• Commission on Teacher Credentialing

    Common Standards Preliminary Report of Findings

    Institution

    Burbank Unified School District

    Date of Review

    April 14, 2020 

    Please prepare an addendum that addresses those areas below that were deemed to require more information by reviewers during the Common Standards review and where specific evidence is requested for the site visit.  Brief narrative (less than 75 words) is allowable but response must include links to evidence that address the issue identified by the reviewers.  

    Posting the Addendum

    Information from the addendum must be posted on the institution’s accreditation website at least 60 days before the site visit, along with the original Common Standards document and feedback from the program reviewers.  Please do not resubmit your response to the items below, responses need only be added to your institution’s accreditation website in preparation for the 2020-2021 Site Visit.

    Standards Found to be Preliminarily Aligned

    none

    General Comments:

    1. Overall, the Common Standards Reviewers found it difficult to match the information provided about the program’s design with the evidence that was provided.  When posting the Addendum, please strengthen the connections between the narrative and the evidence provided to the narrative.
    2. The Common Standards Reviewers felt that many of the narratives provided by the program were generic definitions of teacher induction and lacked a personalized program design that reflect the context and needs of the local school district.  When crafting the Addendum and supporting evidence, the program is encouraged to personalize them to reflect Burbank Unified School District. 

     

    Standards Requiring More Information

    More Information Needed: Part(s) of the standards for which more information is needed

    Additional Specific Evidence Needed for the Site Visit 

    Response from Program (Addendum)

    Standard 1:  Institutional Infrastructure to Support Educator Preparation

    “The institution actively involves faculty, instructional personnel, and relevant stakeholders in the organization, coordination, and decision making for all educator preparation programs. “


    “The education unit ensures that faculty and instructional personnel regularly and systematically collaborate with colleagues in P-12 settings, college and university units and members of the broader educational community to improve educator preparation.”


    “The institution provides the unit with sufficient resources…”












    “The institution employs, assigns and retains only qualified persons to teach courses, provide professional development, and supervise field-based and clinical experiences.”







    “The education unit monitors a credential recommendation process that ensures that candidates recommended for a credential have met all requirements.”

    Documentation around how stakeholders impact the program is needed.






    While evidence of the Induction Advisory Committee meeting twice a year was found, is twice a year accurate or does this group meet more often?  What are other ways in which stakeholder groups collaborate in support of the Induction program?



    While in the CS submission “no additional documentation” is listed, there is a question in regards to financial support of the program.  Induction Advisory Committee notes indicate that finances are a concern with different ways of finding money under discussion.  Budgeting information would be appreciated, or at least an explanation of current and future expectations of financial support on the part of the LEA in regards to induction.



    In reviewing the documents linked, some seem to belong to an older version of the program (e.g. individual applications for elementary, SPED, and secondary induction program TOSA’s) while some seem current (e.g. mentor: roles and responsibilities, application, selection metrics).  If documents are no longer used, please remove them.  If they are still used, explanations as to how, in conjunction with the other documents, is appreciated.


    Clarity around the actual process a candidate experiences, vs. completion requirements is needed.















    Standard 2:  Candidate Recruitment and Support

    “The education unit accepts applicants for its educator preparation programs based on clear criteria that include multiple measures of candidate qualifications.”


    “The education unit purposefully recruits and admits candidates to diversify the educator pool in California…” 


    “Evidence regarding progress in meeting competency and performance expectations is consistently used to guide advisement and candidate support efforts. A clearly defined process is in place to identify and support candidates who need additional assistance to meet competencies.”

    What is the “clear criteria” that is used?







    How is recruitment of a diverse teaching staff conducted?




    Please clarify the process to identify and support candidates who need additional assistance.

    		  

    Standard 3: Course of Study, Fieldwork, and Clinical Practice. 

    “Site-based supervisors are trained in supervision, oriented to the supervisory role, evaluated and recognized in a systematic manner.”

    Evidence is needed of how site-based supervisors (mentors) are evaluated in a systematic manner.


    Evidence needed of how the program evaluates fieldwork and clinical practice.

    		  

    Standard 4: Continuous Improvement

    “The continuous improvement process includes multiple sources of data including 1) the extent to which candidates are prepared to enter professional practice; and 2) feedback from key stakeholders such as employers and community partners about the quality of the preparation.”

    How do stakeholders such as employers and community partners provide feedback about the quality of the preparation?

    Please provide evidence of such feedback and how it is used in the continuous improvement process.


    In the graphic, please clarify when multiple sources of data are used in the  continuous improvement process.


    The links to the 2019 Mentor and Mentee Mid-Year Surveys go to surveys that include Fall 2017 in the title.

    Please clarify which date is correct.


    Clarify who serves on the advisory committee, both names and positions.

    		  

    Standard 5: Program Impact

    “The unit and its programs evaluate and demonstrate that they are having a positive impact on candidate learning and competence and on teaching and learning in schools that serve California students.”

    What other data besides surveys does the unit and program use to evaluate and demonstrate that they are having a positive impact on teaching and learning in schools that serve CA students?