Board of Examiners Report - Southeastern …€¦ · Web view1e.6 Action Research 1e.7 Diversity...

1

Type of Visit:

First◙Continuing Combination Probation Focused

Accreditation Visit to:

SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA UNIVERSITYHammond, Louisiana April 12-16, 2008

NCATE Board of Examiners Team: G. H. Budd Sapp, ChairLorraine Cornish-HarrisonBetty DoreJann Hill

State Team: Linda Easley, Chair Raenell Houston Quentina Timoll

State Consultant: Frances Davis

NEA or AFT Representative: NA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageI. Introduction 4

II. Conceptual Framework 5

III. Findings for Each Standard

Standard 1 6

Standard 2 15

Standard 3 19

Standard 4 23

Standard 5 27

Standard 6 31

IV. Sources of Evidence 35

2

SUMMARY FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNITNational Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

Institution: Southeastern Louisiana University

StandardsTeam Findings

Initial Advanced

1 Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions M M

2 Assessment System and Unit Evaluation M M

3 Field Experiences and Clinical Practice M M

4 Diversity M M

5 Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

M M

6 Unit Governance and Resources M M

M = Standard MetNM = Standard Not Met

3

I. INTRODUCTION

Southeastern Louisiana University (Southeastern) is located in Hammond, approximately 50 miles north of New Orleans and about 45 miles southeast of Baton Rouge, the state capital. Southeastern is the outgrowth of the Hammond Junior College established in 1925 by the citizens of the southern half of Tangipahoa Parish. Act 136 of the 1928 State Legislature made Southeastern part of the state educational system with the right to establish a four-year curriculum and grant baccalaureate degrees. Southeastern was accepted into full membership in the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools in 1946. Southeastern was authorized to award master’s degrees in 1960, and in 2006 was authorized to award the Doctorate of Education through a joint program offered by the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and Southeastern Louisiana University. The mission of Southeastern is to lead the educational, economic, and cultural development of southeast Louisiana.

The unit is comprised of the College of Education and Human Development (COEHD) and its partner colleges. The COEHD is responsible for managing and coordinating all initial and advanced preparation programs offered for candidates and other school professionals. The professional education unit includes the Departments of Teaching & Learning (T&L), Educational Leadership & Technology (ELT), and Counseling & Human Development (CHD) in the COEHD; Departments of Art, English, Foreign Language, History and Political Science, and Music in the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences (AHSS); Departments of Mathematics, Biological Sciences, and Chemistry & Physics in the College of Science and Technology (ST); and the Department of Kinesiology and Health Studies in the College of Nursing and Health Studies (NHS).

Louisiana is an NCATE partnership state. Four national team members and three state team members conducted the review. A state consultant was present throughout the visit and did not have voting privileges. NCATE and state team members worked together, sharing equal roles and responsibilities in all functions of the review. The BOE team operated as a combined team, made a single recommendation for each standard, and wrote a single report. There were no unusual circumstances that affected the visit except that the assigned AFT representative made limited electronic communications related to the logistics of the visit and did not attend the visit.

Southeastern offers a total of 21 programs which prepare candidates to work with students in PK-12 schools. While Southeastern offers courses off-campus at the St. Tammany Center and Livingston Technology Center, as well as internet courses, no programs are offered totally as off-campus or distance learning programs. Interviews and exhibits document that candidates receive high quality experiences in both off-campus and online venues.

4

II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The COEHD faculty and its partners reflected on the mission and vision of the institution to establish a model framework to prepare candidates who will set the standard for excellence through best practices. As a result, the mission states: “The COEHD exists to serve the regional, state, national, and global communities by developing effective professionals through implementing innovative and progressive programs.” The unit’s vision is: “The faculty of the COEHD prepares candidates to become effective professionals who set the standard for excellence through best practices.”

