CTC Common Standards Addendum

Common Standards Addendum, February 20, 2018

Cal State East Bay

Addendum to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) Common Standards

February 20, 2018

Standard 1: Institutional Infrastructure to Support Educator Preparation

Standard 1: Response to the Preliminary Report of Findings

1.1 Speech/Language Pathology Stakeholder Involvement

Provide additional evidence that “the institution actively involves faculty, instructional personnel, and relevant stakeholders in the organization, coordination, and decision making for all educator programs.”

Specific Evidence Needed for the Site Visit

Provide additional evidence of SLP Advisory Council membership and participation, interviews and review of evidence at site visit.

Element 2 of Common Standard 1 states: “The institution actively involves faculty, instructional personnel, and relevant stakeholders in the organization, coordination, and decision making for all educator preparation programs.”

This section explains how the Speech/Language Pathology (SLP) Credential Program involves stakeholders in the organization, coordination, and decision making of that program. The leadership and faculty of the SLP program interact with stakeholders in a variety of ways on an ongoing basis. “Stakeholders” refers primarily to personnel in local school districts, but also includes personnel working for other agencies and members of the community.

Advisory Council

The SLP Program has significant interaction with stakeholders on an ongoing basis. Because of the depth and utility of this interaction, the program has not convened an Advisory Council for a few years. However, a variety of factors led an Advisory Council meeting in December of 2017 (conversion to semesters, new faculty hiring, accreditation). The SLP Advisory Council met on December 7, 2017. Here is a link to the , which includes a roster of attendees.

Annual Capstone Course Panels

Twice each year, a panel from key stakeholders attends a class session of SPPA 6300, the capstone course in the credential program. The panel is selected from local school districts and other agencies that employ SLP graduates. The faculty member teaching SPPA 6300, who is also the field program coordinator, attends the panel presentations. Panel members respond to questions from SLP candidates and provide insights that shape the organization and coordination of the SLP program. Discussions have covered a variety of topics including case/time management, electronic documentation, collaborative treatment, the use of translators, and inter-disciplinary care.

Thus, the SPPA 6030 panels function much like an advisory council. Here is a link to the since 2013.

Surveys of Parents/Caretakers of Children Enrolled in the Campus Clinic

SLP candidates spend 15- 18 hours providing services to community members in our on-campus Rees Speech, Language and Hearing Clinic. Clients range from preschoolers to senior citizens. Annually, the parents/caretakers of children receiving services complete a survey evaluating the clinic experience. Data from these surveys helps SLP faculty improve the quality of the clinic experience. Here are links to the and a and .

Ongoing Dialogue with School District Personnel Concerning School-Based Field Experiences

Annually, the coordinator SLP field experiences talks to over 70 different employees from 21 local school districts to manage school-based experiences for SLP candidates. The discussions are ongoing - and go beyond the logistics of placements in the schools. The conversations cover all aspects of speech/language pathology in public schools and become a source of stakeholder input on the design of the SLP program.

Implementation Process for CALIPSO

During the 2016-2017 academic year, SLP faculty adopted the (CALIPSO) to evaluate SLP candidates in their field placements. CALIPSO is a web-based application that manages key aspects of academic and clinical education – and is designed specifically and exclusively for speech-language pathology programs.

The process of implementing CALIPSO required extensive interaction by SLP faculty with the program’s school district partners. While the focus was on the use of CALIPSO, the discussions provided district personnel an opportunity to comment on all aspects of the SLP candidates’ school-based experiences. This is a link to the .

Other Interactions with Stakeholders

Several other opportunities for significant interaction with stakeholders has occurred during the last three years, including:

Service Learning. The service learning requirement in SPPA 6070 has resulted in an ongoing dialogue with personnel from local school districts. The input from district personnel helps define the design of the service learning experience. Here is a link to the describing the service learning expectation.

Off-Site Clinical Placements. SLP candidates are required to complete a 9 week off-site clinical placement. Discussions about the off-site clinical experience provide an opportunity for stakeholders to play in role in defining the off-site clinical experience.

Two Examples of Program Change Resulting from Stakeholder Input

An example of program change resulting from stakeholder input is the requirement that candidates take either SPPA 6228 or SPPA 6999. A consistent message from stakeholders, especially the Capstone Panels and school district personnel, was that the program needed to bolster some of the skills required of completers working in public schools. The program now offers two “elective” courses addressing those issues: SPPA 6228, School, Based Issues, and SPPA 6999: Advanced Articulation and Phonological Disorders. Candidates must take one of these courses.

