Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

 

Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP)

Institutional Handbook

Revised:  March 2004

Introduction 
Conditions and Procedures for Approving Professional Education Programs 
Site Visit Protocol and Timeline 
The Standards 
The Site Visit Coordinator 
Selecting a Date for the Site Visit 
Selection of Candidate Portfolios for Examination 
Arranging for and Conducting the Pre-Visit Meeting 
Site Visit Logistics 
More About the Team Work Rooms and Exhibit Room 
Suggestions for Compiling Material for Each Program 
Selection and Appointment of Examining Team Members 
Unit and Program Documentation Reviewed Prior to and During the Site Visit
Standard by Standard Highlights 
Issues to Address in the Unit's Outline of the Institutional Report 
Conducting the Site Visit 
Interviews 
Classroom Observations 
Visits to Field Sites 
Branch Campuses, Off-campus Programs, and Distance Learning Programs 
The Exit Conference 
The MoSTEP Examiner's Report 
Institutional Rejoinder to the MoSTEP Examiners' Report 
Appendices:
Appendix A - Procedures for Initial Program Approval
Appendix B - The Standards
Appendix C - Rubrics for Unit Standards
Appendix D - Rubrics for Teacher Candidate Portfolios (Standard 1.2)
Appendix E - Rubrics for School Administrator Candidate Portfolios (Standard 1.3)
Appendix F - Rubrics for School Counselor Candidate Portfolios (Standard 1.4)
Appendix G - Rubrics for School Library-Media Specialist Portfolios (Standard 1.5)
Appendix H - Curriculum Matrix Template for Professional/Pedagogical Competencies
Appendix I - Curriculum Matrix Template for Subject Knowledge Competencies
Appendix J - Sample Annual Report Form
Appendix K - Previsit Agenda & Checklist
Appendix L - Sample Schedule for the Site Visit
Appendix M - Interview Schedule Template
Appendix N - Glossary 

Acknowledgments

The Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP) were developed by a task force of representatives from all of the teacher preparation institutions in Missouri, as well as K-12 educators and administrators, representatives from two-year colleges, and from the Department of Higher Education (DHE). The Missouri State Board of Education (MSBE) adopted the MoSTEP Standards and Procedures in Rule 5 CSR 80-805.015 in May of 1999.

This MoSTEP Institutional Handbook is published by the Educator Preparation Section (EPS) of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). The initial draft of the Handbook was written by Michael L. Walker (Columbia, MO) and Bill R. Foster (St. Louis, MO), co-founders of Educational Development Projects and consultants for the Educator Preparation Section.

The Handbook's outline and portions of the text and are adapted from the Handbook for the Board of Examiners and Handbook for Continuing Accreditation Visits, published by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE).
Table of Contents

Introduction

In Missouri, state statute provides that the State Board of Education shall establish standards and procedures by which it will evaluate all teacher training institutions for the approval of teacher education programs (Section 161.097 RSMo). The statute also provides that any person who graduates from an approved program, and who meets other requirements, which the state board of education shall prescribe by rule, regulation and statute shall be granted a certificate of license to teach in the public schools of this state. 

The Missouri State Board of Education (MSBE) must approve every professional education unit and its programs for certification before its graduates can be recommended for state professional licensure. This approval is based on expectations and guidelines for unit viability and performance as set forth in statute (Section 161.099 RSMo) and the Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP), which are incorporated by reference in MSBE Rule 5 CSR 80-805.015. MSBE approval of professional education programs may be attained by complying with the standards and procedures outlined in this document.

The Site Visit is the most critical component of the program approval process--the mandatory peer review of the Professional Education Unit and its constituent programs at a college or university. The final determination is made by the MSBE, based on the Examiners' Report that includes information from observations and judgments made during the site visit and from additional information included in the Unit's Rejoinder to the Examiners' Report. 

Each professional education program must address specific certification requirements for courses, competencies and field experiences established by the MSBE. Because Missouri has implemented a performance-based program approval system, MoSTEP has nested within it quality indicators for beginning teachers, administrators, counselors, library/media specialists, and others. Each Unit and program must undergo a process of initial and continuing approval, based on the MoSTEP Standards and Quality Indicators, in order to verify its capacity to prepare professional educators ready to assume their professional roles in Missouri's public schools.

In reviews for both initial approval and continuing approval of an institution's programs, the visiting team must examine a number of exhibits and consider the data presented (curriculum matrices, entry and exit test scores, candidate portfolios, survey results, etc.), as well as observe the Unit's efforts firsthand via interviews and observations, in order to effectively evaluate the Unit's compliance with the standards and its ability to carry out the important task of preparing professional educators. The data and findings of the institution allow the team members to use their professional judgment to rate the performance of the Unit in accordance with the standards and make recommendations to the MSBE as to whether or not it should continue to approve the Unit and its programs. The findings of the Examining Team and its resulting recommendations are also reported to the Unit's head and the institutional administration.

Obviously, much rests on the site visit, so the Unit must begin well in advance of the site visit to prepare for its review, hence the need for this Handbook and the attendant workshops. Each has been created to help institutions and their Professional Education Units understand the standards against which both Units and programs are judged, as well as the process by which the evaluation is accomplished. 

CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN MISSOURI

Conditions for Approval of Professional Education Programs

1. Conditions requiring state program approval

Professional education program approval is required: 

a. when an institution proposes to offer a program for certification not currently approved by the Missouri State Board of Education (MSBE);

b. at the time of renewal of MSBE approval granted initially through Procedures and Standards for Approval of Professional Education Programs in Missouri;

c. when an institution significantly modifies the content, experiences, sequence or procedures of an approved program;

d. when a substantive change occurs which alters an institution's mission, scope, control, or personnel;

e. when an institution establishes a professional education certification program at a new geographical location; and

f. when an institution establishes an alternative program for certification.

2. Terms for awarding approval or conditional approval to the professional education unit and programs for certification

The State Board of Education may grant or deny approval of a profession education program under the following terms:

a. Approval may be granted for five (5) or seven (7) years when a unit and its programs are in compliance with the Standards, whereupon the institution is authorized to recommend candidates for certification during the approved period;

b. Provisional approval may be granted for a period not to exceed two (2) years when the unit or any of its programs is not in compliance with one or more of the Standards, but the institution provides evidence of plans and resources to meet the standards, whereupon the institution is authorized to continue to recommend candidates for certification during the conditional approval period;

c. Approval may be denied when a unit or any of its programs fails to meet a sufficient number of the Standards, whereupon the unit or program would surrender its authority to recommend candidates for certification.

3. Use of approval status in institutional publications

An institution shall indicate in its publications, including catalogs:

a. the level of MSBE approval (approved, conditionally approved, not approved) and the term of approval (e.g. 5 years, 2 years) for each professional education program offered by the institution;

b. certifications and grade levels associated with each professional education program offered;

c. any professional education programs offered at the institution but not approved by the MSBE.