The unit’s conceptual framework (CF) is based on current research about effective teaching and learning for both novice and accomplished teachers and for educational leaders. The CF provides the structure necessary to accomplish the goal of preparing effective professionals who will positively impact the lives of students, families, and communities. The CF is reflected in the unit’s curriculum, instruction, field experiences, and assessments and includes the following components: knowledge of learner (KL), strategies and methods (SM), content knowledge (CK), and professional standards (PS). The components are briefly described as: KL (candidates’ understanding of the learner which is necessary to provide effective and equitable instruction); SM (strategies and methods appropriate to each program within the educational unit which are necessary to develop effective professionals); CK (candidates’ thorough understanding of the content appropriate to the area of specialization); and PS (established criteria that guide effective professionals in each discipline area). Diversity and technology are infused in the CF as themes integrated throughout all programs in the unit.

The components of the CF along with the two integrated themes of diversity and technology are supported by established theoretical perspectives and research-driven practices. The CF reflects the unit’s commitment to preparing effective professionals who will support learning for all students. The unit addresses professional standards from a number of professional organizations and councils. The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) standards were adopted by T&L for initial certification programs; T&L advanced programs adopted the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS); and advanced programs in ELT adopted standards from the Educational Leadership Constituency Council (ELCC) and International Society of Technology in Education Standards (ISTE).

Each candidate’s progress is documented and assessed, and portals within the assessment system ensure candidates have successfully achieved expectations before advancing. The transition points or portals include admission, admission to teacher education, program progress, student teaching/internship, and first year induction. The CF served as the foundation for developing the unit’s electronic assessment system, Professional Accountability Support System using a PORTal Approach (PASS-PORT). The electronic portfolios contain artifacts which support the achievement of skills associated with the respective standards. Assessment results are used for improvement by candidates to guide and refine learning; by instructors to identify strengths and weaknesses in individual course instruction; by departments to show overall strengths and weaknesses as well as to generate institutional reports and complete program assessments; and by the unit for needs assessment, program review and revisions, and accountability.

5

III. STANDARDS

Standard 1

Information reported in the institutional report for Standard 1 was validated in the exhibits and

interviews. [X]Yes [ ] No

Element Unacceptable Acceptable Target1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates – Advanced Teacher Preparation

X

Summary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation: Southeastern offers a total of 14 programs and/or concentrations that prepare candidates at the initial level. Of the 14 programs, 12 were submitted to Specialized Professional Associations (SPAs) for review. Six programs received national recognition, five received national recognition with conditions, and one was not recognized through the SPA process. Southeastern received national recognition status from the following SPAs: National Association for the Education of Young Children, Association for Childhood Education International, National Middle Schools Association, National Council of Teachers of Mathematic, and National Council for the Social Studies. Southeastern received the status of national recognition with conditions from the following SPAs (brief explanations of conditions are included): Council for Exceptional Children (evidence is not provided that candidates receive field/clinical experiences at the appropriate age/grade levels to receive the special education K-12 endorsement); National Council of Teachers of English (the program needs to show how candidates demonstrate knowledge of, and uses for, an extensive range of literature; PRAXIS II test data, corrupted in the prior submission, needs to be updated and resubmitted to show that the NCATE 80% pass requirement has been met over the three year requirement); American Council of the Teaching of Foreign Languages (clarify that interviews of candidates who take the Oral Proficiency Interview with certified testers on campus undergo a second blind rating; scoring guides for assessments provide more specific information that delineate different levels of performance which will help ensure that all evaluators are using the same criteria and that the assessment provides useful feedback to the candidates); American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance/National Association for Sport and Physical Education (add more explanation about how the sub-sections of the content area exam align to the outcomes within Standard 1; rubrics used in assessments must be more clearly aligned with outcomes under standards while identifying clear and distinct levels of candidate proficiencies; provide more specific evidence of how data from assessments have influenced decisions to improve the program and subsequent candidate performance); and National Science Teachers Association (data for a total of five assessments is required; when the program submits the data, please also include the rubrics and reflections on possible changes based on the use of the instruments). Two initial programs, music education and art education, were submitted to their respective professional organizations for review. The Bachelor of Music Education is accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music; the Bachelor of Arts in Art Education is still under review by the National Association of Schools of Art and Design. Table 2 in the institutional report (IR) presents the current status of each program. Review of documents and interviews with administrators and faculty confirm the unit

6

is in the process of revising programs in response to conditions cited in SPA reports.

