PELSB staff conducts an initial audit for: SEP Title Alignment, scope of license, reporting year, double counting of hours with SEP or connected application, methods experience, required reading, field experience hours, student teaching weeks, admission criteria, key assessments assessing specific content standards and monitoring progress throughout the program, exit criteria, signed fiscal attestation, p-12 school partners, current teachers in content area, and program leader qualifications.
The provider may need to make changes or resubmit as nonconventional with a discretionary variance request.
Two content reviewers check to make sure that the intent, full breadth and depth, and all aspects of the teacher standards are taught and assessed within the program. Reviewers check to see if information reported in the matrices or excel spreadsheet is validated by the syllabi. Reviewers may contact the provider with questions with the support of PELSB staff. Under current rule, if all standards are met and the program is conventional, skip to step 11. If all standards are met and the program is non-conventional or alternative, skip to step 8.
Provider has an opportunity to respond to reviewer comments and make changes.
If RIPA submission is early enough, there can be a second content review where all "not met" and "met with weakness" standards are reviewed again.
Provider can offer a response.
The Program Review Panel (PRP) reviews the program application and makes a recommendation.
The Teacher Preparation Committee reviews the PRP recommendation and makes a recommendation to the full Board.
The Board makes a decision whether the program is initially approved.
Consider if external reviewers would be able to see the following elements in your RIPA application:
Intent: Does the course content, learning activities, and assessments align with the intent of the standard?
Full Standard: Is the full standard addressed through the learning activity(ies) and assessment(s) specified (not just one aspect of the standard)?
Breadth and depth: Is the breadth and depth of the standard able to be addressed through the identified activities/courses? Are too many standards overloaded into a single course or learning task?
Syllabi Verification: Do the syllabi validate what is reported in the matrix?
For RIPA applications undergoing a second review, consider these recommendations:
Use a different font color or highlight changes in the syllabus to allow reviewers to easily identify additional or changed information.
Upload a document with brief descriptions of changes made as a response to the first reviewers' findings.
Special Education RIPA Guidance
Guidance for meeting the pedagogy standards of MN Rule 8710.2000, the special education core standards of MN rule 8710.5000, and the specific SPED disability area as in MN rules 8710.5050 through 5850.
Submission by August 31 - Recommended for a September start date of the following year. There is time for two external reviews and two Program Review Panel (PRP) reviews, if needed.
Submission before December 31 - During this time, priority is given to the review of PERCAS and the RIPAs submitted by August 31. If time allows, new RIPAs will be processed, and only the April or May PRP evaluation will be possible. Therefore, there is no assurance that the review will be completed in time for launch in the fall.
Submission after December 31 - RIPAs may be submitted, but they will only be reviewed if time allows. They may be reviewed as late as July when the new RIPA window commences.
NOTE: All programs where external reviewers have found standards as "not met," nonconventional programs seeking a discretionary variance, and alternative programs must be reviewed by the PRP prior to Board action, so plan accordingly.