4. Annual reports

Institutions with state-approved professional education programs shall submit annual reports on or before November 15 of each year using the Annual Report Form provided by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). The institution will report on any changes made in the unit and/or its programs, on new initiatives undertaken during the past year, and on progress made toward addressing weaknesses cited as a result of the previous review. (See Appendix J)

5. Interim review of professional education units or programs

a. If a professional education unit or a program for certification undergoes changes that might adversely affect its compliance with MoSTEP during the five-year approval period, the Commissioner of Education may authorize an interim review of the unit or the program.

b. Subsequent to the review, and upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Education, the MSBE may withdraw its approval for the program, and authorization to recommend candidates for certification from the program would be discontinued.

6. Withdrawal of Programs

An institution wishing to have state approval of a professional education certification program withdrawn shall submit written notification to the Director of Educator Preparation, Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and shall request that the program be removed from the Missouri Directory of Approved Professional Education Programs. The notification shall also stipulate the date of termination.

Procedures for Obtaining Approval of Professional Education Programs 

1. Initial state approval for institutions

a. An institution seeking initial approval for its professional education unit and programs(s) shall submit a letter requesting initial approval to the Director of Educator Preparation in the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and include a proposal according to the procedures and criteria outlined in Appendix A.

b. The Educator Preparation Section (EPS) will evaluate the institution's proposal, and if it is determined to be viable, a representative from the Section will conduct an initial site inspection at the institution. 

c. The EPS may request additional information or clarification about elements in the proposal, or as a result of the site inspection. 

d. If the institution's proposal is determined to be acceptable and the site inspection is satisfactory, a recommendation for interim approval will be made to the MSBE for its consideration, and if interim approval is granted, the institution may begin recommending candidates for state certification upon their completion of the program(s).

e. The interim approval shall be in effect until a standard review of the unit and its program(s) is conducted and the results presented to the MSBE.

2. Adding new professional education programs

a. An MSBE-approved institution seeking to add a new professional certification program(s) shall submit a written request for approval, accompanied by a proposal and supporting documentation, to the Director of Educator Preparation. 

b. The Educator Preparation Section will evaluate the institution's proposal, and if it is determined to be acceptable, the institution will be granted interim approval to offer the new program, whereupon the institution may recommend candidates for certification from the new program.

c. The interim approval for the new program(s) shall be in effect until the next regularly scheduled review of the unit and its programs(s) is conducted and the results are presented to the MSBE.

3. Alternative Programs

Alternative programs administered by the professional education unit that culminate in the recommendation of candidates for state certification must comply with state standards and must be included in the MoSTEP review, in the same manner as other programs. MoSTEP examiners may cite areas for improvement related to any specific programs, including alternative programs.

Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP)Site Visit and Program Approval Timeline

1. One year preceding an anticipated site visit, the Educator Preparation Section (EPS) in the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) will notify the institution's professional education unit head as a reminder of the review and requesting date preferences for the site visit. The institution will submit a letter to the EPS acknowledging the upcoming review and indicating three date preferences (1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices) for the site visit. The EPS will schedule a date according to the preferences of the institution, and will inform the institution in writing regarding the selected date.

2. One year preceding its scheduled site visit, the institution submits to the EPS a list of candidates expected to graduate and be recommended for professional certificates (for all programs for initial certification, i.e., teacher, administrator, counselor, etc.). Using a random selection process EPS selects candidates from each program who will provide portfolios for examination by the visiting team. 

3. At least sixty (60) days before the scheduled visit, the EPS sends to the institution a roster of MoSTEP examiners tentatively selected for the site visit.

4. Within ten (10) days of receiving the tentative team roster, the institution responds to EPS with any concerns regarding the composition of its assigned examining team; EPS finalizes the examining team roster.

5. Thirty (30) to sixty (60) days prior to the site visit, the MoSTEP Team Chair and the DESE consultant conduct a pre-visit meeting with the institution's site visit coordinator to discuss logistics of the site visit.

6. At least fourteen (14) days in advance of the pre-visit, the institution should send the DESE consultant and the team chair a copy (or draft) of the Institutional Report for their review. 

7. Approximately thirty (30) days prior to the site visit, the institution distributes its Institutional Report (5th Year Report) to each member of the MoSTEP team. DESE distributes the institution's annual reports to each team member. Team members individually review the Institutional Report and annual reports, formulating questions they wish to pursue during the site visit.

8. Initiating the site visit, team members arrive on Saturday to meet each other, receive orientation to the site, review examiner training and evaluation components, and begin reviewing candidate portfolios. Additional portfolio reviewers may be brought to the site as needed on Saturday and Sunday, but will not continue with the team for the remainder of site visit.

9. The team reviews candidate portfolios Saturday evening and Sunday morning. Late Sunday morning, the team members compile and discuss the results of the portfolio reviews. 

10. The team spends Sunday afternoon examining additional documentation in exhibits area. Additional portfolio reviewers (if present) will depart Sunday afternoon.

11. Sunday evening, the team meets to discuss initial perceptions of the level of the unit's compliance with the standards and initial evaluations of individual programs; team members further refine questions to be pursued; assignments are made for group and individual interviews, site visits to schools, etc. during the next two days.

12. Monday-Tuesday, the team continues its investigation, including, but not limited to, (a) interviewing college faculty, administration, students, public school personnel, advisory groups, committees, etc. (b) sitting in on classes (c) touring campus sites (d) visiting clinical sites; etc.

13. Tuesday night, the team meets to discuss their findings and decide the unit's and the individual programs' compliance with standards. Team members complete writing assignments.

14. Wednesday morning, the team members read their individual drafts for the team report. The team chair and the state consultant present the team's findings to institution officials. The team departs campus.

15. After the site visit, the team chair compiles the findings into a "first draft" of the MoSTEP Examiners' Report and submits a copy to the institution's unit head to examine and make factual corrections. A copy is also sent to the DESE consultant.

16. Within ten (10) days the institution will make its factual corrections to the MoSTEP Examiners Report draft and return it to the Educator Preparation Section at DESE. The draft is revised and sent to the team members for proofing.

17. Within thirty (30) days of the site visit, the final official report is prepared and sent to the unit head and other appropriate officials of the institution, and for joint reviews, to the BOE Chair to include as the state's addendum to the Board of Examiners' Report, which is submitted to NCATE. 

18. Upon receipt of the official MoSTEP Examiners' Report, the institution has 30 days to submit a letter indicating its acceptance of the Report or to submit a written rejoinder.

19. As soon as possible following receipt of the institution's rejoinder, the EPS schedules a presentation of the institution for consideration for approval on the agenda of the Missouri State Board of Education (MSBE) and submits a summary of the MoSTEP Examiners' Report and the institution's rejoinder. The MSBE will consider the team's recommendation for each program and grant Approval or Conditional Approval, or it will Deny Approval for each program respectively. 

