DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of the Secretary

Statutory Authority: 14 Delaware Code, Section 122(d) (14 Del.C. §122(d))

14 DE Admin. Code 399

PROPOSED

PUBLIC NOTICE

290 Approval of Teacher Education Programs

A. Type of Regulatory Action Required

Amendment to Existing Regulation

B. Synopsis of Subject Matter of the Regulation

The Secretary of Education intends to amend 14 DE Admin. Code 399 Approval of Teacher Education Programs. The regulation is amended in order to bring the regulation into line with current procedures, add critical definitions and remove the references to the State Board of Education now that the Department of Education has total responsibility for the program approval process for teacher education programs. The regulation is also amended to change the number of the regulation from 399 to 290 moving the regulation to Section 200 Administration and Operations and to change the name of the regulation to Approval of Educator Preparation Programs.

C. Impact Criteria

1. Will the amended regulation help improve student achievement as measured against state achievement standards? The amended regulation addresses the approval of educator preparation Programs not student achievement.

2. Will the amended regulation help ensure that all students receive an equitable education? The amended regulation addresses the approval of educator preparation programs not equitable education issues.

3. Will the amended regulation help to ensure that all students’ health and safety are adequately protected? The amended regulation addresses the approval of educator preparation programs not health and safety issues.

4. Will the amended regulation help to ensure that all students’ legal rights are respected? The amended regulation addresses the approval of educator preparation programs not students’ legal rights.

5. Will the amended regulation preserve the necessary authority and flexibility of decision making at the local board and school level? The amended regulation will preserve the necessary authority and flexibility of decision making at the local board and school level.

6. Will the amended regulation place unnecessary reporting or administrative requirements or mandates upon decision makers at the local board and school levels? The amended regulation will not place any unnecessary reporting or administrative requirements or mandates upon decision makers at the local board and school levels.

7. Will the decision making authority and accountability for addressing the subject to be regulated be placed in the same entity? The decision making authority and accountability for addressing the subject to be regulated will remain in the same entity.

8. Will the amended regulation be consistent with and not an impediment to the implementation of other state educational policies, in particular to state educational policies addressing achievement in the core academic subjects of mathematics, science, language arts and social studies? The amended regulation will be consistent with and not an impediment to the implementation of other state educational policies, in particular to state educational policies addressing achievement in the core academic subjects of mathematics, science, language arts and social studies.

9. Is there a less burdensome method for addressing the purpose of the amended regulation? There is no less burdensome method for addressing the purpose of the amended regulation.

10. What is the cost to the State and to the local school boards of compliance with the regulation? There is no additional cost to the State and to the local school boards of compliance with the regulation.

399 Approval of Teacher Education Programs

1.0 General Regulations

All programs of teacher education in Delaware institutions of higher education that lead to teacher licensure shall be reviewed through a fair and uniform application of standards and all forms used shall be those developed by the Department of Education.

1.1 Reviews will be pursuant to the 1989 Standards of the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC).

1.2 Institutions that seek accreditation through the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) may meet the level set by the NASDTEC Standards by successfully completing the NCATE process, at both institutional and individual program levels.

1.3 All institutions, whether they choose NCATE or NASDTEC routes of approval, also shall comply with the criteria for licensure and standards approved by the State Board of Education, where applicable, and these Regulations.

1.4 Institutions and programs that seek accreditation through NCATE and the NCATE specialty organizations and fail to achieve such accreditation, may thereafter seek review pursuant to NASDTEC Standards for continued State approval.

1.5 On site reviews, by a team assembled by the administrator of programs for institutions of higher education shall take place every five to seven years, or, if through NCATE, in accordance with the schedule set by NCATE.

1.6 A final report on the reviews shall be forwarded to the State Board for action. The report shall make recommendations for full approval, provisional approval, or disapproval of the institution and of each of the individual programs. Copies of the final action report shall be sent to the chief executive officer of the institution and to the leader of the education unit.

1.7 All programs approved under NASDTEC Standards, or through NCATE accreditation, and that meet Delaware criteria for licensure, will be forwarded to the NASDTEC Interstate Agreement Committee for review for reciprocity.

1.8 An institution that has approved teacher education programs may request interim provisional program approval for new education programs for licensure added between regularly scheduled State reviews. Documentation to be supplied to the administrator shall include:

1.8.1 A description of the program for which approval is sought and other administrative information.

1.8.2 The curriculum for the program, including syllabi for any new courses.

1.8.3 Descriptions of the expected outcomes of the programs and of how those outcomes will be assessed.

1.8.4 Vitae for all new faculty delivering the program.

1.8.5 An institutional response to the specific NASDTEC or NCATE Standards for this program area, and any applicable State Board of Education criteria.

1.8.6 Descriptions of materials and media resources available for the program, and how technology is integrated into the curriculum.

1.9 A program meeting all requirements shall be given provisional approval; full approval may not be granted until a full on site review of the institution takes place, or is directed by the State Board.

1.10 Experimental or innovative programs that do not meet the Standards or the criteria may be allowed by the State Board. Such an allowance may be requested by submitting the material for new programs, and where the Standards or criteria are not met, a rationale for the exception(s). Experimental or innovative programs that are approved by the State Board shall be given provisional approval; full approval may not be granted until a full on site review of the program takes place, or it is directed by the State Board.

1.11 Programs that have received only paper review, without full onsite verification will be granted provisional approval. Full approval may not be granted until a full on site review of the institution takes place, or is directed by the State Board.

1.12 All Delaware teacher education programs shall undertake ongoing self study.

1.12.1 Units and programs approved through NCATE accreditation, shall comply with NCATE self study requirements. Copies of any reports to NCATE shall also be submitted to the administrator.

1.12.2 Institutions and programs reviewed under NASDTEC requirements shall submit an annual report detailing how the weaknesses cited in the report have been addressed. The annual report shall be due to the administrator by June 30 of each year.