Candidates in initial preparation programs acquire content knowledge through a series of content-based courses, professional development activities, and field/clinical experiences. Five sources provide quantitative evidence of content knowledge: performance on PRAXIS II specialty tests, coursework performance, professional development activities, performance-based assessments in field experiences and clinical practice, and follow-up surveys. Initial level candidates are required to submit three unit level portfolios which are assessed as they progress through their programs: an introductory portfolio in portal 2, a developing portfolio in portal 3, and a competency portfolio in portal 4.

Data show the pass rates on Praxis II content exams for candidates in all initial programs is 100 percent. Candidates must earn a grade of “C” or better in specialized content area courses in their major and have a GPA of 2.5 to be for eligible to enroll in senior-level professional education coursework. Documentation provides evidence of acquisition of content knowledge through professional development hours as documented in e-folios for portals 2, 3, and 4 during fall 2006 through 2007. Professional development activities are reviewed for approval concerning content area relevance. Data for fall 2006 - fall 2007 show 96 percent or more of the candidates met or exceeded the specified hours for professional development activities. Documentation for fall 2006 - fall 2007 provides performance data from student teaching evaluation forms that show candidates plan, teach, and evaluate content well and have an overall content knowledge score of 3.72 or higher on a four point scale. Follow-up surveys from principals and mentor teachers for 2005-06 and 2006-07 indicate graduates know their subject matter, rating them 3.6 and above on a four point scale related to items addressing content knowledge competency. Likewise, a 2005-2006 follow-up survey of first year teachers provides self-reported data that graduates perceive themselves as having content area expertise, scoring themselves 3.7 and above on a four point scale on items related to knowledge of subject matter.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation: COEHD offers two advanced teacher preparation programs, Special Education and Curriculum and Instruction. The master’s degree in Special Education received national recognition with conditions through the SPA process. The conditions noted in the SPA report include: assessments, data, and rubrics need to provide evidence of how requirements of candidates directly align with CEC standards and how these will be evaluated. The master’s degree in Curriculum and Instruction has state approval. Experienced teachers in advanced level programs demonstrate their content knowledge competency through course performance and projects, professional development activities, written comprehensive exams or action research projects, and electronic portfolios.

For advanced level teacher education candidates, a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or better in all graduate coursework is a criterion for graduation. Additionally, unit portfolios include artifacts from core courses indicating competence on content knowledge. Candidates are required to complete and document a minimum of 25 hours of acceptable professional development activities (PDA). During 2006-2007, advanced candidates engaged in a variety of professional development opportunities such as community service, conferences, workshops, and training programs. The hours and types of activities are documented.

7

The comprehensive written exam, taken during the final semester, requires candidates to demonstrate in-depth understanding of their content areas and pedagogy as well as research methods. Ninety-four percent of candidates who took the comprehensive exam in fall 2006-fall 2007 passed. Documentation provides information for each concentration area. These data indicate candidates mastered the content knowledge required by their degree plans. The unit revised or is revising many of its programs and will require an action research project in place of the written comprehensive exam in the future.

Advanced level candidates are required to submit three unit level portfolios: an emerging portfolio in portal 7, a proficiency portfolio in portal 8, and a capstone portfolio in portal 9. Items one and two on the advanced folio assessment rubric demonstrate candidate content knowledge. Item one requires candidates to submit artifacts as evidence of progress in the acquisition of content knowledge. Item two requires candidates to justify connecting artifacts that relate to appropriate program, national, and institutional standards. These artifacts provide evidence candidates have an understanding of content-related standards. Summary data for fall 2006-fall 2007 indicate that, on a scale from “unacceptable” to “exceeds expectations,” 89 percent or more of the candidates “met” or “exceeded” expectations on the six portfolio elements assessed.