Another example of program change resulting from stakeholder input was the decision to add a bilingual assignment, focusing on the use of interpreters, in SPPA 6300.

1.2 Speech-Language Pathology Authority and Accountability

Provide additional evidence that “The Unit Leadership has the authority and institutional support required to address the needs of all educator preparation programs and considers the interests of each program within the institution.”

Specific Evidence Needed for the Site Visit

Provide additional evidence that demonstrate clear lines of authority and accountability of shared unit head responsibilities (CEAS Dean and CLASS Dean) for SLP program. Enhanced Organizational Chart delineating specific authority and interviews at site visit.

This section describes the authority and accountability structure for the Speech-Language Pathology (SLP) Credential Program. First, it is important to note our Professional Education Unit does not have a “shared unit head.” The Dean of the College of Education and Allied Studies (CEAS) is the sole head of the Unit. We realize that the organization chart provided in our Response to the Preconditions may have led to the perception that there are two Unit heads.

For purposes of CTC accreditation, the line of authority and accountability for the SLP Program runs to the Head of the Professional Education Unit, the CEAS Dean. For the traditional academic functions of an institution of higher education, the line of authority and accountability for the SLP Program runs to the Dean of the College of Letters, Arts, and Social Sciences (CLASS). The SLP program is housed in the Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders (CSD), which is in CLASS. This link will take you to a focused organization chart: : Speech-Language Pathology Credential Program.

This arrangement has worked well. The needs of the SLP program have been addressed on a consistent basis and the program has sufficient resources to be successful. For example, CEAS has provided additional compensation to all program coordinators and faculty who write required CTC documents, such as the Biennial Reports and Program Assessment documents. This includes CEAS-funded additional compensation to the authors of the SLP documents. The CLASS Dean, on the other hand, provides release time and additional compensation to the CSD Chair to fulfill her duties.

The CEAS Dean and the CLASS Dean have a positive working relationship and conduct an ongoing dialogue about the SLP Program. Most of these discussions take place during, before, or after the regular meetings of the four Cal State East Bay Deans. Recent topics of these discussions have included the leadership of the program, the budget challenges of the program, and the CTC accreditation process. It is difficult to recall when there has been an issue in which the Deans disagreed – but both Deans are committed to resolving any issues with solutions that are mutually acceptable to each Dean.

More specifically, traditional academic areas addressed by the CLASS Dean include faculty and staff hiring and evaluation, operating budget, curriculum development and approval, course scheduling, and student registration. CLASS has two Associate Deans who have responsibilities delegated to them by the CLASS Dean. The CSD Chair and CSD staff work directly with CLASS Associate Deans on most academic items.

In regards to CTC accreditation, the CEAS Dean delegates oversight and operational leadership of the Unit credential programs to the Accreditation Coordinator. The CEAS Associate Dean also addresses some accreditation issues (e.g., she has many responsibilities for the site visit). The SLP program has received considerable assistance from the Unit Accreditation Coordinator, including preparation of CTC-required documents, the development and implementation of the SLP Program Improvement Plan, and assistance in SLP’s role in the Unit Improvement Plan. Through these activities, the Unit Accreditation Coordinator helps the SLP program maintain compliance with the CTC Preconditions, Common Standards, and Program Standards.

Communication among the Unit Accreditation Coordinator, the CEAS Associate Dean, and CSD Chair and staff occurs in both formal informal settings. Either the CSD Chair or CSD staff, often both, attend all meetings of the Unit’s Accreditation CEAS Team (ACT). The minutes of recent ACT meetings are available through this – CSD faculty and staff are boldfaced on the roster of participants for each meeting.

The CEAS Associate Dean and one of the CLASS Associate Deans discuss issues related to the SLP Program throughout the academic year. Topics that have been discussed recently include resources and personnel in the SLP Program.

Ad hoc communication occurs when issues need to be resolved. For example, recently the CEAS Associate Dean engaged in a dialogue with CSD faculty and staff to improve the process of gaining approval of MOUs with school districts and other agencies. Another example: The Unit’s Accreditation Coordinator devoted many hours to working with the CSD Chair on the Program Assessment document submission and responses.

B. Standard 1: Additional Evidence

1.B.1

1.B.2

1.B.3

1.B.4

1.B.5

1.B.6

1.B.7

1.B.8

1.B.9

1.B.10

1.B.11

1.B.12

1.B.13

1.B.14

Standard 2: Candidate Recruitment and Support

A. Standard 2: Response to the Preliminary Report of Findings

2.1 Evidence from the Diversity Recruitment Plan

Specific Evidence Needed for the Site Visit

Provide Evidence from the Diversity Recruitment Plan

This will be provided during the visit.

