FIPSE+Directive

Each of these teams began in the same way we are asking you to begin, and that is to do some data gathering and reflection on your program. We suggest four important areas that need to be addressed. __These include the overall program vision for high quality mathematics__ and science teaching; documentation of courses, clinical experiences and other activities __where content__ and pedagogical knowledge is gained; an examination of the evidence that currently exists and which you use for assessment; and finally an analysis of the quality of the evidence that you consider in judging both your students and your program. Reflecting on each of these four areas should yield:
 * FIPSE Directive: Program Vision **


 * 1) A written document that describes your **program vision** for high quality mathematics and science teaching, focusing on specifying core subject matter knowledge and teaching skills in these disciplines for candidates being prepared to teach middle and secondary grades. You no doubt have an overall vision or conceptual framework developed for accreditation or state review.

** Questions for Analysis: ** How do you define the purposes for which you prepare teachers of mathematics and science? Where do you draw from to identify essential knowledge and pedagogical knowledge you expect of mathematics and science teachers? Is it primarily state standards, national disciplinary standards, or some combination?


 * 1) A map or other documentation of the **courses, clinical experiences, and other activities** through which your candidates acquire the subject matter knowledge and teaching skills necessary to reach your program vision for high quality teaching.

** Questions for Analysis: ** Given your identification of the essential content and pedagogical knowledge you expect of future mathematics and science teachers, where in your program is the knowledge developed? Which course or clinical experience do you rely on to develop each element of knowledge identified? Are their gaps in content or pedagogical content knowledge that you think important but for which you cannot identify precisely where it is developed? How can you fill in any gaps?


 * 1) A written document that describes the ** evidence that currently exists** through which the program gathers information to demonstrate that candidates are developing or have developed the subject matter knowledge, teaching skills, and performance needed to attain your program vision for high quality teaching.
 * Questions for Analysis:** How do you assess the readiness of students for admission to teacher education? How do you assess readiness to begin clinical work? How do you assess the presence of the essential content and pedagogical knowledge identified in points 1 and 2 above? How do you demonstrate to others that your students achieve what is needed to meet the vision you have identified for the program? What instruments do you use to follow up with candidates in the field ?


 * 1) __An **analysis of the quality (rigor, consistency, relevance, objectivity)** of all pieces of evidence used to assess candidate subject matter knowledge__, teaching skills, and performance. What we are asking for here is a critique by members of your team of the evidence currently in use by the program—highlighting gaps in evidence, concerns about quality, inconsistency, or other issues that your team thinks should be addressed to build and sustain a stronger evidence base. We suggest you approach this task from the standpoint of continuous improvement.
 * Questions for Analysis ** : Are there missing pieces of evidence? If so, what is missing? How would you include what is missing in future assessments? Are some pieces not as strong as they could be? If so, how could they be made stronger? Are there inconsistencies in the way evidence is collected (as an example, do you think every supervising teacher and university supervisor assess candidates the same way?) How can you assure consistency? Are there other inconsistencies in assessment you can identify? Are their gaps in the way certain kinds of knowledge or skills are defined and measured? If you include dispositions in your vision, how are they assessed? Do you account for the level of knowledge in the assessment approaches you use?