1.13 All persons participating as a part of the state team for an on site review, shall meet the requirements of 7.0 and 9.0.

1.14 All programs shall submit portfolios to the Department of Education which meet the criteria listed in the Delaware Requirements for Portfolios.

1.14.1 Programs being reviewed by NCATE national specialty organizations shall submit to the Department of Education a copy of the materials sent to the specialty organization, and additional materials to meet the requirements of 5.0.

1.14.2 Programs being reviewed by the Department of Education under the 1989 NASDTEC Standards shall submit to the Department of Education materials addressing the appropriate standards, and additional materials to meet the requirements set out in 5.0.

1.15 In general, Approved Programs of colleges and universities in Delaware do not have to meet the specific course count criteria for licensure; however, the elements of those courses counted for licensure purposes must be found within the approved program. For example, if all of the elements of a science safety course are embedded in a science methods course, then two courses might be unnecessary. But, if a particular requirement is so glaringly absent, then a program may be required to adopt a course to meet the criteria.

1.16 The review and revision of these regulations shall be accomplished with the advise of the teacher education programs of Delaware colleges and universities, and with that of other Interested parties.

2.0 Reviews Pursuant to NASDTEC Standards Only

2.1 Institutions of higher education not seeking NCATE initial or continuing accreditation shall be reviewed under the Standards for State Approval of Teacher Education of the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education, 1989 Revised Edition, the criteria for licensure of the State Department of Education, and the applicable regulations.

2.2 At least one year before the impending review, the Department of Education will contact the institution. The Institution shall appoint one person to act as liaison for all of the programs at the institution with the Department of Education about the administration of the process of review. The administrator shall meet or have a telephone conference with the liaison to establish the dates of the visit of the state team and the areas to be reviewed. The decisions made shall be communicated by the administrator and the liaison to all programs. This process shall be complete by nine months prior to the review dates.

2.3 State Teams shall consist of five to seven members, one of whom shall be the chair, who shall be selected, in accordance with 6.0, at least six months prior to the review. Substitute members may be selected closer to the time of the review, if those initially selected are unable to serve.

2.4 The institution shall prepare an Institutional Report which addresses the appropriate NASDTEC Standards, these regulations, where applicable, and the licensure criteria of the State Board of Education in addition to NASDTEC and NCATE Standards.

2.4.1 The State Board licensure criteria includes Primary (K to 4), Middle Level (5 to 8), Special Education Elementary, Special Education and Secondary Block Requirements

2.4.2 Seven copies of the Institutional Report, and of all applicable catalogs, shall be submitted at least three months prior to the visit of the state team.

2.5 Each program for which initial or continued approval is sought shall prepare a portfolio to demonstrate how NASDTEC Standards for that program are being met. The portfolios shall meet the requirements of 5.0. Portfolios shall be submitted with the Institutional Report.

2.6 Portfolios for each program shall be reviewed by appropriate program portfolio reviewers of Department of Education and their reviews on the content and quality of each shall be submitted to the state team at least one month prior to the visit of the state team. Any conflict of interest of a Department of Education reviewer shall be disclosed on the review. If any portfolio is deemed inadequate, the administrator at his/her discretion may contact the institution to supplement the submission or may return the portfolio to the institution.

2.7 During the team visit, the state team will verify the accuracy of the portfolios, consider the review of the Department of Education, and produce a draft written report on the program.

2.8 The finalized report of the state team member on the program will be due to the administrator or the chair of the team, whomever is designated, three weeks after the last day of the visit.

2.9 Within 10 weeks of the last day of the visit, the administrator or the chair of the team, whomever is designated, will submit the final draft of the report to the institution for the correction of factual errors only. The institution shall return the final draft to the administrator, with factual errors and suggested corrections noted, within two weeks of its receipt.

3.0 Reviews under NCATE Standards, Procedures and Policies for the Accreditation of Professional Education Units

3.1 Institutions shall submit letters of intent to seek accreditation to NCATE approximately 20 months before the scheduled visit. Statements of how NCATE’s preconditions are met must be submitted before on site reviews can be scheduled. Portfolios to be submitted to specialty organizations must be submitted to NCATE at least 18 months before the on site reviews.

3.2 At least one year before the impending review, Department of Education will contact the institution. The Institution shall appoint one person to at as liaison for all of the programs at the institution with the Department of Education about the administration of the process of review. The administrator shall meet or have a telephone conference with the liaison in regard to the dates of review and the areas to be reviewed. The decisions made shall be communicated by the administrator and the liaison to all programs. This process shall be complete by ten months prior to the review dates.

3.3 State teams, and chairs, shall be selected in accordance with NCATE Partnership Agreement Guidelines, and notice given to the institution at least six months prior to the site review. Substitute members may be selected closer to the time of the review, if those initially selected are unable to serve the NCATE Delaware Partnership Agreement.

3.4 State team members and Department of Education subject area portfolio reviewers shall have participated in a training session on NCATE standards and procedures and state expectations (including NASDTEC Standards, where applicable) that is conducted and/ or jointly developed by staff of NCATE and the State.

3.5 State team members shall be selected as follows:

3.5.1 Two members of the Department of Education, one of whom shall be the Administrator of Programs for Institutions of Higher Education, if the administrator has no conflicts as listed in 6.0.

3.5.2 Two to three other members, one of whom shall be a teacher, K to 12, and one of whom shall have experience in higher education or education administration.

3.6 The state team members shall be responsible for the following:

3.6.1 To meet with the NCATE Board of Examiners' (BOE) Team, and to assist in the informal deliberations of that group in accordance with NCATE requirements.