20. For programs granted conditional approval, the institution is given two (2) years to correct the area(s) for improvement cited. If a subsequent site-visit may is necessary, the sequence of events will follow the steps described in 1-18, except that the visit will focus only on unit standards that were not met, the programs with conditional approval and the area(s) for improvement cited.

21. The five-year cycle starts over.

The Standards

The Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP) are the standards that Examining Teams must use to review professional education units and programs seeking approval to recommend candidates for professional certification by the MSBE. (See Appendix B, Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs) MoSTEP is a set of standards statements, quality indicators, and performance indicators intended to clearly define the MSBE's expectations for how units and programs are to be structured and implemented, and the quality of the professional candidates they prepare. Institutions seeking accreditation from the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) may substitute the NCATE Standards for its professional education unit

For the institution and team's convenience, rubrics for the Unit standards and for the beginning teacher Quality Indicators have been developed and are made available for use by the unit in preparing for the site visit and for application during the site visit (See Appendices C, D, E , F & G). 

The standards, procedures, and rubrics comprising MoSTEP were developed, reviewed and recommended to the MSBE by representatives of the teacher preparation institutions in Missouri, as well as representatives from K-12 schools, representatives of two-year colleges and a representative of the Missouri Department of Higher Education (DHE). The MSBE adopted the MoSTEP Procedures and Standards in 1999, which was the pilot year of the system's implementation. DESE began full implementation of MoSTEP in January 2000.

The first five years of full implementation are viewed by DESE and the MSBE as formative years, allowing Units to begin refining their programs, policies and procedures to reflect the new standards. During the first five years, considered initial visits for all institutions, teams will be looking for progress and planning toward full compliance with MoSTEP, as well as the quality of existing programs. Reviews subsequent to the first five years of MoSTEP will be considered continuing visits.

The Site Visit Coordinator

As the institution begins to prepare for its MoSTEP review a Site Visit Coordinator should be designated by the professional education unit to oversee and facilitate the activities in preparation for the review. Although the unit head frequently serves in this role, other faculty members may serve in this capacity as well. The coordinator will be the contact person for the DESE staff, the Examining Team Chairperson, and all other individuals involved in the MoSTEP review.

Selecting a Date for the Site Visit

The MoSTEP on-site review is generally scheduled for the same semester five years after the preceding site visit. However, DESE may grant a postponement of up to two semesters for good cause. In addition there may be times when DESE and/or other accrediting bodies (e.g., NCATE) may request a delay of a visit.

One year prior to the semester of an institutional review, the Director of Teacher Education at DESE will notify the unit head of the anticipated site visit. The unit head is expected to respond to the Educator Preparation Section (EPS) acknowledging the upcoming review and indicating three date preferences (1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices) for the site visit. The EPS will schedule a date according to the preferences of the institution and will inform the institution in writing regarding the selected date. Institutions seeking NCATE accreditation will coordinate with both NCATE and DESE in scheduling the dates for their site visit.

Selection of Candidate Portfolios for Examination

One year prior to the semester of the anticipated site visit, the institution shall submit to the EPS a list of candidates expected to complete their professional education programs and receive a recommendation for their professional certificates representing the full academic year preceding the semester of the site visit (includes all programs for initial certification categories, i.e., teacher, administrator, counselor, etc.). Using a random selection process, the EPS will select from each represented program candidates who will provide portfolios for examination by the visiting team. 

Arranging for and Conducting the Pre-visit Meeting

Approximately thirty (30) to sixty (60) days prior to the site visit, DESE will conduct a pre-visit meeting with the institution's site visit coordinator and the MoSTEP Team Chair to discuss logistics of the site visit. The unit's site visit coordinator will jointly arrange the pre-visit with the DESE consultant and the team chair. (He/she will coordinate this visit with the team chair and NCATE BOE Chair, if applicable). The site coordinator should contact the EPS at least 120 days prior to the site visit to arrange for this meeting. Depending on the location of the institution and the home site of the team chair and the DESE consultant, the site visit coordinator should consider whether the team chair and the DESE consultant may require accommodations the evening prior to the pre-visit meeting. At least fourteen (14) days in advance of the pre-visit, the institution should send the team chair and DESE consultant a copy (or draft) of the Institutional Report for their review. Based on the decisions made during this pre-visit meeting, the unit's site visit coordinator should make all arrangements to ensure the smooth running of the site visit. 

The pre-visit meeting should be attended by the team chair, the DESE representative, the unit head, the site visit coordinator, and appropriate institutional representatives. (For a joint NCATE/DESE visit, the NCATE chair will work with the MoSTEP team chair and the DESE representative to arrange for this visit.) Issues that should be addressed in this meeting appear in the checklist in Appendix K. The institution is responsible for all costs in conjunction with the pre-visit.

During the pre-visit, the team chair and DESE consultant should meet with the president/provost/chancellor of the institution. The DESE consultant will provide an overview of the site visit and answer questions about MoSTEP and the review process. The team chair will inquire into what the institution's head would like to learn from the visit. This meeting allows institutional administrators to be aware of the kinds of information being sought and reviewed during the site visit.

Site Visit Logistics 

The following list should guide the site visit coordinator in making the necessary arrangements:

==> Make hotel/motel arrangements for all team members and DESE representatives. Examining Team members will make their own travel arrangements for traveling to the institution. The Unit being visited will reimburse team members for reasonable travel expenses, such as mileage and meals not provided by the Unit. The Unit will also make all hotel arrangements (single rooms) for the team; these are usually direct billed to the college or university being visited. The team will also be provided with a meeting room with computer and printer at the hotel. Team members are responsible for any personal expenses incurred during the site visit (e.g., personal telephone charges). Team members normally arrive on Saturday and depart on Wednesday.

The following suggestions should assist in determining the selection off a hotel and the logistical preparations for the visit:

• The hotel should be located near the campus in order to minimize travel time.
  
• A private single room should be reserved for each site team member.
  
• A meeting room where team members may work upon their arrival should be reserved. This room should be available for the entire length of the site visit so that materials and equipment may be left there.
  
• The team chair should be consulted regarding how he/she would like the meeting room arranged and the types of supplies and equipment that will be needed (computers, printers, paper, pens and pencils, notepads, and refreshments). At least one computer with laser printer and one telephone should be available in the hotel meeting room.
  
• Because meals are often used as work sessions, there should be a restaurant in or near the hotel. Except for Sunday night, the institutional representatives should not eat meals with the team members.
  
• Direct billing of team hotel expenses to the university/college should be made, so team members do not have to pay these costs out of their own pockets. (The DESE consultant and DHE Representative are exceptions.)
  
• Provide all team members with clear directions to the hotel and campus. 
  
• Arrange for transportation between the hotel and the institution for the duration of the site visit. Sometimes the provision of a van or station wagon for team use is helpful.
  

