By: Paul Yoder, Associate Professor of English and Education, Truman State University

Let’s face it—SPA review and subsequent unit accreditation is a stressful time. Developing and revising assessments, collecting and analyzing data, initiating and executing programmatic change, and holding onto positive faculty morale is often a daunting challenge. Lots of moving parts to manage, not to mention the time it takes to get all this done. It’s a herculean task on top of the most important job we have—producing highly effective teachers. Too often, program administrators, faculty, and staff find the process an either/or proposition. They turn to SPA review as a time that takes away from preparing teachers. None of us got into Teacher Education to get rich; we got into Education to make a difference in the lives of our teachers, and more importantly, in the lives of the students they teach. 

This is my tenth year as a SPA reviewer, and now NCTE national coordinator for SPA review. From the time I began, I was struck by what some misinterpret as a disconnect between the value of the SPA review process and the outcomes of quality teacher preparation. NCTE believes this is misguided thinking. SPA review is not about doing something “on top” of quality teacher preparation, but instead it is a way to increase the quality outcomes and effectiveness of our teacher candidates. The process of review and the process of strengthening our ELA programs are not distinct elements working in opposition to each other. Instead, one enhances the other. 

I approach SPA review not as a hammer, not as a punitive measure, and certainly not as the ‘Standards Police’. Such thinking is not only counterproductive but destructive, and the antithesis of what SPA review is intended to be. SPA review is a collegial ‘conversation’ intended to provide support and guidance in efforts to help programs continually improve. NCTE is committed to working with programs to achieve that end. SPA review is a joint effort between NCTE and our programs to improve the quality of teacher training and the positive outcomes we see in our ELA candidates. 

So how do we continue (as partners) to move forward and make the review process a useful, productive, and meaningful experience—not to mention one that is a bit less stressful? We begin with the old 2003 NCTE standards. As all our programs know, the ‘old’ set of standards were quite narrow. 32 precise statements that required exacting focus. While the content of those standards was important and relevant to the ELA classroom, the way they were structured sometimes limited programs in the way they designed their assessments. A narrow standard with a limited focus calls for an equally narrow and limited assessment measure. This had the result of steering programs into similar patterns of assessment types and rubrics. The development of assessments was often interpreted as being dictated by the specificity of the standards. Unintentionally, we discovered that we were putting programs in a ‘box’ in order to provide data to support those standards. Often…too often…programs felt that they needed to offer one set of assessments to collect data for the review process, and then create other assessments that would allow them to meet the individual needs of their own teacher candidates. The result…the disconnect between review and practice. We needed a bridge. 

There is the misconception about communication. I’ve heard the story many times. You’re a junior faculty member, fresh off the scars of defending your PhD dissertation, when the knock comes on the door of your confining, windowless office. “You need a service project for your tenure portfolio, so we are going to ‘allow’ you the privilege of writing our English Language Arts SPA report.” The first thing that runs through your mind is a warm beach, peaceful massage, and a hot tub. Then all of a sudden, reality of “SPA” crashes down, and you find yourself alone…all alone. You hear words like standards, alignment, data driven decisions, and the most daunting of all words, “Accreditation!” You frantically begin to work on the report, trying to guess what “NCTE” wants, what “CAEP” wants, and putting all of your energy into creating something that is “correct”. This pulls you away from your own research interests, the time you spend with teacher candidates, and ultimately drains the energy you feel could be put into your own quality teaching. The result…the disconnect between review and practice. We needed a bridge. 

As a reviewer, my own frustration was trying to articulate to the programs through the cold abyss of cyberspace, where they could improve their program. I receive my assignments, 3-4 program reports knowing that each one will take me 7-8 hours of reading and commenting, not to mention the four courses I teach, the papers and time I need to spend with my own teacher candidates, the driving to school sites for observations, my own research agenda, the numerous committees we all serve on, and making sure that my daughter gets to her dance class on time. I then read the report, see where a program could improve, but my own time drain sneaks into my words, they sound corrective, not formative. They spark contention not cooperation. I then get to the fourth report, and I find myself getting tired and slipping into SPA speak—“The program has not provided a credible means of alignment through the invalidity of grouping assessment measures. Rubrics and data reporting need to be revised.”—What the…? The result…anger and confused disconnect between review and process. We needed a bridge. 