3.6.2 To review the reports of the specialty organizations (SOS) on those programs covered by NCATE Standards, to verify the accuracy of the reports and the conclusions reached by the NSO's, and to submit a report making recommendations to the State Board on the decisions of the NCATE NSOs. To make recommendations including a description of how the review was verified; whether the conclusions of the NSOs are verified, verified with exceptions or substantially in error, and, whether the program is recommended for approval, approval with exceptions, approval under NASDTEC Standards despite the conclusion of the NCATE SO, or disapproval.

3.6.3 To review the reviews by the Department of Education program portfolio reviewers, to visit the programs to verify the accuracy of the conclusions reached by the Department of Education program portfolio reviewers, and to prepare a report and make recommendations (see 3.6.2 for recommendation levels) to the State Board on each program covered by NASDTEC Standards which is reviewed by the state team member.

3.7 The report and the accreditation decision of the NCATE Unit Accreditation Board (UAB) will be used as part of the available data in determining whether the State will approve the university or college unit to operate teacher education programs to be certified by the State Board of Education.

3.8 In addition to individual program recommendations, the state team members shall make a recommendation on whether or not the State Board should authorize the university or college to operate teacher education programs.

3.9 There are two separate procedures for the submission of portfolios to the Department of Education, depending upon whether the program is required to send a portfolio to an NCATE specialty organization or not.

3.9.1 Programs sending portfolios to NCATE specialty organizations shall prepare their basic portfolio to meet the requirements of those organizations. A copy of whatever is sent to the specialty organization shall be sent to the state team or administrator, along with whatever else is required to meet the requirements in 5.0 shall be submitted to the Department of Education at least six months prior to the visit of the state team.

3.9.2 Each program which is not subject to review by a NCATE national specialty organization shall demonstrate how the NASDTEC Standards for that program, and the licensure criteria of the State Board of Education in addition to NASDTEC and NCATE Standard are being met. The portfolios shall meet the requirement in 5.0. Portfolios shall be submitted at least six months prior to the visit of the state team.

3.10 Portfolios for each program shall be reviewed by appropriate program portfolio reviewers of the Department of Education, and their reviews on the content and quality of each shall be submitted to the state team at least three months prior to the visit of the state team. Any conflict of interest of a Department of Education reviewer shall be disclosed on the review.

3.11 In general, approved programs of colleges and universities in Delaware do not have to meet the specific course count criteria for licensure; however, the elements of those courses counted for licensure purposes must be found within the Approved Program. Thus, if the elements of one course are embedded within another, portfolios submitted to the state team or administrator shall demonstrate how that is achieved and that teacher education students do incorporate the embedded learning in their performance.

4.0 Programs that do Not Pass NCATE or NASDTEC Review

4.1 Institutions that do not receive NCATE unit accreditation, and which have exhausted or decided not to use the NCATE rejoinder process, will have a period of time agreed upon by the administrator and the liaison in which to submit additional materials which demonstrate how the institution meets the NASDTEC Organization and Administration Standards. Such programs will only be eligible for a grant of provisional approval for two years; renewal after that time would be contingent upon a full site review.

4.2 Individual programs submitted to NCATE specialty organizations that do not receive program approval from those organizations, and which have exhausted or decided not to use the NCATE rejoinder process, have up to 10 working days after the last day of the site review to supplement portfolios, if needed, to demonstrate how they meet the NASDTEC standards.

4.3 Individual programs that do not meet NASDTEC Standards at the full approval level, will be given either provisional approval or be disapproved to operate. All programs given provisional approval shall:

4.3.1 Report annually to the administrator on the progress made on those standards that were not met.

4.3.2 Undergo portfolio submission and onsite review within 2 or 3 years, as determined by the State Board.

4.4 Institutions that do not receive full or provisional approval through review pursuant to NASDTEC, will not be permitted to operate programs of teacher education in Delaware.

5.0 Delaware Requirements for Portfolios

5.1 Portfolios submitted for program review shall contain the following elements:

5.1.1 A completed Delaware Portfolio Cover Sheet on the program and an explanation of the following elements of the program(s): conceptual framework, philosophy for its preparation, goals and objectives, and relationship of the program(s) to the mission of the university or college.

5.1.2 Student course(s) of studies, with all required courses clearly marked.

5.1.3 Descriptions of all field experiences, student teaching, internships and practica. include the amount of time and describe the each experience, its intent and the type/amount of supervision involved. Documentation will be reviewed at the site visit.

5.1.4 Descriptions of where the program is located in the professional unit and its interrelationships with other programs in the unit and the university or college.

5.1.5 List of faculty with descriptions of their primary assignments within the program, including courses taught. Provide rank, tenure status, teaching experience and responsibilities in the unit and in the university or college. Do not include vitae, but have current vitae available for review, if needed, at the time of the visit.

5.1.6 Number of graduates from the program(s), by year, for the last three years.

5.1.7 Syllabi for all courses if applicable, or submitted to NCATE.

5.1.8 Descriptions of the materials, and media resources available for the program and how technology is integrated into the curriculum.

5.1.9 Requirements for entrance into the program and for progression between levels, if any.

5.2 NCATE Specialty Organization or NASDTEC response document reference may be made to them in providing the information requested. Those programs required to make response to the 1989 NASDTEC Standards, should do so by providing Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4; for an undergraduate program; Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 4.1 for an entry level graduate program; or 4.1, and 4.3 (where applicable), for non entry level programs. The applicable Section 3.5.; or if a non entry level graduate program, 4.

5.3 Performance exemplars that demonstrate student learning in the program and the responses to the Standards for these requirements, including, for example: student portfolios, lesson plans developed by students, videos of student performance, compilations of research by students, assessments developed by students, resource sources developed by students, student log and instructor designed assessments. Exemplars presented may not consist of instructor designed assessments only.