==> Make the following arrangements on campus:

• Set up a campus workroom for the Examining Team. This room will likely double as the exhibits room, but it should not be used for individual or group interviews. The work room at the institution should be located within the Unit and be close to interview locations and administrative offices; moreover, it should have internet access to allow members to get information from the DESE website and to gain access to e-mail. The work room should have at least one telephone. This room should allow privacy for team discussion and deliberations and be secured when the team is not present. The team chair should be given a key to the room for easy access. The workroom and exhibits room need to be accessible on Saturday and Sunday.
  
  
• Set up an exhibits room at the institution. The unit should set up an exhibits room at the institution containing all necessary information for the site team to conduct its paper review of the unit and its programs. The Unit should clearly mark and organize all items in the exhibit room, arranging them in order of the standards. Materials in the exhibit room should include but not be limited to the following:
  • List of all exhibits with titles and location in the room (a copy for each team member)
    
  • List of people scheduled for each interview (a copy for each team member)
    
  • Course syllabi for all professional education courses and other courses required for licensure (undergraduate and graduate)
    
  • Faculty vitae for all full- and part-time professional education and other faculty teaching courses required for licensure
    
  • Files or folios that include curriculum matrices for all certification programs being reviewed during the site visit (See Appendix H & I)
    
  • Evaluation instruments and results of evaluations for both faculty and programs (note: these are to be disaggregated by program)
    
  • College catalogs and student advisement sheets
    
  • Documentation for each standard
    
  • Faculty and staff directory (with telephone numbers and office hours during the site visit)
    
  • List of courses in session during the site visit, location of classes (full building name and room number), and faculty members teaching the courses
    
  • Minutes of advisory and policy-making committees
    
  • Candidate Portfolios (determined by the DESE sampling) 
    
  • Student handbooks, student teaching handbooks, and other information (recruitment or program-related) given to students relevant to their program of study
    
  • Faculty handbook
    
  • Budget information for the Unit and for faculty professional development
    
  • Long-range plan
    
  • Professional development school partnership information
    
    
• Support services for the Examining Team. Such support might include the following:
  
  • Support staff assistance
    
  • Access to photocopying facilities
    
  • Arrangements for off-campus visits
    
  • Arrangements for visits to professional education classes
    
  • Access to teachers, student teachers, recent graduates, and principals, especially those used for field-based experiences. The Unit should provide a list of schools used for these purposes and the characteristics of the schools (e.g., location, diversity of student population, and types of field experiences). Team members will visit some of these schools during the course of the site visit. Note: schools chosen for visits should require no more than fifteen minutes travel time each way.
    
  • Access to students and faculty records on campus
    
    
• Noon meals - Arrange in consultation with the team chair.
  
  
• Nametags for the examining team, so they can be clearly identified by institutional personnel. Name tags should not identify the institutional affiliation of the team member; rather, they should identify them only as members of the DESE Examining Team. Also, consider asking faculty to wear nametags during the site visit, particularly in group-interview settings.
  
  
• Interviews and off-campus visits in consultation with the DESE representative and site team chair. (Transportation to off-campus sites and distant interviews should also be arranged.)
  
  
• Schedule of interviews. Using the Interview Schedule Template (See Appendix M), schedule interviews with groups and individuals identified during the pre-visit meeting with the team chair.
  
  • Arrange to talk with institution administrators, unit administrators and staff, professional education faculty, Arts and Sciences department chairs and faculty, student teachers, candidates, recent graduates, supervising/cooperating teachers, principals, advisory board members, and other relevant stakeholders. Team members need to interview as many faculty and students as possible on Monday and Tuesday. Faculty interviewed should be from different ranks and disciplines as a cross-section of the Unit.
    
  • Based on the portfolio reading and other document findings, the team may require interviews to be scheduled in addition to the customary interviews (i.e., faculty, students, graduates, etc.). The team chair will make the campus liaison aware of these needs as soon as possible to give him/her reasonable time to arrange the interviews.
    
  • Provide clear directions and/or escorts to scheduled interviews. 
    
    
• Plan for the Sunday evening function with the team chair and the DESE consultant. 
  
  • This could be a dinner held in a private dining room at the hotel, a local restaurant or on campus. If the faculty is very numerous, it may be better to have only area leaders and significant administrators and staff attend the dinner. This dinner meeting should last no longer than two hours, allowing ample time for a Sunday evening team meeting after the meal. If dinner is not in the hotel, arrange transportation for the team to the dinner.
    
  • Another option for this function is a working dinner featuring a buffet "finger foods" in conjunction with a poster session held on campus exhibiting the various programs within the unit. This has proven to be much more meaningful and a better use of time than a formal dinner.
    
  • During this function, Examining Team members will be introduced to faculty members, administrators and other stakeholders, and the team chair will give a brief overview of the site visit intent and process. Unit representatives are introduced, and the Unit may make a brief presentation regarding the Unit and the institution.

 

More About the Team Work Rooms and Exhibit Room

The team work room and exhibit room need to be well organized to make team members comfortable, to provide them easy access to the materials they need to carry out their duties, and to make available any technology they may need to complete their work. The room needs to be well lit and the temperature comfortable. It must have a door that can be locked, and each team member should be given a key for easy access to the room. The room should be located with easy access to restrooms and interview rooms, as well as other facilities. The room should have a large table for team meetings with seating to accommodate all team members. The room should be equipped with a telephone, at least one computer with Internet access, a laser printer interfaced with the computer, and a television/VCR setup to play candidate videotapes, if they are available. Finally the room should be supplied with snacks and drinks throughout the days of use by the team.

Exhibits should be organized in the work room/exhibit room for easy access and use by the examining team. The exhibits should include all documentation requested by the team chair prior to the site visit, as well as additional information the team might find useful. This is not to say that the room needs to be loaded with extraneous documents; rather, it should allow team members to find what they need without asking. All exhibits must be clearly marked as to their exact content and coded to match the standards/programs they are documenting. Both team members and some institutions have found it valuable to create program folios containing all the information a reviewer will need to review any specific program. This will include syllabi, survey data (disaggregated by program and level), curriculum matrices, advising sheets, entrance and exit scores (for five years disaggregated by program and level), and faculty evaluations. A list of all exhibits, including where they may be found in the work room/exhibit room, should be provided to each team member. This will allow team members to independently find the documents they need, and it will allow them to keep an accurate record of all the documents they review.

Suggestions for Compiling Material for Each Program for Certification

Since MoSTEP team members write two levels of report (unit & program), it would be advisable to assist their efforts by providing them information in both forms and in a way that facilitates their work. One way to accomplish that is to locate all information related to a program in a single place, i.e., a three-ring binder for each program. These notebooks would be in addition (and admittedly in some instances redundant) to the information compiled for the Unit as a whole. For programs being implemented on more than the main campus site, tabs would be inserted to report site-specific information. In addition to serving as the central repository for information about a program, this notebook provides program faculty opportunity to analyze the effectiveness of their curriculum and instruction decisions as reflected in the performance of candidates (and recent graduates). It is important to remember that program and unit faculty must interpret (vs. merely present) their information and findings for the team.