The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (IRA) administers an employer survey every two years. Due to Hurricane Katrina, the 2004 employer survey is the most recent one available. Thirty-six percent of employers responding to the survey were PK-12 education employers who reported that Southeastern graduates were well prepared to teach. Results are summarized for the 2005-2006 graduate programs in the Curriculum and Instruction and Special Education employee follow-up surveys. Eighty-nine percent of those responding perceive their knowledge of content to be “exemplary” on a scale of “unacceptable” to “exemplary.” Also, one hundred percent of the advanced candidates indicate they use professional standards to develop knowledge, skills and dispositions to become effective educators and help all students learn. 1b. Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teachers – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

1b. Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teachers – Advanced Teacher Preparation

X

Summary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation: Candidates in initial programs demonstrate their pedagogical content knowledge through the classroom management plan, the lesson plan, the Louisiana Reading Competencies Assessment, Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching results, and follow-up surveys. On a four point scale, candidates in the initial programs for fall 2006 through fall 2007 demonstrated pedagogical content competency in classroom management by scoring 3.54 or higher on all four relevant items of the classroom management plan and lesson planning competency by scoring 3.53 or higher on all eight relevant items of the lesson plan assessment. In addition, Title II reports for 2003-2007 indicate that one hundred percent of the candidates passed the Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching tests. Using a four point scale, the teacher education graduate follow-up survey for 2006-2007 reports data from 46 principals in two school districts rated candidates on several relevant items: instruction (3.44), content knowledge: Louisiana content standards and benchmarks (3.44), content knowledge: relevant up-to-date, content including components, principles, relationships, methods of inquiry, and key issues (3.44).

8

Candidates demonstrate their ability to present content in clear and meaningful ways using technology through the completion of a technology portfolio, one item on the lesson plan assessment, two items on the final report on student teaching form and the post technology self-assessment. The portfolios are a course requirement and are evaluated by the instructor. Items from the lesson plan assessment form and student teaching data for fall 2007 through fall 2007 demonstrate candidates are competent in the use of technology, scoring an average of 3.6 or better on a four point scale, on use and integration of technology. Self-assessment data demonstrate candidates have confidence in their ability to use technology effectively.

A review of syllabi, student artifacts and portfolios confirm candidates are required to integrate technology into their teaching through course-based products and field-based projects. Cooperating teachers reported clinical practice interns used a variety of technology in preparing and teaching lessons.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation: Candidates in advanced programs demonstrate an in-depth understanding of content and theories related to learning through course performance and projects, a written comprehensive exam or action research project, and unit-level portfolios. Candidates in advanced programs take 27-45 hours of coursework, depending on the program, and must maintain a 3.0 GPA in all graduate coursework to graduate; in 2006-2007, advanced candidates achieved an overall GPA of 3.7. Documents show results of written comprehensive exams for 2006-2007 in elementary education, ESL, gifted education, K/PK3, reading, secondary education, and special education. Fifty-three candidates took the written exams, with 94 percent passing. Portfolio results for fall 2006 -fall 2007 show 46 candidates submitted e-folios with 89 percent or better scoring “meets” or “exceeds” expectations on artifacts and reflections, using a scale of “unacceptable” to “exceeds expectations.”

The candidate’s ability to use technology to enhance student learning is evidenced through course-based artifacts, action research projects, and e-folios. Candidates complete course-based projects which are included as artifacts in their portfolios. All candidates are required to use a variety of technologies in the delivery of papers, projects, and presentations throughout their programs.

