Staff Resources

Standard 1 (2010) - Professional Education Advisory Board (PEAB)

Adopted 9/19/14

Implementation September 2014

 

The site visit team will arrive at recommended ratings (unmet, met, or exemplary) for the two components of Standard 1:

 1.A.  Membership, Meeting Requirements, and Operating Procedure

1.B.  Meeting Activities, Recommendations, Collaboration


Exemplary

In judging a standard to be “exemplary,” the site visit team is indicating that the evidence meets a higher standard than it does for “met.” The evidence is:

      Both pervasive and consistent, showing that the standards are deeply embedded within the culture of the program.

      There are no discernible areas of weakness within the standard, and the evidence may include examples of innovative practices.

Met

In judging a standard to be “met,” the site visit team is indicating that there is clear and convincing evidence. “Clear and convincing” means that:

      The evidence is credible; i.e., it bears a clear relationship to the standards being assessed

      The evidence is representative of the program (e.g., evidence from an elective course taken by a small minority of candidates would not, by itself, be persuasive)

      The evidence comes from multiple sources

      Where appropriate, the evidence includes examples of candidate-based and student-based evidence

      The evidence, taken as a whole, would persuade a reasonable person that the standards are being met

 

These criteria do not assume that every element of the standards is present to an equal extent. There may be areas of weakness within a standard that do not preclude an overall rating of “met.” However, those areas of weakness should be identified by the team in the narrative and may also lead to a Required Action.

Accolades and Recommended Actions: For areas in which the program shows specific strengths and/or weaknesses as part of an overall met rating, the site team will note Accolades and Required Actions as part of the site team report.

Unmet

In judging a standard to be “unmet,” the site visit team is indicating that there is significant doubt that the program meets the specified criteria. The evidence may fall short for a number of reasons:

      It is not credible; i.e., it does not seem closely related to the standards

      It is sporadic or fragmentary, or may come from a single source

      There is no connection between the evidence and a positive impact on the candidates

      Taken as a whole, it would leave significant doubt that the standards are being met

These criteria do not assume that every element of the standards is absent.


1.A Membership, Meeting Requirements, and Operating Procedures

Criteria

Unmet

Met

Exemplary

1.  The PEAB membership is in compliance in accordance with WAC 181-78A-209 and/or 181-78A-520.

PEAB membership is not in compliance for one or more meetings.

PEAB membership is in compliance for all three meetings.

 

2.  The PEAB has adopted operating procedures and has met at least three times over the course of the year.

The PEAB has not adopted operating procedures. The PEAB has met fewer than three times over the course of the academic year.

The PEAB has adopted operating procedures and has met at least three times over the course of the year. A quorum was present during at least three PEAB meetings.  Meetings are spaced across academic year in order to allow program to respond to recommendations.

 PEAB members are involved in activities beyond the minimum meeting requirements (e.g., interviewing program completers, classroom visits, observation of candidates)

 

3.  The PEAB has reviewed all program approval standards at least once every five years.

The PEAB has not reviewed all program standards in a five-year period

The PEAB has reviewed all program standards at least once every five years.

 


 

1.B Meeting Activities, Recommendations, and Collaboration

Criteria

Unmet

Met

Exemplary

1.  The PEAB has annually reviewed and analyzed data for the purposes of determining whether candidates have a positive impact on student learning.

Less than 60% of PEAB members very satisfied/somewhat satisfied that actionable data was provided. PEAB members do not review data, or are unable to speak about the evidence presented by programs related to candidates' positive impact on student learning.

70% of PEAB members report very satisfied/somewhat satisfied that actionable data was provided. PEAB members are able to speak about the data presented by programs related to candidates' positive impact on student learning.

At least 90% of PEAB members report being very satisfied/somewhat satisfied that actionable data was provided. PEAB members speak with depth of understanding about the data presented by programs related to candidates' positive impact on student learning.

2.  The PEAB has made recommendations for program changes to the institution.

 

The PEAB has made only informal suggestions over the academic year. No information/data is provided on why the recommendation was initiated or that informed the recommendation.

The PEAB has made formal recommendation(s) over the academic year.  Recommendations are based on actionable data reviewed, and relate to program approval standards.

PEAB is proactive in making recommendations to the program.

3.  Programs must consider and respond to recommendations in writing in a timely fashion.

There were no recommendations, or the program does not respond to all recommendations within 6 months of dates of recommendations. Program provides incomplete or irrelevant recommendation data.

Program responds to all PEAB recommendations within 6 months of dates of recommendations. Program created a plan to collect evidence for implementation of the recommendation/s

Program provides data to the PEAB showing the impact of resolved/concluded recommendation/s. Program corresponds with PEAB between meetings.