5.4 Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator of Programs for Institutions of Higher Education, all portfolios shall be submitted in expandable folders or binders, with a table of contents and numbered tab marked sections identifying the contents. Portfolios shall note how and where information on and performance exemplars of the criteria set out below are included in each program portfolio. The portfolio shall also contain a listing of resource references. Portfolios shall reflect the program as it is being delivered at the time of the site review. If substantial changes will be made between the time of the submission of the portfolio and the site review, those proposed changes shall be described in the portfolio.

5.5 Portfolios reviewed by Department of Education program portfolio reviewers will be considered according to the criteria.

5.5.1 Portfolios shall demonstrate that the program under review meets the criteria for licensure, where applicable. Institutions may meet this requirement in a variety of ways.

5.5.2 Portfolios shall demonstrate that the program includes a sequence of graduated clinical experiences, such as supervised practica, internships, student teaching, that is incremental and occurs in a variety of settings and grade levels, including the areas of specialization, and that is focused upon program objectives. Records of student participation shall be presented.

5.5.3 Portfolios shall demonstrate that students are taught the methodology of and have had clinical practice in the development and use of multiple types of assessments.

5.5.4 Portfolios shall demonstrate that methodologies on the use of technology in the classroom and other tools of inquiry are provided to students, and that students are provided clinical experiences which make it possible for them to integrate this learning into their instruction.

5.5.5 Portfolios shall demonstrate that strategies for effective teaching are suffused throughout the program, and that students are taught specific methodology on teaching diverse learners, including exceptionalities and multicultural studies; classroom management; individual behavior management; and teacher expectations; and are given supervised field experiences which make it possible for them to integrate this learning into their instruction.

5.5.6 Portfolios shall specifically indicate how students receive methodology in teaching reading in the content area(s) of the student's specialization, and are able to integrate this learning into their instruction.

5.5.7 Portfolios shall demonstrate that, throughout the program, students engage in reflection, particularly on their choices and actions for planning for instruction, assessment of teaching and learning, and teaching strategies. The portfolio should show how students grow over time as a result of the reflection.

5.5.8 Portfolios shall indicate how students learn about pupil growth and development and their relationship to teaching and learning, and demonstrate that students use age appropriate learning experiences.

6.0 Selection and Conduct of State Team Members

6.1 Conflict of Interest: State team members shall not participate on a team if they have a close, active association with the institution to be visited. A close, active association will be presumed where:

6.1.1 The member is currently in attendance at, or, within the past ten years, has received a degree from or has been forced to discontinue studies at the institution.

6.1.2 The member has children or other close relatives in attendance at the institution, and those persons are matriculated into the education programs being reviewed.

6.1.3 The member has taught, consulted, or otherwise been employed in a paid position, at the institution within the past five years.

6.1.4 The member has ever been denied tenure by or forced to leave a position at the institution.

6.1.5 The member currently serves on, or has been nominated to, any advisory group at the institution.

6.1.6 The member maintains any current close personal or professional relationship with a person at the institution.

6.1.7 The member is an employee of another institution in the State with a teacher education program.

6.2 Evaluation: The performance of team members will be evaluated, and team members will not be used when past performance is deemed inadequate.

6.3 Team members shall refrain from publicly criticizing institutional personnel participating in the program approval process. The Department of Education's evaluation system will provide a vehicle for receiving feedback to the institution about the performance of their personnel.

6.4 Confidentiality:

6.4.1 All elements of the program approval process shall be treated in a confidential and professional manner, including the contents of the Institutional Report, questions and answers raised during the visit, team deliberations and analysis, team decisions and the team report. The final report shall be made public.

6.4.2 Information acquired from the institution during the program approval process may not be used for matter other than program approval without the permission of the institution.

6.4.3 The documents from the institution during the program approval process are the property of the institution, and should be returned to them at the end of the process.

6.4.4 Two archival copies of the Institutional Report and related documents will be maintained by the Department of Education.

6.5 The Department of Education personal subject area personnel shall not serve on a state team if they have been a program portfolio reviewer within the previous five years for the same program area they are asked to site visit as a part of the state team.

6.6 All persons serving on a state team shall receive training on NCATE Standards and NASDTEC Standards.

7.0 Selection and Conduct of Department of Education Portfolio Reviewers

7.1 Conflict of Interest, Department of Education program portfolio reviewers shall disclose if they have a close, active association with the institution from which the portfolio they are to review comes. A close, active association will be presumed where:

7.1.1 The reviewer is currently in attendance at, or, within the past ten years, has received a degree from or has been forced to discontinue studies at the institution.

7.1.2 The reviewer has children or other close relatives in attendance at the institution, and those persons are matriculated into the education programs being reviewed.

7.1.3 The reviewer has taught, consulted, or otherwise been employed in a paid position, at the institution within the past five years.

7.1.4 The reviewer has ever been denied tenure by or forced to leave a position at the institution.

7.1.5 The reviewer currently serves on, or has been nominated to, any advisory group at the institution.

7.1.6 The reviewer maintains any current close personal or professional relationship with a person at the institution.

7.1.7 The reviewer is an employee of another institution in the State with a teacher education program.

7.2 Department of Education program portfolio reviewers shall refrain from publicly criticizing the program approval process or the portfolio review materials submitted to them for review. The State's system of review will provide a vehicle for giving feedback to the institution about the portfolio.

7.3 Confidentiality:

7.3.1 All elements of the program approval process must be treated in a confidential and professional manner, including the contents of any portfolio reviewed. The final report to the State Board of Education shall be public.

7.3.2 Information acquired from the institution during portfolio review may not be used for matter other than program approval without the permission of the institution.

7.3.3 The documents from the institution during the portfolio review are the property of the institution, and should be returned to them at the end of the process.

7.3.4 Archival copies of the portfolio review documents will be maintained by the Department of Education.

7.4 All persons serving as the Department of Education program portfolio reviewers shall receive training on NCATE Standards and NASDTEC Standards.