A review of artifacts and reflections of learning in candidates’ PASS-PORT entries at each portal attest to the fact advanced level candidates are able to use a broad range of instructional strategies and technologies to promote student learning and can connect these to NBPTS standards and the unit’s conceptual framework/institutional standards. Interviews with faculty and candidates verify each program requires candidates to demonstrate competency in all areas. 1c. Pedagogical and Professional Knowledge and Skills for Teachers – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

1c. Pedagogical and Professional Knowledge and Skills for Teachers – Advanced Teacher Preparation

X

Summary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation: The unit assesses candidates’ professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills through artifacts evaluated and submitted as part of a candidate’s introductory, developing, and competency level portfolios. Candidates must relate artifacts to appropriate INTASC standards

9

and write a brief reflection on the chosen standard. On a scale from “unacceptable” to “exceeds expectations,” documents indicate between fall 2006 and fall 2007, eighty-three percent or better of the candidates received “meets” or “exceeds” expectations on artifacts and 86 percent or better received “meets” or “exceeds” expectations on relating standards to artifacts.

Assessment items on the final report on student teaching form are aligned with the INTASC standards which address candidates’ knowledge and skills in relation to the consideration of school, family, and community contexts; the prior experience of students; knowledge of the ways children and adolescents develop and the relationship to learning; knowledge of professional ethics, laws, and policies; and knowledge and skills in the use of research in teaching. From fall 2006 to fall 2007, as documented, all candidates scored 3.4 or better on all items.

The teacher education graduate follow-up survey summary for 2006-2007 provides evidence of candidates’ professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. According to survey results, 46 principals in two school districts rated Southeastern graduates as follows on a four point scale: student achievement (3.65), instruction (3.65), planning (3.65), collaboration (3.60), and management (3.60), diversity (3.23) and professional development (3.30). Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation: Candidates in advanced programs demonstrate their professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills through course performance and projects, an action research project or comprehensive written exam, and unit-level portfolios. Advanced level degree programs are structured around the five propositions of the NBPTS and discipline specific standards. Candidates take coursework aligned with their disciplines which require them to reflect on their practices, to identify and address areas needing improvement, to design instruction based on students’ prior experiences, to understand the impact of school, family and community contexts on student learning, and to analyze and apply current educational research.

Various projects and assignments are identified for inclusion in the portfolio as evidence of candidate competency. Selected artifacts and reflections of learning are uploaded into PASS-PORT to be used in the evaluation of unit portfolios at each portal. In reflections of learning, advanced level candidates are required to reflect on their professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills and connect these to the CF and to professional and institutional standards. The assessment data indicate advanced level candidates scored 2.17 or better, on a three point scale, on all five NBPTS propositions, indicating an adequate level of competence in professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills.

Survey data from the 2004 employer survey and the 2005-2006 graduate programs Curriculum and Instruction and Special Education employee follow-up survey indicated graduates have the professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills needed to be successful. Based on a scale of “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied,” data in the 2005-2006 exit survey of advanced graduates indicated 95% were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their preparation for work in advanced fields.1d. Student Learning for Teachers – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

1d. Student Learning for Teachers – Advanced Teacher Preparation

X

10

Summary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation: Candidates in initial programs demonstrate the ability to assess student learning and develop meaningful learning experiences based on assessment results through course-based assignments and through the development and implementation of field-based assessment plans. Candidates plan pre- and post-tests which measure the progress of students in learning lesson objectives and goals. Assessment plans are developed and implemented in the methods course(s) and student teaching/internship and uploaded into PASS-PORT to be used in the evaluation of unit portfolios at each portal. For the past three semesters, candidates have been evaluated on four items related to their assessment plans: develops well constructed assessment instruments/ procedures/ performances, uses appropriate and effective assessment techniques, produces evidence of student academic growth under his/her instruction, and interprets and utilizes standardized/non-standardized test results. Summary data provided show candidates have a positive impact on student learning, with candidates averaging 3.72 or better on a four point scale on all four items.

The 2006-2007 three-year follow-up survey data from 46 principals in two school districts reported on 133 third year teachers; they perceived Southeastern graduates to be most effective in seven areas which included student learning. Self-reported data on the teacher education graduate follow-up survey for 2006-2007 reveal graduates perceive themselves as effective in their ability to impact student learning, with an average score of 3.89 on a four point scale. Additionally, comments from the district representatives confirm candidates have a positive impact on student learning.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation: In advanced programs, the candidate’s ability to impact student learning is measured using NBPTS. A variety of artifacts such as case studies, assessments, and lesson plans are used to assess student learning with regard to Proposition 2 of NBPTS which states “teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students” and Proposition 4 of NBPTS which states “teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.” The NBPTS summary shows candidates meet expectations with ratings on a three point scale of 2.23 for Proposition 2 and 2.20 for Proposition 3.

