PESB StandardsStandard 2: Accountability and Program Improvement

How Standards are Judged• Standards are deemed unmet, met or exemplary. • A standard is deemed ‘met’ if:• A program offers credible evidence which is related to the

standard being addressed. • A program offers evidence which reflects the program. • A program offers evidence from a multitude of sources.• Some of the evidence is student- or candidate-based.• The evidence as a whole is persuasive.

How Standards are Judged Continued

• A standard is deemed ‘exemplary’ if:• All of the requirements under the ‘met’ rating are addressed. • The requirements listed under met are addressed. • The committee members demonstrate initiative by presenting

cohesive, innovative data.

Standard 2: Accountability and Program Improvement

• This standard largely has to do with the alignment of instruction, program content and the standards to which candidates will be upheld.

Standard 2.1a

Alignment of Programs with Standards• Data from each program is to be collected and assessed to

ensure that applicable standards are addressed. • This standard will also enable programs to evaluate progress

on their own goals. • Programs should aim to make the data readily accessible to

faculty and staff associated with endorsed programs. • Evidence includes a written assessment plan, rubrics defining

program goals and faculty interviews.

Standard 2.1b

Gathering Evidence of Student Learning and Program Operation

• The data should be gathered with consistency for all students in each program.

• It is best that multiple forms of data be presented to demonstrate a candidate’s knowledge, skills and disposition.

• For an exemplary rating, programs may update student files as needed.

• Evidence includes a plan detailing how data is to be collected, interviews with faculty and clear documentation of students admitted into an endorsed program.

Standard 2.1c

Collection of Candidate Work Samples and Documentation• A program is expected to collect data which represents a

teaching candidate’s ability to assess and reflect on the influence they have upon their own students.

• It is the responsibility of each student to provide extensive documentation to the program with which they are affiliated.

• Evidence includes work samples as well as interviews with P-12 partners.

Standard 2.1d

Aggregation of Key Data Overtime• The data is to be synthesized so that it may lead to meaningful

adaptations of a program.• The data is to be entered into an electronic database (Charlie

Potter). • Evidence includes tables, charts, descriptions of the

aggregated data and the meaning thereof, as well as faculty interviews.

Standard 2.1g

Regular Analysis and Assessment Results• A program should strive to have open communication

amongst faculty members and the PEAB. • The data can be offered for discussion by the PEAB. • Evidence includes records of the data being reviewed as well

as faculty interviews.

Standard 2.1h

Data is Linked to the Decision-Making Process• In order to meet this standard, a program must demonstrate

what improvements have been inspired by the data. • In order to receive an exemplary rating, the programs must

demonstrate communication with school partners.

Standard 2.2a

Adherence to the Professional Educators Standard Board• Each program is expected to demonstrate with working of

PESB within the annual memorandum. • In order to achieve an exemplary rating, programs may show

initiative in collecting and presenting additional data which they feel to be beneficial.

• Evidence includes the memorandum of understanding.

Source for Information• All information is paraphrased from the Professional Educator

Standards Board (PESB) website.