The following represents information artifacts to be presented and analyzed for each certification program:

1. Description of the program (including, but not limited to, how it realizes the vision of educator preparation articulated in the unit's Conceptual Framework, e.g., how the program embodies the national standards for the program's area (e.g., NAEYC, NCSS, NCTM, NCTE, NSTA, etc.); how program & course outcomes, field experiences, & student evaluation (campus & clinical) are aligned to the professional knowledge base upon which the unit's goals and beliefs are constructed, etc. (This is analogous to the current SPA language of establishing a program's "context.")
2. Program requirements (e.g., an "advising sheet") & variations for those programs offered as endorsements (including verification that both "major" & endorsement satisfy DESE course-& credit-hour based certification requirements)
3. Characteristics of program candidates: number of candidates in process, diversity, characteristics, entrance test scores (C-BASE) and other entrance data and processing (e.g., ACT, GPA, entrance interview, entrance portfolio, etc.)
4. Description of program assessments (including, but not limited to, benchmarks, used to promote & advise students throughout the program, particularly highlighting performance-based benchmarks, etc., formative portfolio, program-wide assessments, etc) and examples of course-level performance-based assessments (case studies, inquiry projects, field-based assignments)
5. Course list (e.g., from catalog copy, including when courses are offered during the semester of the site visit)
6. Curriculum matrices for both subject-matter & pedagogy - including courses that "all" students take versus just those courses taken by majors, e.g., Foundations or Measurement (See Appendices H & I)
7. Descriptions of field experiences including timing within students' career, evaluation forms used for field experiences (both pre-student teaching & student teaching), role of college faculty (subject-matter & education) in evaluating students' performances in field experiences
8. Syllabi for all courses1 (subject-matter and "education") taken by majors.
9. Description of "technologies" students within program are taught to integrate into their teaching (particularly highlighting instructional technologies specific to the subject area & level of students' teaching)
10. Description of how candidates are being prepared to perform successfully in diverse classrooms. Although this section would logically refer to a section on clinical experiences, it should also reveal a faculty committed to preparing its graduates for the many different realities exhibited in Missouri classrooms.
11. Information about faculty: vitae for program faculty (full-, part-time, adjunct; content & professional ed) who teach the courses taken by students in that program; demographic characteristics of faculty; documentation of program faculty's involvement in the public schools and in the larger 'professional community"; summary (e.g., a table) of program faculty's scholarly activity, individual professional development activities, student teaching supervising responsibilities, advising responsibilities (number of advisees), process by which program evaluates teaching; involvement in beginning teacher assistance program (i.e., role and responsibilities of content and education faculty in providing support for graduates; see MoSTEP 4.5) ; description of training/orientation efforts for part-time faculty; information about how the full-time faculty involve pat-time faculty in the community of scholarship.
12. Program completers data:
a. Summaries of exit test scores (i.e., Praxis II, SLLA, SSA - depending on program)
b. GPA 
c. Summary analysis of candidates' portfolio performance and resulting faculty program improvement goals, plans, timelines, names of individuals involved in evaluating candidates' portfolios (including, subject-matter faculty involvement)
13. Follow-up survey data from Graduates (disaggregated by program and delivery site)
14. Follow-up survey data from Employers (disaggregated by program and delivery site)
15. Membership, authority, and responsibilities of whatever advisory body has responsibility for the program (MoSTEP 7) Note: The definition of "professional community" includes, at minimum, faculty from education, subject-area studies, and K-12 community.
16. Descriptions of the resources (fiscal & instructional) available to the program (MoSTEP 8) highlighting comparison of the program to other programs within the unit and to comparable programs elsewhere within the institution.

Selection and Appointment of the Examining Team Members

Approximately sixty (60) days before the scheduled visit, DESE will send to the institution the list of MoSTEP examiners tentatively selected for the site visit. Within ten (10) days, the institution should respond to DESE with any concerns regarding the composition of its assigned examining team. Barring any problems the unit may have regarding the team composition, DESE will finalize the institution's team roster and confirm it with the unit.

MoSTEP requires that Examining Team members shall be comprised of 4-8 practicing, certificated school personnel (such as teachers, administrators, counselors, librarians) with three or more years of successful experience in Missouri schools and an earned master's degree, as well as teacher educators or administrators from institutions with state-approved programs. The size of the team depends upon the number of certification programs and portfolios to be examined. The team will also include a representative selected by the Missouri Department of Higher Education (DHE). As far as is practicable the team should reflect a balance of teacher educators and practicing, certificated educators (Note: in event that other professional programs begin to submit portfolios, e.g., administrators, team composition might need to altered to include IHE faculty and school professionals (e.g., building administrators) appropriate to the population of the program seeking approval. IHE faculty should come from similar institutions but from different regions of the state as is practical.

Unit and Program Documentation Reviewed Prior to and During the Site Visit

Site visits are not "fishing expeditions" trying to catch a unit in mistakes. Rather, the site visit is a careful and professional "critical friend" activity intended to validate the unit's work and assist the unit in continuous renewal of its curriculum and programs. In service to this critical friend work, team members will spend substantial amounts of time reading documentation provided by the institution to form early impressions and develop issues and questions to be pursued in interviews and within other sources during the visit itself. Such early reviews help focus the site visit. To aid this, prior to and during the site visit, team members will be reviewing a number of pieces of documentation provided by the institution. 

At least fourteen (14) days in advance of the pre-visit meeting, the institution should send the Examining Team chair and the DESE consultant a copy (or draft) of the Institutional Report (IR) for their review. At least twenty-one (21) days in advance of the site visit, the institution should send all examining team members a copy of the Institutional Report and other information pertaining to the review. Instead of hard-copy documents, the institution might put the IR and other related documents on a dedicated web site or send them on a CD. Team members will review these documents prior to arriving at the institution. From this information, the team members will begin to develop a sense of the Unit's mission and conceptual framework, how programs are structured, the kinds of clinical experiences required of candidates, and expectations held for the candidates. Moreover, team members should be able to get a first glance at the demographic makeup of the Unit/campus and the faculty makeup and workload. Questions that arise in a team member's mind during this early review will help to provide focus for the site visit.

MoSTEP teams begin their evaluation of programs and the Unit by reviewing programmatic data. No single data source either dooms or saves a program; rather, team members will view the entire data set holistically in order to identify patterns across the data and to identify questions to pursue via other program documentation (e.g., syllabi, conceptual framework, curriculum matrices, faculty vitae, assessment data, etc.) and via interviews with students, faculty, administrators, and public school colleagues.

Examining team member's jobs are made easier or more difficult depending on the degree to which Unit and program faculty have
1. Compiled the data needed for the review,
2. Presented the data in easy-to-understand formats, and
3. Disaggregated and analyzed the data.