7.5 Department of Education program portfolio reviewers must receive clear notice of deadlines to be met. Meeting those deadlines is essential for the NCATE process to work, and subject area reviewers shall consider the meeting of deadlines for the review of portfolios assigned to them as the highest priority.

8.0 Conduct of Institutions

8.1 The institution shall facilitate a thorough and objective appraisal of its professional education programs by the visiting team and program reviewers.

8.2 The institution may refuse the selection of a visiting state team member only if a likely potential conflict of interest can be demonstrated.

8.2.1 Notice of the refusal of a team member shall be given within 30 days of the notice to the institution of the composition of the team;

8.2.2 The administrator shall make a good faith effort to find a trained substitute for the rejected member from those trained persons located in state.

8.2.3 In the event no available, trained substitute can be located, the administrator shall find one from out of state.

8.2.4 All transportation, hotel and food costs (on a par with those incurred by the BOE Team) of such a substitute, coming from out of state, or in state from a distance greater than sixty (60) miles, shall be borne by the institution making the refusal.

8.3 Institutional personnel shall refrain from publicly criticizing individuals participating in the program approval process. The performance of state team members will be evaluated by institutional personnel, and this information used in the determination of whether they will be selected to serve on subsequent state teams. The performance of institutions will be evaluated by State team members, and this information shall be returned to the institutions to assist in the revision of their procedures.

8.4 Institutions are encouraged to report perceived inadequacies of the state standards or procedures to visiting team members (particularly to the administrator) during the visit, rather than waiting for the evaluation instrument.

9.0 Training

9.1 General Regulation

9.1.1 All persons participating in NASDTEC and NCATE reviews of programs of teacher education in Delaware institutions of higher education shall receive training in the background of, rationale for and procedure of the review process, prior to participating in any review, paper or on site.

9.1.2 The Department of Education shall hold training sessions in order to have a sufficient pool of trained team members and program portfolio reviewers available to serve.

9.2 State team members shall receive training in, at least, the following areas prior participating in any review; NCATE policy and procedure, NASDTEC policy and procedure, state standards and criteria, procedure for folio review, procedure for site visits, completion of team report, reimbursement of expenses and evaluation of the institution and team members.

9.2.1 Persons taking part in state team member training shall be reimbursed for expenses in accordance with the Department of Education's guidelines. Persons coming from out of state can also be reimbursed for hotel accommodations in accordance with the Department's guidelines.

9.3 Department of Education program portfolio reviewers shall receive training in, at least, the following areas prior participating in any review; NCATE policy and procedure, NASDTEC policy and procedure, state standards and criteria, procedure for folio review, completion of portfolio report and reimbursement of expenses for substitutes.

9.3.1 Department of Education staff will be responsible for obtaining additional or substitute program portfolio reviewers for the areas for which they are responsible if that area has multiple programs to be reviewed or if the subject area Associate or Specialist is unable to participate in the folio review.

9.3.1.1 Before any request is made of a person outside of the Department of Education to participate in folio review, permission must be received from the Administrator for Postsecondary Program Approval. Substitutes suggested will be scrutinized carefully, for the necessary expertise and potential conflicts.

9.3.1.2 Substitutes shall be selected prior to the training process to ensure that the substitute receives the required training. No untrained persons will participate in the process.

10.0 Format of the NCATE Joint Report

10.1 NCATE Board of Examiners' portion of the report.

10.1.1 The NCATE Board of Examiners team shall report on the design of Professional Education Standards, Candidate Standards, Faculty Standards and Governance and Resource Standards.

10.1.2 The NCATE portion of the joint report shall consist of the following:

10.1.2.1 A summary of the Board of Examiners team's decision for each standard at the initial teacher preparation and advanced level.

10.1.2.2 Description of decision for each standard at the initial teacher preparation and advanced levels.

10.1.2.3 Exemplary practices of the professional education unit (if applicable).

10.1.2.4 List of individual interviewed and sources of evidence.

10.1.2.5 Addenda (if needed).

10.2 The state team's portion of the report

10.2.1 The state team shall report on the individual programs at the initial teacher preparation and advanced level;

10.2.2 The state team portion of the report shall consist of the following:

10.2.2.1 A summary of the findings of the state team, with an emphasis on commonalities between the findings on the individual programs, and on identifying those programs that have exemplary practices or show multiple weaknesses.

10.2.2.2 Description of decision for each program at the initial teacher preparation and advanced levels.

10.2.2.3 List of individual interviewed and primary sources of evidence for the decisions made on each program.

10.2.2.4 Team recommendations for each program.

10.2.3 The state team will also submit a recommendation on whether the

institution, and each individual program, should receive approval to operate in Delaware and under the NASDTEC Interstate Reciprocity Agreement.

11.0 Rejoinder Process

11.1 Within thirty (30) days after the state team visit, the team chair will prepare a report of the team visit and make a recommendation on each program at the institution.

11.1.1 Two copies will be sent to the institution, one to the institution's president, and the other to the institution's liaison for the review process.

11.1.2 The institution will be asked for reactions to the accuracy of the information in the Report of the Team Visit. The institution has fifteen (15) days to respond.

11.2 Following the receipt of the NCATE Institutional Report, if unit accreditation is granted, the administrator shall schedule the submission of the Joint Report, and the recommendations of the state team, to the State Board. A copy of the Joint Report and the recommendations of the state team, and notice of the State Board will be sent to the institution by certified or express mail or through a private mail or parcel delivery service.

11.3 Following the receipt of the NCATE Institutional Report, if unit accreditation is not granted, the institution will have a period of time within which to submit additional materials, in accordance with 11.1.2, prior to the presentation to the State Board of the Joint Report, the report of the subsequent NASDTEC review, and the State Team recommendations. Copies of the report of the NASDTEC review, the Joint Report and the recommendations of the state team, and notice of the State Board meeting will be sent to the institution by certified or express mail or through a private mail or parcel delivery service.