Data reported on the assessment plan summary, which is completed during the student teaching/internship experience, provide evidence candidates assess and analyze student learning, make appropriate adjustments to instruction, consider developmental levels and prior experience when designing lessons, and monitor progress. Data for fall 2006 through fall 2007 demonstrate that, overall, candidates scored 3.72 or better on all elements related to a four point scale. Self-reported data from the Louisiana State Standards (LASS) survey indicate the majority of candidates feel they have adequate knowledge or are well informed about this performance standard. 1e. Professional Knowledge for Other School Professionals

X

Summary of Findings: Southeastern offers five programs designed to prepare other school personnel. COEHD offers four programs: Educational Leadership (Master’s and Doctoral), ELT, and School Counseling. School Counseling is accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). The Educational Leadership program at the master’s level received national recognition with conditions from the Educational Leadership Constituent

11

Council. The specified conditions included the following: submit updated data tables for all assessments; continue to collect and review data for each standard element from the new program as the transition progresses so that current data will be available data results; and address the standard elements that are not met in this report in both the content assessments and skill assessments. NHS offers a Master of Science degree in Communication Science and Disorders which prepares candidates as speech-language pathologists and is accredited by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (SAHA). Evidence addressing professional competencies for candidates in the School Counseling and Speech-Language Pathology programs is found in the CACREP and SAHA accreditation reports respectively.

Evidence that candidates in other programs for school professionals are knowledgeable in their field, can apply professional standards, and use research to improve practice is provided through a variety of assessment methods such as scores on licensure exams, case studies, action research projects, environmental scans, successful completion of portfolio requirements for portals seven, eight and nine, and exit surveys. SPA reports for each program provide evidence candidates are assessed regularly and must demonstrate acceptable levels of competency at each phase of the program in order to graduate. In programs where licensure exams are required, passing rates for all candidates exceed 80 percent.

With respect to technology, candidates use a variety of technologies in the delivery of papers, projects, and presentations through coursework specific to their area of study. All candidates are required to demonstrate competency using PASS-PORT and Blackboard, as well as word processing, spreadsheets, PowerPoint and multimedia in assignments as part of their portfolio requirements. A review of SPA reports, syllabi, program-specific artifacts, and portfolios as well as interviews with faculty and candidates document each program requires candidates to demonstrate competency in all areas. 1f. Student Learning for Other School Professionals

X

Summary of Findings:

Candidates in advanced programs for other school professionals demonstrate their ability to create positive learning environments for students, to build on developmental levels of students, and to understand community, family and community diversity as they present their portfolios and progress through portals 6 through 10 of their program. A review of SPA reports, syllabi, program-specific artifacts, and portfolios as well as interviews with faculty and candidates confirm each program requires candidates to demonstrate competency in all areas.

1g. Professional Dispositions X

Summary of Findings:

The unit advocates and assesses four dispositions: professional attributes, professional characteristics, professional relationships, and fairness. All candidates in all programs are assessed using the professional attribute and characteristic scale. Faculty and school personnel evaluate the demonstration of dispositions and feedback is provided about candidate progress

12

throughout the program.

The summary data on the professional attribute and characteristic scale assessment presented show ninety percent of the candidates in initial programs demonstrated competency on each component of the four main categories. Documents provide a summary of pre- and post- assessment data for advanced candidates from spring 2006 to spring 2007, showing a slight increase in the average of all attributes from 5.63 to 5.69 on a six point scale. Programs for other school professionals use internship evaluation instruments completed by unit faculty and field-based supervisors to assess the professional dispositions of candidates.

