 7.2
4C - Communicating with Families
5.5, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4
4D - Participating in a Professional Community
10.1
4E - Growing and Developing Professionally
9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3
4F - Demonstrating Professionalism
8.1
www.epsb.ky.gov
2
KTIP Pilot Background
KACI-worked past year to align KTIP to PGES (based
on Framework for Teaching)
22 districts involved in KTIP pilot this school year
New KTIP will be used state-wide
www.epsb.ky.gov
11
No Changes to…
Committee Structure (Principal, Resource Teacher,
Teacher Educator)
Cycle Structure (3 cycles, days are same)
Number of hours Resource Teacher spends with Intern
is same (20 in class; 40 out of class)
Data/signatures entered in Intern Management System
(IMS) the same
www.epsb.ky.gov
12
Biggest Change
KTIP tasks for pilot called
KTIP Sources of Evidence
www.epsb.ky.gov
13
Sources of Evidence
Observation
Peer
Observation
Teacher Professional
Growth and Effectiveness
System
Professional
Growth
Kentucky Teacher Internship
Program
Self Reflection
Lesson Plan
Student Voice
Student Growth
www.epsb.ky.gov
14
Collaborative
Leadership
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE
To Inform Professional Practice
FRAMEWORK for TEACHING (FfT)
Component
Supervisor
Observation
Student
Voice
Professional
Growth
Self
Reflection
Peer
Observation
KTIP
Lesson Plan
Evidence
(pre and post conferences)
Observation
Collaborative Leadership
Observation
Kentucky Student Voice Survey
Professional Growth Planning and Self Reflection
4f-Showing Professionalism
4e-Growing & Developing Professionally
4d-Participating in Profess. Learning Comm.
4c-Communicating With Families
Instruction
4b-Maintaining Accurate Records
4a-Reflecting On Teaching
3e-Demonstrating Flexibility & Responsive
3d-Using Assessment in Learning
3c-Engaging Students in Learning
Classroom
Environment
3b-Questioning & Discussion Techniques
3a-Communicating with Students
2e-Organizing Physical Space
2d-Managing Student Behavior
2c-Maintaining Classroom Procedures
Planning & Preparation
2b-Establish Culture of Learning
2a-Creating Env. of Respect & Rapport
1f- Designing Student Assessment
1e-Designing Coherent Instruction
1d-Demonstrates knowledge of resources
1c- Setting Instructional Outcomes
Domain
1b-Demonstrate knowledge of students
1a -Knowledge of content/pedagogy
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE/FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING ALIGNMENT
Sources of
Evidence/Framework For Teaching Alignment
Professional
Responsibilities
Evidence
(pre and post conferences)
Sources of Evidence
Self-Assessment and Reflection
Lesson Plan
Collaborative Leadership
Professional Growth Plan
Think and Plan Tool (Student Growth)
Student Voice
Observation/Post-Observation
www.epsb.ky.gov
16
KTIP Assessment
Interns will be rated on every component of every
Danielson domain at the end of all 3 cycles, using
the new Professional Practice Ratings documents.
These ratings will be used formatively to guide
discussions with the intern, and will help inform
scoring of the KY Teacher Standards.
Principals will enter KTS scores for all committee
members on the RTIY in IMS (same process as
before).
For 2015-16 IMS will be revised.
www.epsb.ky.gov
17
Stakeholder Involvement
EPSB Board Directive
Survey of District/School Personnel
Focus Groups
Kentucky Advisory Council for Internship
KACI Work Team
Kentucky Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education (KACTE) presentations/discussions
Feedback from Prichard Committee
www.epsb.ky.gov
18
Priority: Proportional Accountability Model
EPSB Directive
Part of the Kentucky Educator Preparation
Accountability System (KEPAS)
www.epsb.ky.gov
19
Can we measure the impact of all that?
We can measure all sorts of things, but how will we tease out the
impact of A and the impact of B and the impact of C?
 And what happens when we add D and E and F and so on?
 We don’t want to create even a perception of system limitations.
Kentucky decided to take a comprehensive approach to
accountability for EPPs.
 Fairness
 Informative feedback
 Time-sensitive shared accountability shared between P-12
schools/districts and EPPs
Three-part “accountability suite” was developed, presented to the
board, and adopted in principle.
www.epsb.ky.gov
20
Can we measure
the impact of
all that?
Kentucky Teacher
Distribution, 2003-2010
Chart used by permission of the
authors.
Kukla-Acevedo S, Streams M &
Toma E (2012). Can a single
performance metric do it all? A
Case Study in Education
Accountability. The American
Review of Public Administration
42(3) 303–319.
Can we measure the impact of all that?
www.epsb.ky.gov
21
We want to be fair to our programs.
Looked to evaluation and improvement systems used in high-risk
fields requiring high levels of expertise.
 Aviation
 Nursing
 Others
“Just culture” emerged as a theme for promoting improvement vs.
placing blame.
 Human error
 Risky
 Reckless
Have to know about the why before determining an appropriate
response.
www.epsb.ky.gov
22
We want to provide informative feedback.
Campbell’s Law: “The more any quantitative social indicator is used for
social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures
and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is
intended to monitor.” (Campbell, 1998)
Instead of drawing brightline rules, this approach applies informed inference
to multiple measures to encourage continuous improvement.
 Involves charts: LOTS of charts. As of now, around 40 per EPP.
 Trained analysts and the EPP review the data, chart by chart.
 Some measures may prove to be useless: abandon them.
 Some new measures may become available: consider them.
 Some measures may prove to be useful even beyond our expectations:
leverage them.
 Some measures may be useful only in combination with other measures
or under certain circumstances: use caution with them.
www.epsb.ky.gov
26
We want to promote shared accountability.


