27-month review

The review will produce the following information for program improvement and accountability:

• Better understanding of program design, implementation, and outcomes
• Opportunities for strategic input on preparation programming
• An approval decision by the PESB board

Program evaluation questions

1. How is the program being implemented relative to the design under which it was initially approved?
2. To what degree does the programs processes and outcomes align with PESB educator preparation program standards?
3. How is the program demonstrating outputs, processes, and outcomes?
4. How is the program assessing performance to design, develop, and implement improvement initiatives?

The 27-month review structure involves a collaborative review of evidence; a day-long, on-site review; and further examination of interview notes and additional evidence.

The review includes pre-review activities, the onsite review, post-review activities, and a presentation to the PESB board. Before, during, and after the site visit, the review team will use the following data sources to examine the program and make recommendations on each standard area:

• Performance of program indicators. The review will include all available annual analyses of data provided to PESB by the preparation program. These data will include, but not be limited to, approved and piloted indicators.
• Standards alignment. Program evidence demonstrating alignment with standards and state requirements will be compiled in secure, password protected, shared folders. Program providers, PESB staff, and review team members will have access to the files and review the evidence in two virtual seminar meetings prior to the site visit. Staff of the board will offer program providers guidance regarding the evidence required, how it may be gathered and used, and how it must be submitted.
• Design fidelity. The review team and the preparation program will evaluate whether, and to what degree the provider of the program has implemented the program in alignment with the goals and design for which it was approved. It is understood that all program providers will learn and adapt programming based on experiences within the first two years of operation. A focus on design fidelity assesses how, why, and in what ways the program as-offered differs from the program as-approved.
• Continuous improvement. The review team and the preparation program provider will evaluate whether and to what degree the program under review has demonstrated continuous improvement in its implementation and outcomes.

Review report

Following the site review and two virtual seminars, the review team will provide a report identifying any areas of practice in which program performance is out of alignment with standards and requirements. The program will have access to the report for three weeks, and will have the opportunity to make a response in writing. The program team and staff will present the report and response to the Board. Following the presentation, board members will discuss and make an approval decision:

• Fully approve the program: the program would be reviewed under the indicator-based program review model
• Re-approve the program under initial approval status: defined under 181-78A-110 and would trigger a 1-year follow up report, and subsequent board reapproval decision
• Disapprove the program: defined under the revisions to WAC 181-78A-110 and 115

Who is the report for?

• The Professional Educator Standards Board: The primary audience of the 27-month review report is PESB board members, who will use the report to make approval decisions. Board members will also use review reports to assess and further explore, quality and effectiveness of the state’s educator preparation system and make policy decisions related to standards, approval, and review.
• The preparation program being reviewed: The 27-month review provides outside insight by focusing on critical areas of practice and highlighting promising approaches. The review addresses all areas of program standards, program leaders’ goals, and areas of practice identified through evaluation.
• The field of educator preparation: Another key audience is the wider field of educator preparation. The review will identify and explore innovative and effective practices for the purpose of examining and sharing these practices.

When new programs are initially approved, they are considered to be in limited approval status. The 27-month review takes place between a program’s initial approval and full approval. This time frame between initial approval and the 27-month review is considered one full review period.

Why 27-months?

Twenty-seven months is not an arbitrary amount of time for this proposed program review. After this period, program leaders will have experienced two annual academic cycles and will have submitted two annual cycles of program data. Review after two academic cycles with multiple years of data submission will be sufficient to provide insight into how programs are aligning with standards, outcomes, and the degree to which programs are operating as-approved.