Unit Level

Program Level

All programs completed their Program Diversity Recruitment Plans – please click on to view them.

2.A.1

2.A.2

2.A.3

B. Standard 2: Additional Evidence </str

2.B.1

2.B.2

Standard 3: Course of Study, Fieldwork, and Clinicae

A. Standard 3: Response to the Preliminary Report of Findings</stro

3.1 Fieldwork

Specific Evidence Needed for the Site Visit

Provide evidence related to the following:

* Field placement assignments
* Specific qualifications of school based supervisors (sbs)
* Selection criteria of sbs
* Supervisor training documents

Provide evidence of how fieldwork and clinical practice evaluated.

Administrative Services Preliminary (Tier I)</str

Notes:

In the Preliminary Credential Program, candidates complete almost all of their required fieldwork at the school site where they teach. An administrator at that school site or in the school district serves as the candidate’s School-Based Supervisor, and is referred to as the “District Mentor.” University Supervisors are called ‘University Coaches.”

Sources of evidence on all items listed by the Common Standards Response reviewer: (a) Field Placement Assignments, (b) Specific Qualifications of School Based Supervisors (SBS), (c) Selection criteria of School Based Supervisors, (d) Supervisor Training Documents, and (e) How Fieldwork and Clinical Practice Are Evaluated:
Other focused sources of evidence:
1. CAPES Formative Assignment, and
2. CAPES Portfolio, Summative, and
3. Fieldwork Activities, and
5. Equity Plan and

Administrative Services Professional (Tier II) </str

Notes:

School-based Supervisors are called “Coaches.”

Sources of evidence on all items listed by the Common Standards Response reviewer: (a) Field Placement Assignments, (b) Specific Qualifications of School Based Supervisors (SBS), (c) Selection criteria of School Based Supervisors, (d) Supervisor Training Documents, and (e) How Fieldwork and Clinical Practice Are Evaluated:
Other focused sources of evidence:

Education Specialist: Mild to Moderate Disabilities Preliminary

1. Sources of evidence on all items listed by the Common Standards Response reviewer: (a) Field Placement Assignments, (b) Specific Qualifications of School Based Supervisors (SBS), (c) Selection criteria of School Based Supervisors, (d) Supervisor Training Documents, and (e) How Fieldwork and Clinical Practice Are Evaluated:
2. Other, focused sources of evidence:

Education Specialist: Moderate to Severe Disabilities Preliminary

1. Sources of evidence on all items listed by the Common Standards Response reviewer: (a) Field Placement Assignments, (b) Specific Qualifications of School Based Supervisors (SBS), (c) Selection criteria of School Based Supervisors, (d) Supervisor Training Documents, and (e) How Fieldwork and Clinical Practice Are Evaluated:
1. 1.1
2. 1.2
3. 1.3
2. Other, focused sources of evidence:
1. 2.1
2. 2.2
3. 2.3

Multiple Subject Teaching

1. Sources of evidence on all items listed by the Common Standards Response reviewer: (a) Field Placement Assignments, (b) Specific Qualifications of School Based Supervisors (SBS), (c) Selection criteria of School Based Supervisors, (d) Supervisor Training Documents, and (e) How Fieldwork and Clinical Practice Are Evaluated:
1. 1.1
2. 1.2
3. 1.3
4. 1.4
2. Other, focused sources of evidence:
5. 2.7

Pupil Personnel Services: School Counseling

Notes: No formal training program is necessary for University Supervisors in the PPS programs. All University supervision is completed by five full-time, tenure-track faculty and two long-serving lecturers. The Program Coordinator contacts all supervisors at least once every other week.

1. Sources of evidence on all items listed by the Common Standards Response reviewer: (a) Field Placement Assignments, (b) Specific Qualifications of School Based Supervisors (SBS), (c) Selection criteria of School Based Supervisors, (d) Supervisor Training Documents, and (e) How Fieldwork and Clinical Practice Are Evaluated:
1. 1.1
2. 1.2
3. 1.3
2. Other, focused sources of evidence:
1. 2.1
2. 2.2
3. 2.3
4. 2.4
5. 2.5
6. 2.6
7. 2.7
8. 2.8

Pupil Personnel Services: School Psychology

1. Sources of evidence on all items listed by the Common Standards Response reviewer: (a) Field Placement Assignments, (b) Specific Qualifications of School Based Supervisors (SBS), (c) Selection criteria of School Based Supervisors, (d) Supervisor Training Documents, and (e) How Fieldwork and Clinical Practice Are Evaluated:
1. 1.1
2. 1.2
3. 1.3
2. Other, focused sources of evidence:
1. 2.1
2. 2.2
3. 2.3
4. 2.4
5. 2.5

Reading and Literacy Added Authorization

Notes:

(a) There is required work with K-12 students in every program class (TED 6220, TED 6230, TED 6231, TED 6232, and TED 6253). Thus fieldwork “supervision” is completed by the course instructors.