11.4 The institution may rejoinder any of the recommendations of the state team, by a letter from the institution's president (or the president's designee) notifying the Secretary of Education in writing of their intent to do so, accompanied by a short statement listing the recommendations at issue, and why they are contested. The letter must be received in the Secretary of Education's Office within ten (10) days of the delivery of the reports noted in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Part.

11.5 The Secretary of Education shall schedule the recommendation, and if necessary a hearing on the rejoinder, before the State Board at a regularly scheduled meeting.

11.6 Written statements of position and legal memoranda or briefs may be submitted by the institution or the state team. They must be received by the Secretary of Education's Office not less than ten (10) days prior to the date scheduled for the presentation of the recommendations to the State Board.

11.7 There will be no oral testimony before the State Board of Education. If the institution wishes to make an oral summary of their position before the Board, they must file a request to do so not less than ten (10) days prior to the date scheduled for the presentation. The institution's oral summary will be limited to 15 minutes; the state team will have 15 minutes to respond.

11.8 The Board, after considering the evidence presented and the arguments made by the parties to the controversy, will make a decision and so inform the parties in writing of that decision. The State Board of Education's decision is final.

290 Approval of Educator Preparation Programs

1.0 Definitions

The words and terms, when used in this regulation, shall have the following meaning unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

“Administrator” means Department of Education Associate charged with oversight of Program Approval for college and university educator preparation Programs.

Associate Degree” means a two (2) year degree conferred by a regionally accredited Institution of higher education or by a distance education Institution that is regionally or nationally accredited through an agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education.

“Department” means the Delaware Department of Education.

“Department Approval” means the process by which a specific professional education Program is recognized by the State Department of Education as meeting state standards for the content and operation of such Programs.

“Educator” means a person licensed and certified by the State under 14 Del.C., Ch. 12 to engage in the practice of instruction, administration or other related professional support services in Delaware public schools, including charter schools, pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated by the Standards Board and approved by the State Board but does not include substitute teachers.

“Higher Education Degree Advanced Level” means post baccalaureate degree Programs for the advanced preparation of teachers, and the initial or advanced preparation of professional school personnel. Programs at the advanced level lead to a master’s, specialist, or doctoral degree, or they may culminate in non degree licensure at the graduate level.

“Higher Education Degree Basic (Initial) Level” means programs leading to the initial preparation of teachers, commonly leading to a baccalaureate degree, a master of arts in teaching, or other Programs designed to prepare teachers for initial licensure.

“Institution” means the college or university offering baccalaureate and post baccalaureate degree teacher preparation programs.

“NASDTEC” means The National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification. The organization represents professional standards boards, commissions and departments of education in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Dependent Schools, the U.S. Territories, New Zealand, and British Columbia, which are responsible for the preparation, licensure, and discipline of educational personnel.

“NCATE” means The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, a national accrediting body for schools, colleges, and departments of education authorized by the U.S. Department of Education.

“Professional Education Unit” means the school, college, department or other administrative body within an Institution of higher learning that is primarily responsible for the preparation of teachers and other professional education personnel.

“Program” means the sequence of courses and experiences required by a college or university for the preparation of professional education candidates to teach a specific subject or academic area, to provide professional education services, or to administer schools.

“Proposal for Program Approval for Education Preparation Programs Which do Not Have Specialized Professional Association (SPA) Approval” means the formal proposal that the Department requires higher education institutions to complete and submit in order to seek approval for teacher education programs in a Professional Education Unit for which there is no national Specialized Professional Association (SPA) or for which the institution has not received approval from the SPA.

“Secretary” means the Secretary of the Delaware Department of Education.

“Specialized Professional Association (SPA)” means national bodies such as the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) and the International Reading Association (IRA) whose Program review standards have been approved by NCATE.

2.0 Prior Approval from the Department Required to Offer Courses

Pursuant to 14 Del.C. §122(b)(21), no individual, public or private educational association, corporation or Institution, including any Institution of post secondary education, shall offer a course, or courses, for the training of school teachers to be licensed in this State without first having procured the assent of the Department for the offering of such courses. In order to be approved by the Department, Programs of educator preparation in Delaware Institutions of higher education that lead to educator licensure and certification shall meet State and, where applicable, national standards appropriate to the Professional Education Unit and the Professional Education Unit's individual programs. All Professional Education Units and their Programs shall be reviewed through a fair and uniform application of standards.

2.1 The Department shall approve an Institution’s educator preparation Programs. Approval attests to compliance with state standards for each Program. Approval is based on an Institutional self study report and an on site visit by a team trained and selected by NCATE, with Department representation. Institutions seeking approval of educator preparation Programs in the State shall meet the Institutional standards established by NCATE and the appropriate Program standards. All Programs shall also comply with the State’s regulations for Educator licensure and certification, the Delaware Teacher or Administrator Standards, and other applicable regulations and standards as are established by the Department or the Professional Standards Board, in cooperation and consultation with the Department and with the concurrence of the State Board of Education.

3.0 NCATE State Partnership Review

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Standards, Procedures & Policies for the Accreditation of Professional Education Units and Programs.

3.1 The Department shall enter into agreements with the higher education governing boards and their Institutions for the purpose of coordination of review procedures on a seven (7) year cycle. Such agreements shall include, but are not limited to, Program review timetables, format and content of Institutional reports, selection, number and role of review team members and the reporting of Program results.

3.2 Accreditation Request

3.2.1 Institutions shall submit letters of intent to seek accreditation to NCATE at least twenty (20) months before the scheduled visit. Statements of how NCATE's preconditions are met shall be submitted to the Institution before on site reviews are scheduled.

3.2.2 Portfolios submitted to Specialized Professional Associations shall follow the NCATE Standards and shall be submitted to NCATE at least eighteen (18) months before the on site reviews.