Over the course of the site visit, the team will examine at least the data available from the following sources for each program seeking approval:

• INPUT DATA 
  • Curriculum Matrices for both subject-matter & pedagogy (See Appendices H & I)
    
  • Course Syllabi
    
  • Compliance with DESE Certification Requirements (Competencies, Courses & Credit-Hours) 
    
• PERFORMANCE DATA 
  
  • Test Results (entrance: C-BASE 1, ACT/SAT, GRE/MAT; and exit: PRAXIS, SLLA)
    
  • Candidate Portfolios
    
  • Surveys of Graduates and Their Employers (based on MoSTEP "Quality-Indicators")
• UNIT & PROGRAM REFLECTIVE ANALYSIS DATA 
  
  • Baseline Report (1998-1999 data)
    
  • Annual Report(s) (data and narrative submitted since the last site visit) (See Appendix J)
    
  • Institutional Report (site visit year)

The MoSTEP Standards intentionally establish both challenging goals and an expectation that programs must clearly articulate their objectives, continuously evaluate themselves against the performance of their graduates, and continuously evolve to improve the performance of future graduates. Therefore, members of an Examining Team have the dual responsibility of not only assessing the degree to which programs currently meet the Standards, but also of reflecting the degree to which programs are moving toward meeting the Standards.

As team members analyze data, they will be reminded to keep in mind the following:

• What is the program doing to prepare educators to meet their performance expectations?
  
• Why is the program doing what it does in the ways it is doing it?
  
• How do program faculty know that what they are doing is working? What kind of assessment process have they implemented to find out? (This is a MOST important component!)
  
• What have they identified that could be working better?
  
• How are they defining goals, objectives, time lines, benchmarks, and milestones to track their implementation of these new ideas?

What will the examining team look for in entrance & exit test score data?
Purpose of Test Score Data: To reveal the program's impact on student learning - in this case, breadth of subject-matter knowledge.
What team members need to review test score data:

• Five years of data disaggregated by program 
  
• State qualifying score for each test (provided by DESE)
  
• Number of students in each year who took the test and percent of test-takers who passed the test
  

What will the examining team will look for in follow-up survey data?
Purpose of Follow-Up Survey Data: To assess the opinions/perceptions of graduates and graduates' employers (e.g., building principals) on the effectiveness of their preparation program -- based on the Quality Indicators for their professional role (teacher, administrator, counselor, library/media specialist).
What team members need to review follow-up survey data:

• A copy of the survey instrument(s) (if the instrument(s) is not obviously organized according to the Quality Indicators for the field, the program and/or the Unit should provide team members a translation key.)
  
• Survey disaggregated by (a) program and (b) source of data (i.e., 1st year graduate, employer)
  
• An indication of the rate of response received by the program (e.g., 210 surveys were administered to elementary education graduates; 70 surveys were returned)
  
• The Unit's and program's analysis of the data
  

What will the examining teams look for in curriculum matrices?
Purpose of Curriculum Matrices: To reveal the degree to which programs are providing candidates sufficient opportunity to learn and practice what is expected of them as defined by the Quality and Performance Indicators for their job responsibility.

What team members need to review Curriculum Matrices:

• Curriculum Matrices for the prescribed Core Curriculum and for each program (See Appendices H & I), reflecting where in the course work students address the MoSTEP Quality Indicators for that program and the Subject-Specific Competencies for the Beginning Teacher in Missouri
  Note1: The knowledge-base for Administrators and Counselors is identified within each of the Quality Indicators for their job responsibility.
  Note2: Matrices must reflect all the courses that prepare students relevant to the competencies, including courses housed in other divisions of the campus (e.g., Arts and Sciences).
  
• Course Numbers & Titles
  
• Syllabus for each prescribed course in the program of study (including relevant courses in other campus divisions)

How will site team members verify compliance with certification requirements?
Purpose of verifying compliance: To verify that the program is requiring its students to take the courses (and the credit hours) stipulated by DESE's Certification Section and listed in the Unit's Approved Program Curriculum.
What team members need to verify compliance:

• Certification Requirements for the Content Area (provided by DESE)
  
• Courses of Study for each Program for Certification (frequently available as "Advising Sheets")
  
• Access to student transcripts

What will site teams look for in Annual Reports & the Institutional Report?
Purpose of MoSTEP Annual Reports: to document on a year-to-year basis qualitative and quantitative information about the Unit and its progress toward meeting the standards and to apprize DESE of that progress (See Appendix J)
Purpose of Institutional Report (Self-Study): to compile, analyze, and interpret Unit and program information since the last site visit
What Team members need to review Annual Reports & Institutional Reports:

• Copies of each of the reports submitted since the last site visit (normally part of the pre-visit packet of information sent to team members)

 

Standard-by-Standard Highlights

This section emphasizes particular information team members will be looking for in the information provided by the Unit and the individual programs residing within the Unit. But first, a few caveats about the information the Unit should provide team members in its reports, particularly the information provided in the Institutional Report.

1. Units should focus their narratives on those areas in which they

• are exhibiting excellence,
  
• are achieving a creative edge, and/or
  
• are experiencing dilemmas.

2. Because the MoSTEP standards are not only new, but also because they represent a high standard, it is important to acknowledge Unit and program efforts to identify where they need improvement. Therefore, the Unit should be frank with the Team about what they perceive to be their own weaknesses. When team members are not convinced that some feature of a program or the Unit is meeting a standard, they will investigate how the program or the Unit intends to move forward. Clearly articulated goals, plans of action, and assessment strategies (e.g., those identified in the Annual Reports and the Institutional Report) may be evidence of a program moving in the right direction.

3. Team member's unit of analysis is the "standard" - not the individual "quality indicators" (with the important exception of the Quality Indicators for Standards 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, & 1.5 used for determining candidate competencies). This is an important distinction to keep in mind as team members are evaluating and writing about programs and the Unit. Because the page-limit constraints for the Institutional Report do not allow the Unit to write to each Quality and Performance Indicator, examining teams will weigh the preponderance of evidence presented for the standard.

Issues to address in the Unit's outline of the Institutional Report

Standard 1: Performance Standards for Education Professionals
Information that team members should expect to see relative to the standard:
Standard 1.1: General Studies

• Description and assessment of the general education component of the teacher's preparation

Standards 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5: Content, Professional, Pedagogical and Integrative Studies

• Curriculum matrices; portfolios; entrance & exit test scores; surveys of graduates and employers

Standard 2: Program and Curriculum Design
Team members should see descriptions and supporting documentation of the following:

• how the institution's and the Unit's mission statements are related to and supportive of each other; what faculty believe about teaching, learning, teachers, learners, and the communities in which schools reside and function
  
• an explication and application of the literature/research base upon which programs have been built; and how programs are using that knowledge base to design, assess, and continually improve programs
  
• how programs are structured (i.e., a curriculum design); the Unit's and the programs' expectations of students; and an identification of benchmarks by which candidates' progress through programs is assessed (i.e., benchmarks -- performance-based and traditional things like GPA)
  
• a description of whom was involved in shaping the Conceptual Framework and the roles they had in the process (advisory, rubber-stamping, contributing authors)
  
• how the Unit and individual programs have shared the Conceptual Framework with everyone with whom students come into contact (content area faculty & other campus units, partnering schools, cooperating teachers, field-placement cooperating teachers, students, building principals, etc.)
  