A review of the data and interviews with faculty and candidates confirm the unit’s four professional dispositions are aligned with the CF and assessed within programs using the professional attribute and characteristic scale. Cooperating teachers and P-12 administrators indicate candidates demonstrate the professional dispositions required to be effective teachers.

Summary of Strengths:

Initial and advanced candidates are well prepared in their content areas. Within all programs, there is a concerted effort to assure that theory is informed by practice in the field. The unit enjoys an excellent reputation in the region for preparing K-12 teachers and school personnel and creates effective and mutually beneficial partnership with school districts in the area. Comments from cooperating teachers and administrators indicate satisfaction with the quality of Southeastern candidates. Candidate and graduate interviews reveal a culture of support and professional relationships which positively impacts their success. The unit includes an exceptionally strong technology component, evident in all preparation programs. In addition, a comprehensive, well-organized, electronic assessment system verifies candidates and other school professionals possess the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to help all students learn.

Areas for Improvement and Rationales: AFIs corrected from last visit - None AFIs continued from last visit - None New AFIs - None

Recommendation: Standard 1 is met.

Corrections to the Institutional Report – None

13

Louisiana Standard A—Candidates Provide Effective Teaching for All Students

Candidates at Both the Initial and Advanced Level of the Teacher Education Program Provide Effective instruction and Assessment for All Students

The Louisiana Supplement Standards are aligned with both the LCET and INTASC standards. Candidate data indicate high ratings on each attribute of the LCET. The lesson plan rubric assesses the degree to which the lesson connects to state content standards, benchmarks, and Grade Level Expectations (GLEs).

Candidates use their knowledge of reform mathematics content and pedagogy to effectively teach lessons and assess student knowledge. Methods courses focus on the Louisiana mathematical strands and pervasive themes, including use of manipulatives and application of content to real life situations to impact student learning.

All candidates utilize the Louisiana reading competencies including topics in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing in PK-12 classrooms to impact student learning. The unit’s reading competencies have been approved by the state.

Recommendation: Met

Areas for Improvement: None

Louisiana Standard B—Candidates at the Initial and Advanced Level of Teacher Education Programs Participate in the Accountability and Testing Process

B.1 The teacher education program provides candidates at both the initial and advanced levels with knowledge and skills regarding the utilization of the Louisiana School and District Accountability System (LSDAS).B. 2 The teacher education program provides candidates at both the initial and advanced levels with information on the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP 21) to enhance their testing and measurement practices related to learning and instruction.

The Unit gathers information on candidates’ knowledge of Louisiana School and District Accountability System (LSDAS), and knowledge of the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP 21). Data indicate that candidates at the initial level are instructed in the utilization of the LSDAS in classrooms. Advanced candidates are required to take active roles in school improvement efforts, high stakes testing (LEAP 21), school and district accountability (LSDAS), and to work with supervisors to create community partnerships.

Recommendation: Met

Areas for Improvement: None

14

Standard 2


interviews. [X] Yes [ ] No

Element Unacceptable Acceptable Target2a. Assessment System – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

2a. Assessment System – Advanced Preparation XSummary of Findings: The unit assessment system reflects CF and professional and state standards. The four components of the CF; KL, SM, CK, and PS are embedded in the unit assessment system. Diversity and technology are included as themes which are integrated throughout all programs in the unit assessment system. Rubrics at both the initial and advanced levels contain components of the CF embedded in the described requirements. All candidates describe the CF in portfolio reflections. Professional and state standards are integral components of the CF and thus the unit assessment system.

The system is regularly evaluated by the professional community. Principle entities of the unit assessment system include the Standard 2 Committee (now called the Assessment Committee), the NCATE Steering Committee, the Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC), the Council for Teacher Education (CTE), COEHD faculty, and other professional community members (representatives of partner colleges and PK-12 schools). The Standard 2 Committee reviews assessment system documents and reports to the NCATE Steering Committee which reports to the DAC. The DAC disseminates information to and requests feedback from the CTE, faculty members, and the professional community.