(b) The clinical experience, either in the Spring or Summer, is part of TED 6253.

1. Sources of evidence on all items listed by the Common Standards Response reviewer: (a) Field Placement Assignments, (b) Specific Qualifications of School Based Supervisors (SBS), (c) Selection criteria of School Based Supervisors, (d) Supervisor Training Documents, and (e) How Fieldwork and Clinical Practice Are Evaluated:
1. 1.1
2. 1.2 Course syllabi for:

1. Sources of evidence on all items listed by the Common Standards Response reviewer: (a) Field Placement Assignments, (b) Specific Qualifications of School Based Supervisors (SBS), (c) Selection criteria of School Based Supervisors, (d) Supervisor Training Documents, and (e) How Fieldwork and Clinical Practice Are Evaluated:Single Subject Teaching

Sources of evidence on all items listed by the Common Standards Response reviewer: (a) Field Placement Assignments, (b) Specific Qualifications of School Based Supervisors (SBS), (c) Selection criteria of School Based Supervisors, (d) Supervisor Training Documents, and (e) How Fieldwork and Clinical Practice Are Evaluated:
1. 1.1
2. 1.2
3. 1.3
4. 1.4
Other, focused sources of evidence:
1. 2.1
2. 2.2
3. 2.3
4. 2.4
5. 2.5
6. 2.6
7. 2.7
8. 2.8

Special Education Added Authorizations - Autism Spectrum

Notes:

The Autism Spectrum Authorization is embedded in the Preliminary Special Education Credential Programs and consists of four courses: EPSY 6124, EPSY 6137, EPSY 6141, and EPSY 6143. Fieldwork assignments are included in each course and are evaluated by the course instructor.

1. Sources of evidence on all items listed by the Common Standards Response reviewer: (a) Field Placement Assignments, (b) Specific Qualifications of School Based Supervisors (SBS), (c) Selection criteria of School Based Supervisors, (d) Supervisor Training Documents, and (e) How Fieldwork and Clinical Practice Are Evaluated:
2. Course Syllabi

Provide additional evidence, including current examples of how the unit collects feedback from key stakeholders such as employers and community partners.Speech/Language Pathology Services

1.1
1.2
2. Other, focused sources of evidence:
1. 2.1 (CALIPSO)
2. 2.2

B. Standard 3: Additional Evidence

No additional evidence beyond that listed above.

Standard 4: Continuous Improvement

A. Standard 4: Response to the Preliminary Report of Findings

Part(s) of the standards for which more information is needed

Specific Evidence Needed for the Site Visit

Element 1: There is a need to confirm that the system is operating as depicted through interviews with coordinators, department chairs, and program faculty, and other available evidence.

Element 2: Participation of candidates and stakeholders in the assessment system can be confirmed at the site visit.

No additional narrative or links will be provided – all additional evidence requested by the Reviewer will be gained through interviews during the site visit.

B. Standard 4: Additional Evidence

4. B.1

Standard 5: Program Impact

A. Standard 5: Response to the Preliminary Report of Findings

5.1 Program Impact Progress

Specific Evidence Needed for the Site Visit

Please have available evidence related to the progress of the program impact data collection/analysis plan

Cohort 2015-92 Project

The Description of Positive Program Impact we provided in our Common Standards Response failed to mention an ambitious, three-year project to gain data from completers of one of our Multiple Subject Credential Program cohorts. This was a pilot project was implemented to see if we could gain more complete data on program completers than that gained through surveys. This is a link to the report of the findings: Program Impact: .

Administrative Services Preliminary (Tier I) Equity Plans

Each candidate for this credential develops and implements an Equity Plan. The completion of these Equity Plans can have a significant, positive impact on K-12 schools and school districts.

This that were presented at the 2017 Leadership Institute.

Additional Survey Data

The following links have the most recent results of our survey data:

Additional Anecdotal Evidence of Program Impact

Beyond what was available at the time the Response to the Common Standards was submitted, we have archived additional evidence of the success of our program completers. Click .

B. Standard 5: Additional Evidence

No additional evidence beyond that listed above.

Comstanadd20180220

91麻豆天美app