• a description of how, by what means, and on what schedule the Unit and its programs are continuously evaluating the Conceptual framework

Standard 3: Clinical Experiences
For each program, team members should see descriptions and supporting documentation of:

• when clinical experiences occur;
  
• how often (or on what schedule) they occur;
  
• in what ways students' clinical experiences ensure that they have interacted with a diverse student population;
  
• with what courses these experiences are associated;
  
• how the experiences are integrated into course work;
  
• who supervises and evaluates the student's performance in clinical experiences;
  
• by what criteria students are evaluated; and
  
• by what criteria, by whom, and on what schedule clinical sites are evaluated.

Standard 4: Candidates 
Team members should see descriptions and supporting documentation of the following:

• recruitment plan -- including, but not limited to, recruitment for diversity
  
• admission process
  
• advising and retention procedures
  
• quantitative and qualitative (performance-based formative benchmarks) and how the Unit and programs are assessing them
  
• what the Unit and programs are doing for their graduates (i.e., BTAP)

Standard 5: Faculty 
Team members should see descriptions and supporting documentation of the following:

• that faculty hold appropriate credentials (defined as Masters degree to teach undergraduates; terminal degree to teach graduate students); the requirement applies to adjuncts (e.g., a public school teacher hired to teach a methods course) and to subject-matter faculty who might, for example, teach a General Education math course that elementary majors are required to take
  
• that faculty are actively involved in the professional community in general and in particular that faculty are regularly involved in k-12 schools
  
• that the Unit has a recruitment plan -- including, but not limited to, recruitment for diversity
  
• that faculty are involved in teaching, scholarship, and service and that loads appear equitable and reasonable across the Unit and the institution
  
• that the Unit makes appropriate but minimal use of adjuncts
  
• that provisions, encouragement, opportunities, and processes are available to faculty for professional development
  
• that the institution and the Unit value quality teaching
  
• that faculty are incorporating diversity training, awareness, and strategies into every course
  
• that faculty -- both Education faculty & subject-matter faculty - are modeling a variety of instructional strategies
  
• that faculty are modeling the integration of a variety of technologies into their teaching.

Standard 6: Governance
Team members should see evidence of the following:

• that the institution has committed itself to the preparation of teachers
  
• the unit has authority to manage its affairs

Standard 7: Professional Community 
Team members need to see descriptions and supporting documentation of the following:

• breadth of membership in advisory committees (professional education faculty and students, public school colleagues, and subject-area faculty)
  
• roles, responsibilities, and authority afforded to those committees
  
• evidence that program curricula are evolving as a function of recommendations received from the professional community
  
• evidence of collaboration in the design, implementation, delivery, and evaluation of clinical experiences
  
• evidence that Unit, and ideally institutional, faculty are collaborating with public schools to improve the quality of P-12 education

Standard 8: Resources
Team members should see evidence of the following:

• that the Unit and programs have sufficient funding to operate and staff reasonably
  
• that the Unit is receiving funding comparable to other units/divisions within the institution
  
• that Unit and program instructional resources are current, with a particular emphasis on technology-based resources; and that faculty avail themselves of learning software

Judgments are made at the level of the Standard, not the Quality or Performance Indicator. (See Appendix B). These judgments are based on the preponderance of evidence presented during the site visit. The team will judge each program separately, indicating whether the standards are "met" or "not met." These then lead to the team making one of three recommendations for each program: "approval," "conditional approval," or "denial of approval." Findings and recommendations are compiled into a final report to the MSBE, which acts upon the team's recommendations. These actions are subsequently reported to the institution and unit.

It is important to remember that the program approval process has been conceived as and should be implemented as a formative evaluation of the Unit and its programs. The intention is to offer the Unit a critical, professional review of its programs, so it may be assured it is meeting standards for best practice and performance. The process is also intended to offer the unit technical assistance as it seeks to continually review and renew its professional programs. With this in mind, the team will use a critical eye, tempered by professional knowledge and respect for the "real" in contrast to the "ideal". 

Conducting the Site Visit

When the Site Team arrives on campus, the members should be able to immediately begin their work. Based on their reading of the pre-visit packet, the members should already have begun to develop questions and areas of interest to help focus the site visit. While on site, then, the team members will look more closely at the Unit and its programs by reviewing portfolios, other documentation and exhibits, conducting interviews, touring campus buildings, sitting in on classes, and visiting off-site locations. All the findings from this work and previous reading should give team members all the information needed to write about the standards and programs and make recommendations relevant to their adequacy in meeting the standards set for them.

In general, the site visit follows a common schedule, though some differences may occur on any given site visit because of particular circumstances or changes negotiated during the pre-visit to the institution. The Sample Site Visit Schedule depicts a visit beginning on a Saturday afternoon and concluding at noon the following Wednesday. (See Appendix L)

Interviews

The bulk of Monday and Tuesday of the site visit is spent in interviews, on- and off-campus. The team should interview faculty, administrators, candidates, cooperating teachers, graduates, principals, and other members of the professional community. The team chair will ask the Unit liaison to arrange the required interviews, but the Unit has the option of suggesting additional interviews to the team chair for possible inclusion. All interviews should be scheduled and arranged by the Unit liaison prior to the site visit. Team members should receive from the Unit a schedule of these interviews, including the names of people expected to attend each interview. Site Team members may request additional interviews (for follow-up or based on findings within the documentation). The team chair will forward these requests to the Unit liaison to make arrangements.

In general interviews are conducted by at least two team members; to best use time, team members may decide to have fewer interviewers in any given interview session, especially individual interviews. The number of people to be interviewed at one time should not be more than 10 except for student groups or open faculty sessions. Most interviews may be scheduled for 30 minutes, although some group interviews will require more time and should be allowed 45 minutes to one hour. 

The Interview Schedule Template (See Appendix M) will help in planning the interview schedule. Complete the template with the interviews agreed upon in the previsit meeting and include it in the pre-visit packet sent to team members prior to the site visit.

Classroom Observations

Team members will likely be visiting professional education classes to understand better the quality of teaching and the use of technology within the Unit and its programs. These observations can help inform, clarify or validate the members' findings and perceptions about curriculum and instructional practices. The Unit is responsible for letting faculty know that team members may visit classes during the visit. Moreover, the Unit should provide a schedule of classes available on Monday and Tuesday of the site visit.

Visits to Field Sites

Team members will visit between two and four off-campus sites (schools) where student teachers are assigned and with whom the Unit has established professional relationships. The Unit should provide a list of schools to be visited, their demographic characteristics, distance from campus, and the type of school. The team chair and site visit coordinator will select these schools during the pre-visit, and the Unit should arrange the visits with the schools in advance of the site visit. In general, these visits ought to represent a cross-section of the sites used by the Unit for its student teaching placements.

