Staff Resources

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

Approval: July 2010
Implementation: September, 2012

The site visit teams will arrive at recommended ratings for the two components of Standard 1:

                1.A.  Membership, Meeting Requirements, and Operating Procedures
                1.B.  Meeting Activities, Recommendations, Collaboration

Directions: Under each standard is an individual criterion that needs to be assessed with an unmet, met, or exemplary rating. The overall rating is then a composite of all the criteria in that standard. 

Ratings in Standard 1:

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 recommendation.

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. There may be isolated “islands of excellence” within a standard that deserve commendation, but do not preclude an overall rating of “unmet.” However, those areas of strength should be identified by the team in the narrative and may also lead to an accolade.

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. 

Recommendations and Accolades: For areas in which the program shows specific strengths and/or weaknesses, the site team will note recommendations and accolades as part of the site team report.

Standard 1 Professional Education Advisory Board

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

 

Criteria

Unmet

Met

Exemplary

Examples of Evidence

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.

 

PEAB Bylaws

Membership roles 

Attendance records

PEAB Minutes

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. 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)

Met is defined as a quorum of voting members.

PEAB Bylaws

PEAB Minutes

PEAB interviews

 

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.

 

PEAB Minutes

PEAB interviews

 

1.B— Meeting Activities, Recommendations, and Collaboration

 

Criteria

Unmet

Met

Exemplary

Examples of Evidence

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 satsifiedf/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 satsifiedf/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 satsifiedf/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.

PEAB Minutes

PEAB interviews

Samples of data/information presented

Positive impact on student learning data

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. PEAB represents program in the field.

PEAB Minutes

Recommendation table

PEAB interviews

Faculty interviews

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.

PEAB Minutes

Recommendation table

PEAB interviews

Faculty interviews