This is just a model of how we could apportion time-sensitive fault/credit
to both the EPP and the P-12 context in which completers function.
Subject to tinkering.
www.epsb.ky.gov
Year of
employment
% of performance
attributed to
program
% of
performance
attributed to
the P-12
context
1
100
0
2
80
20
3
60
40
4
40
60
5
20
80
6
0
100
24
We want to promote shared accountability.


This is just a model of how we could apportion time-sensitive fault/credit
to both the EPP and the P-12 context in which completers function.
Subject to tinkering.
100
80
60
% of performance
attributed to
program
% of performance
attributed to the
context
40
20
0
1
www.epsb.ky.gov
2
3
4
5
6
Year of Employment
25
What does fair, informative, shared
accountability look like?
Ask a series of questions.
 What do the data represent?
 What do the data suggest?
 What factors or decisions may have contributed?
 Who is responsible?
 To what extent?
The goal is not to blame.
 Identify what we want, and work to get more of it.
 Identify what we don’t want, and work to avoid getting more of it.
www.epsb.ky.gov
26
What does fair, informative, shared
accountability look like?
Average GPA of Admitted Candidates: Institution C
What does fair, informative, shared
accountability look like?
Average ACT of Admitted Candidates: Institution C
What does fair, informative, shared
accountability look like?
www.epsb.ky.gov
What does fair, informative, shared
accountability look like?
Institution B
Summary Praxis Pass Rate Data
Academic Years 2002-2011
www.epsb.ky.gov
What does fair, informative, shared
accountability look like?
Institution C New Teacher Survey: % of respondents endorsing Satisfied or Very Satisfied
What’s Next?
Keep our board and our EPPs informed as we learn more.
Work on refinements.
 What should we dump?
 Do any of these measures tell us more than we expected?
 Are there research findings we should explore?
Additional sources of data becoming available.
 KDE Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PGES) for
teachers and administrators/TELL Survey
 Kentucky Center for Education and Workforce Statistics
 More and better in-house data collected through KFETS,
admission/exit, cooperating teacher system, certification system,
etc.
 EPPs have a lot of expertise: How can we use it?
www.epsb.ky.gov
32
Stakeholder Presentations
Presentations/discussions with education partners

Kentucky Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
(KACTE) presentations/discussions

Kentucky Advisory Council for Internship (KACI)

Commonwealth Collaborative of School Leadership Programs
(CCSLP)

Guiding Coalition (e.g., EPSB, CPE, KDE, Prichard Committee,
IHE, KSBA, KASC, KEA, REL Appalachia, KASS, KASA,
AIKCU)
www.epsb.ky.gov
33
To download a paper describing our accountability suite
more fully, visit www.epsb.ky.gov, click on Data and
Research, select Research Reviews, and select Design
of an EPSB Preparation and Accountability System for
Teacher Training Programs.
www.epsb.ky.gov
34
Next Steps
Multi-Tiered Licensure
Career-Pathways
www.epsb.ky.gov
35
Stakeholder Feedback Portal
www.epsb.ky.gov
36
To view all presentations and information
regarding the grant, go to the following link:
EPSB NTEP Stakeholder Portal.
We strongly encourage and welcome your
feedback regarding the initiatives of NTEP.
Feedback option will require log-in information.
www.epsb.ky.gov
37
New Teacher Survey

http://www.kyepsb.net/TestingResearch/Stati
stics/StateRptCard/2013_2014.asp
www.epsb.ky.gov
38
Thank You!
Questions:
Robertl.Brown@ky.gov
www.epsb.ky.gov