One or two team members will be assigned to each of the selected schools for a visit on Monday and/or Tuesday morning. The site visit coordinator should arrange for transportation to and from the school sites. During the visits, principals and cooperating teachers are interviewed regarding the quality of the Unit's programs and the candidates coming out of those programs as student teachers. In most instances, team members will observe student teachers in the classroom; however, they may simply be interviewed regarding their experiences. The school visits should also provide information about how field experiences are arranged, managed, and supervised. This is a good opportunity to explore the nature of the Unit's relationship to the professional community. 

Branch Campuses, Off-campus Programs, and Distance Learning Programs

Branch Campuses. An institution with dependent branch campuses (i.e., campuses not holding separate institutional accreditation) will be reviewed as a part of the home unit, with the expectation that program quality and candidate expectations will be consistent across campuses. The program approval decisions and any cited weaknesses or unmet standards for any campus site will apply to the entire unit, even if cited deficiencies are specific to a specific campus.
Off-campus Programs. When a unit includes off-campus sites as part of their professional education program delivery system, then each site is expected to maintain the same level of quality for program expectations, delivery systems, facilities, faculty, governance, professional community, field experience, and candidate support and quality.

The following guidelines will guide the examining team as it reviews off-campus sites;

• What is the unit's commitment to the off-campus programs?
  
• Why does the unit offer off-campus programs?
  
• To what degree is the regular faculty used to deliver the programs?
  
• What are the qualifications of adjunct faculty?
  
• Is the curriculum and extension of what is offered on campus, or is it different? If different, why and how does it differ?
  
• What are the differences in delivery of on-campus and off-campus programs, and are those differences appropriate?
  
• Are the admissions requirements the same or different for off-campus programs, and are differences appropriate?
  
• How many students are enrolled in each off-campus program?
  
• How are off-campus programs financed? How are they administered?
  

Distance Learning Programs. Distance-learning programs must also meet MoSTEP standards at the same level of quality as programs offered through traditional means. If a unit offers distance-learning programs in professional education, the examining team will expect to interview - in person or by other means - program administrator(s), faculty, and candidates. The examining team will also expect to see assessment results, pass rates, and other performance data for distance learning programs in the unit's documentation and exhibits.

The Exit Conference

The exit conference occurs on the final day of the site-visit. It is attended by the MoSTEP team chair, the DESE representative, the Unit head, and members of the institutional administrative team. It is an opportunity for the examining team chair to report the team's findings for the Unit and its programs for certification, although the team chair will not elaborate on the team's findings at this time. The following format guides the exit conference: 

• Expressions of Appreciation for the Unit's assistance and hospitality (Team Chair)
  
• Summary of the site-visit activities and General Findings 
  
  • Ratings for compliance with Unit Standards (Team Chair)
    
  • Ratings and recommendations for individual programs (Team Chair)
    
  • Overview of the process and time lines for writing, sharing, rejoining, and submitting the Final Report to the institution and DESE, and scheduling the presentation to MSBE (State Consultant)
• Institutional Response (President, Dean, or Unit Chair)
  
• Conclusion and Thanks (Team Chair)

 

The MoSTEP Examiners' Report

The MoSTEP Examiners' Report represents the work, deliberation and thinking of the examining team, so the team is responsible for ensuring that the report is accurate, well-supported, and well-reasoned. In other words it must reflect the professional character and judgment required for such a weighty task and responsibility.

The MoSTEP Team Chairperson is responsible for compiling the Examiners' Report. However, each team member, including the chair, is responsible for writing a rationale and statements of strengths and areas for improvement, as necessary, for each standard and program that he or she is assigned. The team members will also record the consensus ratings ("MET" or "NOT MET") for each standard and program and the recommendation ("Approval," "Conditional Approval," or "Deny Approval") for each program for certification.

Approval means the program is approved and may continue recommending candidates for certification during the intervening five years until the next review.

Conditional Approval means the program has significant enough weaknesses to warrant close attention and revision by the unit, and it grants the unit two years before a follow-up visit to determine the final disposition of the program. This follow-up visit is arranged by the TES and normally does not include a full site team. The unit may continue to prepare candidates in the program while conditional approval status is in effect.

Deny Approval means the program has significant weaknesses sufficient to warrant rescinding its right to recommend candidates for licensure. With this , the program must cease operating at the close of the semester. Candidates in the program should be advised to change majors or seek completion of their programs elsewhere.

After the site visit, the team chair will assemble the individual report sections into a "first draft" of the MoSTEP Examiners' Report and submit a copy to the institution's unit head to examine and make factual corrections. A copy is also sent to the team members for proofing and to the DESE consultant. Within ten (10) days of its receipt, the institution will make its factual corrections to the MoSTEP Examiners Report draft and return it to the Educator Preparation Section (EPS) at DESE. 

Within thirty (30) days following the site visit, the EPS will prepare a final official MoSTEP Examiners' Report and send it to the unit head and other appropriate officials of the institution. For joint reviews, it also will be sent to the NCATE Team Chair and included as the State Addendum to the Board of Examiners' Report, which is submitted to NCATE. The institution is urged to rejoin the report as a matter of course. 

The team report and all information related to it is the property of the institution and will not be released or discussed without the prior written permission of the institution.

Institutional Rejoinder to the MoSTEP Examiners' Report 

The head of the unit, is required to acknowledge receipt of the MoSTEP Examiner's Report and is given an opportunity to consult with faculty, department heads and the executive officers of the institution, and submit a response to it within thirty (30) days following the receipt of the Report. The institution's response may simply be a letter that indicates acceptance of the team's findings or a rejoinder that may challenge or refute the findings. The unit can also submit supplemental materials pertinent to the facts and conclusions found in the Report.

The unit is urged to submit a rejoinder to the MoSTEP Examiner's Report to the Educator Preparation Section (EPS) of DESE. Information from the rejoinder can be a vital part of the evidence presented to the Missouri State Board of Education (MSBE) as it considers program approval. The EPS may affirm, revise, or remove citations of areas for improvement as it prepares summaries and recommendations submitted to the MSBE, based on evidence provided in the rejoinder. Moreover, the EPS may change the team's decisions regarding met or unmet standards or programs if the institution's rejoinder supports a different decision than the information in the Report.

The purpose of the rejoinder is to respond to statements indicating lack of compliance with standards or programmatic weaknesses, as well as perceptions of erroneous statements in the narrative sections of the MoSTEP Examiner's Report. The rejoinder may also cite any procedural concerns regarding the visit. If the unit is contesting the judgments of the examining team, the rejoinder must indicate the grounds for such a stance and provide the available documentation to support its arguments. This information should be summarized, cited, and/or included in appendices, as appropriate. It is recommended that the unit respond to all areas for improvement cited in the Examiner's Report with which the unit does not concur. When the Unit does not respond to the weaknesses cited in the Examiner's Report, it will be assumed that the unit concurs with the examining team's conclusions.