Let’s start building…

In 2013 NCTE adopted new standards. As the early program implementers have noticed, they are worded much more broadly than the 2003 standards. They are not numbered, but instead offer wide statements of expectation related to the content knowledge and pedagogical skills covered in ELA programs. Programs are still required to provide data to support the expectations articulated at the standard level, but no longer do programs have to shoe-horn 30+ distinct standards into their rubrics. They collect data at the standard level (this is indeed still a data driven process), but the collection of the data is no longer the most important component.
  
We are encouraging programs to explain through narrative how they are meeting the elements—the statements beneath each standard that articulate and define the standard itself. While programs still provide data to show candidate performance of the standard, the emphasis on narrative encourages programs to tell their specific story. We want to hear about what you are doing, opening the door to explain the innovative, creative, truly effective measures programs are taking to train teachers. Numbers are useful, but they don’t tell the entire story. And this is NCTE, we’re ENGLISH teachers; for most of us, “numbers” is not our first language. With the new standards, we free the boundaries, invite individuality, and provide an opportunity for a conversation. By allowing programs to show AND TELL what they are doing without being confined by overly proscriptive requirements, we at NCTE and CAEP hope to close that perceived disconnect between review and process. 

The 2013 standards invite programs to share their story, but NCTE wants to expand that conversation further. You are not alone. The review process is not one to be conducted in isolation, it is a welcoming and supportive endeavor that both begins and ends with collaboration. I speak personally when I say that I welcome the chance to converse with programs, to offer assistance connecting programs with each other so that they can share ideas, to be there not as the “police of the standards” but a colleague ready to lend a hand. NCTE is your partner in the review process; we’re here to help. 

And yes…we must remind ourselves that we as reviewers fall to the same frustrations as the programs. We volunteer our limited time, teach full loads, and try to balance work expectations with family obligations. We are human and sometimes lose sight of the real person sitting on the other side of the report. We don’t have a face to look at; just assessments, data, and analysis. There are times it can feel less than human, and as is natural, we sometimes respond in that manner. We, as reviewers, welcome the communication; the chance to be reminded that this is a human process. That we are all working as best we can on both sides of the report. The more we communicate, interact, ask questions, the more human this process becomes. The more we work together, the more the SPA report reflects the real people behind it. It becomes, for me as a reviewer, not just a report on a computer screen, but the reality of hard working teachers, school districts, and students all trying to become better at what we do. 

Never forget that we are partners in this process. We learn together, and we improve together. But for this process to be successful, communication has to move in all directions. As reviewers, as colleagues, we want to offer suggestions for improvement. But we hold a self-expectation for growth within the review process as well. We are reaching out to you as programs to help us better shape the process. The nature of SPA review is to provide a mechanism for growth so that programs can continually improve the quality of teacher preparation. NCTE and CAEP hold it a priority that we continue to improve the review process. NCTE has responded to programs’ requests for a more flexible system of review with standards that maintain quality expectations without being overly proscriptive. We believe that we have achieved those ends. But as we hold an expectation for programs to continually improve, NCTE embraces that same expectation. We want the review process to serve programs as a means for improvement not merely a compliance measure. What can we do, as a national organization, a recognition body, as colleagues and educators, to make this process not something you do in addition to preparing teachers, but as part of what makes teacher preparation effective? There should not be a disconnect between review and process. It must be one in the same. 

I began this article thinking about building a bridge, and I still believe it is an apt metaphor for what we at NCTE hope to accomplish with the SPA review process. However, as we enter into the first full year of the new standards, NCATE’s transition into CAEP, and a continuing development of the SPA review process, the bridge is already built. Come across—let’s do this together.