3.3 The Review Team

3.3.1 The review team assembled by NCATE shall have up to three (3) members designated by the Department and the Department shall agree to comply with the schedule established by NCATE in the review and on site visits of NCATE accredited Institutions.

3.3.1.1 State members shall be selected in accordance with NCATE Partnership Agreement Guidelines. A list of members shall be given to the Institution at least six (6) months prior to the site review. Substitute members may be selected and the Institution notified of the substitute members closer to the time of the review, if those initially selected are unable to serve the NCATE and Delaware Partnership Agreement.

3.3.1.2 State members shall be selected from the following:

3.3.1.2.1 Employees of the Department of Education one of whom shall be the Administrator.

3.3.1.2.2 Persons who have experience in higher education or education administration.

3.3.1.3 State member(s) shall attend a training session on NCATE standards and procedures and State expectations paid for by the Department and conducted by the staff of NCATE.

3.3.1.4 The State members shall be responsible for the following:

3.3.1.4.1 Meeting with the NCATE Board of Examiners and assisting in the informal deliberations of that group in accordance with NCATE requirements;

3.3.1.4.2 Reviewing the reports of the SPA on those Programs covered by NCATE standards, to verify the accuracy of the reports and the conclusions reached by the SPA,

3.3.1.4.3 Making recommendations to the Secretary on the decisions of the SPA; and

3.3.1.4.4 Making recommendations including a description of how the review was verified; whether the conclusions of the SPA were verified, verified with exceptions or substantially in error, and whether the Program was recommended for approval, approval with exceptions despite the conclusion of SPA or disapproval.

3.3.2 Conflict of Interest: Team members from the State shall not participate on a team if they have a close, active association with the Institution to be visited. A close, active association shall be presumed where:

3.3.2.1 The member is currently in attendance at, or, within the past ten years, has received a degree from or has been forced to discontinue studies at the Institution;

3.3.2.2 The member has children or other close relatives in attendance at the Institution, and those persons are matriculated into the education Programs being reviewed,

3.3.2.3 The member has taught, consulted, or otherwise been employed in a paid position, at the Institution within the past five years;

3.3.2.4 The member has ever been denied tenure by or forced to leave a position at the Institution;

3.3.2.5 The member currently serves on, or has been nominated to, any advisory group at the Institution;

3.3.2.6 The member maintains any current close personal or professional relationship with a person at the Institution; or

3.3.2.7 The member is an employee of another Institution in the state with a teacher education Program.

3.4 Final Report

3.4.1 Professional Education Units and Programs approved through NCATE accreditation shall comply with NCATE self study requirements. Copies of any reports to NCATE shall also be submitted to the Administrator.

3.4.2 Programs being reviewed by SPA shall submit to the Administrator a copy of the materials sent to the Specialty Professional Association.

3.4.3 A final report on the reviews shall be forwarded to the Secretary for action. The report shall make recommendations for full approval, provisional approval, or disapproval of the Professional Education Unit and of each of the individual Programs.

3.4.3.1 Copies of the final report shall be sent to the chief executive officer of the Institution and to the leader of the Professional Education Unit.

3.4.4 The report and the accreditation decision of the NCATE Unit Accreditation Board shall be used to determine whether the Department will approve the teacher education Programs.

3.4.5 In addition to individual Program recommendations, a recommendation on whether or not the Department should authorize the university or college to operate teacher education Programs shall also be included.

3.4.6 Two copies of the final report and related documents shall be maintained by the Department and submitted to the State Archives as provided by the retention schedule for the State Archives.

4.0 Procedures for Teacher Education Programs in a Professional Education Unit Seeking Approval for Programs for Which There is no National Specialized Professional Association (SPA) or for Which the Institution has Not Received Approval from the SPA.

4.1 Higher education institutions seeking approval for teacher education programs in a Professional Education Unit for which there is no national Specialized Professional Association (SPA) or for which the institution has not received approval from the SPA shall complete the Department’s Proposal for Program Approval for Education Preparation Programs Which Do Not Have Specialized Professional Association (SPA) Approval and shall submit the Proposal to the Department at least 18 months before the on site reviews.

4.2 Time lines related to the submission of data and other documentation of the Institution’s compliance with Program approval criteria, the scheduling of Program reviews, the role of Department review members, and the procedures for the reporting of Program review results shall follow NCATE guidelines.

4.3 At least one year before the impending review, the Institution shall contact the Department. The Institution shall appoint one person to act as liaison for all of the Programs at the Institution under this Non SPA State Review. The Administrator shall meet with the liaison to establish the dates of the review process and the areas to be reviewed. The decisions made shall be communicated by the Administrator and the liaison to all of the Programs. This process shall be completed nine months prior to the review dates.

4.4 Selection, Training and Conduct of the State Team Members for the Non SPA State Review

4.4.1 State Teams shall consist of three (3) to five (5) members including the Administrator or designee, one of whom shall be the chair, who shall be selected at least six months prior to the review. The Institution shall be notified as to the members chosen for the review.

4.4.1.1 If those initially selected are unable to serve, substitute members may be selected and the Institution notified of the substitute members closer to the time of the review.

4.4.2 Conflict of Interest is the same as defined in 3.3.2

4.4.3 Training of State Team Members

4.4.3.1 State Team members shall receive training at the Department in the following areas prior to participating in any review; the purpose of the self study, the State standards and criteria, the procedure for proposal review, the procedure for site visits, the review of timelines, the completion of team reports, the reimbursement of expenses, the evaluation of the Institution and the background of, rationale for, and the review procedure of NCATE.

4.4.4 Persons taking part in State Team member training shall be reimbursed for expenses in accordance with the Department’s guidelines.

4.5 The Program shall prepare the Proposal which shows how it meets the Department of Education Program Approval Standards and the Delaware Licensure and Certification Regulations.

4.5.1 Five (5) copies of the self study, and all applicable catalogs, shall be submitted at least six (6) months prior to the visit of the state team.

4.5.2 Proposals, student exemplars, and additional materials requested for each Program shall be reviewed by appropriate Program Proposal reviewers at the Department and the review on the content and quality of each shall be made available to the State Team at least three (3) months prior to the visit of the State Team. If any aspect of the Proposal is deemed inadequate, the Administrator may contact the Institution to supplement the submission or may return the Proposal to the Program.

4.5.3 The Department Team shall verify the accuracy of the Proposal, consider the Department review and write a draft report on the Program. The report shall make recommendations for full approval, provisional approval, or disapproval of the Program.

4.6 The final report of the State Team members on the Program(s) shall be due to the Administrator or the chair of the team three (3) weeks after the last day of the visit.

4.7 Within ten (10) weeks of the last day of the visit, the Administrator or the chair of the State Team shall submit the final draft of the report to the Program for the correction of factual errors only. The Program shall return the final draft to the Administrator with factual errors and suggested corrections noted, within two (2) weeks

4.8 All approved Programs shall be evaluated by Department staff for compliance with the NASDTEC reciprocity Agreement.

4.9 Institutions or Programs reviewed shall submit a report for any provisionally approved Programs as requested by the Department. The report shall detail how previous weaknesses, if any, have been addressed.

5.0 Provisional Program Approval for New Programs

5.1 An Institution that has approved educator preparation Programs may request interim provisional Program approval for new education Programs added between regularly scheduled reviews. The following documentation shall be supplied to the administrator:

5.1.1 A description of the Program for which approval is sought and other administrative information;

5.1.2 The curriculum for the Program, including syllabi for any new courses;

5.1.3 Descriptions of the expected outcomes of the Programs and of how those outcomes will be assessed;

5.1.4 Vitae for all faculty delivering the Program; and

5.1.5 Descriptions of materials, media and resources available for the Program, and how technology is integrated into the curriculum or Program.

5.2 An Institution currently operating approved educator preparation Programs may seek approval for a Program in a teaching, specialist services or administrative area provided the self study contains sufficient justification to warrant the new specialization. The Institution is encouraged to collaborate with the Department during the Program’s initial planning. The Institution must identify the Program objectives for the new Program from which the curriculum shall be developed.

5.3 Experimental or innovative Programs that do not meet NCATE standards may be allowed by the Department. Such an allowance may be requested by submitting the material for new Programs, and where the standards are not met, a rationale for the exception(s). Experimental or innovative Programs that are approved by the Department shall be given provisional approval; full approval may not be granted until a full on site review of the Program takes place, or it is recommended and approved by the Secretary.

5.4 Satisfactory Programs that have received only paper review, without full on site verification, will be granted provisional approval. Full approval may not be granted until a full on site review of the Institution takes place, or is recommended and approved by the Secretary.

6.0 Programs That Do Not Receive Accreditation by NCATE

6.1 Institutions that do not receive NCATE accreditation, and which have exhausted or decided not to use the NCATE rejoinder process, will have a period of time agreed upon by the Institution and the liaison in which to submit additional materials which demonstrate how the Institution meets the NCATE Standards and Program Approval Standards. Such Programs will only be eligible for provisional approval for three (3) years; renewal after that time will be contingent upon a full site review.

6.2 Programs submitted to SPA that do not receive Program approval from those organizations, and which have exhausted or decided not to use the NCATE rejoinder process, have up to Thirty (30) working days after the chair submits the written report to supplement the portfolios, if needed, to demonstrate how they meet the NCATE Standards and Program Approval Standards.

6.2.1 Programs that do not receive SPA approval should submit materials to the Department in accordance with the provisions set forth in 4.0.

6.3 Programs that do not meet the NCATE standards, Delaware Teacher and Administrator Standards, or the State’s licensure and certification regulations at the full approval level, shall be given either provisional approval or not be approved to operate. All Programs given provisional approval shall:

6.3.1 Report annually to the Administrator on the progress made on those standards that were not met.

6.3.2 Undergo portfolio submission and site review within three (3) years from the date of provisional approval.

6.4 Institutions that do not receive full or provisional approval through review pursuant to NCATE Standards or Delaware Program Approval Standards shall not be permitted to operate licensure Programs in Delaware.

7.0 Required Format

The format of the NCATE report shall follow the format designated by NCATE and shall include recommendations on whether the Professional Education Unit and each individual Program shall receive approval to operate in Delaware.

8.0 Rejoinder Process

8.1 NCATE Review

8.1.1 If the Professional Education Unit or Program accreditation is not granted by NCATE, the Institution may contest any of the recommendations through the NCATE rejoinder process. The Department shall accept the decision of NCATE when their rejoinder process is followed.

8.2 Non SPA State Review

8.2.1 Within thirty (30) days after the State Team visit, the team chair shall prepare a report of the team visit, make a recommendation on the Program(s) and send two copies to the Institution, one to the Institution's president, and the other to the Institution's liaison for the review process.

8.2.1.1 The Institution shall respond within fifteen (15) days as to the accuracy of the factual information in the report of the team visit.

8.2.2 Intent to contest the recommendations: A letter shall be sent from the Institution's president or designee notifying the Secretary of their intent to contest the recommendations accompanied by a short statement explaining the rational for contesting the review. The letter must be received in the Office of the Secretary within ten (10) days of the delivery of the reports.

8.2.2.1 The Secretary shall review the materials submitted by the Institution including written statements of position, exemplars and comments supporting the claims.

8.2.2.2 The Secretary, after considering the evidence presented and the arguments made by the parties, shall make a decision and so inform the parties in writing of that decision. The decision of the Secretary is final.

9 DE Reg. 1835 (06/01/06) (Prop.)