The unit assessment system is based on professional, state, and institutional standards. Inextricably linked to the unit assessment system are SPA and Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) standards. In conjunction with efforts pertinent to NCATE accreditation, faculty and administrators work together to align programs with the SPAs and SACS. Rubrics contain SACS, SPA, INTASC, and LCET standards embedded in the described requirements Candidates at both the initial and advanced levels align portfolio components to these standards.

The assessment system includes a comprehensive and integrated set of evaluation measures which assess candidate performance and unit operations. Evaluation measures for candidates are described in Table 5, including, but not limited to Praxis scores, candidate GPAs, surveys, field experiences, portfolios, professional attributes scale, and comprehensive examinations. Faculty are evaluated annually, in a third year review for tenure track faculty, in the sixth year for tenure and promotion, and annually in post-tenure reviews. Unit operations are evaluated through major field assessments, employer surveys, and alumni surveys, all of which are outcome based.

Assessments are conducted at transition points throughout programs referred to as portals. Table 5 and other documents describe candidates’ progression through portals. In both initial and advanced programs, candidates proceed through the series of portals and, if requirements are met

15

at each transition point, they gain access to the next portal. One element of the unit assessment system relative to candidates’ entry into and progress through the program is the Selective Admission and Retention in Teacher Education (SARTE) process which tracks candidates to ensure they are meeting criteria to enter the program and remain in the program. If a candidate does not meet the criteria for satisfactory progress in SARTE, or if a faculty member believes a candidate needs additional help to meet expectations, procedures are in place to provide assistance and remediation.

The issues of fairness, accuracy, consistency, and bias are addressed by examining validity, reliability, scoring, and bias analysis of the assessment instruments. Candidates’ artifacts are scored using a rubric developed by program committees comprised of faculty specifically responsible for the assessments. Faculty training in the use of the rubrics is conducted each academic year. Reliability for scoring artifacts is addressed through a systematic analysis of the inter-rater reliability of the rubrics associated with artifacts. 2b. Data Collection, Analysis, & Evaluation– Initial Teacher Preparation

X

2b. Data Collection, Analysis, & Evaluation– Initial Teacher Preparation – Advanced Preparation

X

Summary of Findings: The unit assessment system is maintained through two electronic systems: PASS-PORT and PeopleSoft. PASS-PORT provides comprehensive information on candidates, programs, and the unit. Unit operations are evaluated through major field assessments and alumni and employer surveys. Data are collected for those instruments through the IRA using PeopleSoft.

Data are collected from applicants, candidates, graduates, faculty, and others. Data on applicants are maintained by the IRA through PeopleSoft and are aggregated into four categories reflecting SARTE status: ineligible, provisional, full, or none. Data on candidates and faculty are maintained on PASS-PORT. A description of the data collected on candidates by the COEHD is in Table 5. The IRA administers a variety of surveys to garner the opinions of the university’s partners and consumers which are used for program improvement and institutional effectiveness. Employer surveys seek to learn how well graduates are prepared to perform work responsibilities and are conducted every other year.

Candidate assessment data are systematically collected, compiled, aggregated, summarized, and analyzed. Data are summarized and analyzed annually and biennially by the IRA. Additionally, data derived from PASS-PORT assessments are available each semester. Data can also be aggregated for reports whenever a request is submitted to the director of assessment. Candidates’ work in class and field experiences is systematically assessed throughout the programs. These data are maintained in PASS-PORT and monitored by the Standard 2 Committee.

Candidate assessment data are disaggregated for alternate certification routes for initial teacher preparation. Data are not disaggregated for off-campus programs or distance learning programs since there are no such programs at Southeastern. There is a unit policy for handling formal candidate complaints. Complaints and resolutions are described. Results of these are housed

16

either in the office of the department head or dean.2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement – Advanced Preparation

X

Summary of Findings: Data are regularly compiled, summarized, and analyzed. The formal process for collecting, summarizing, and analyzing data for operations and program improvement is detailed in the use of data for program improvement flowchart. Most data are collected and summarized once each semester. Student teacher evaluations are summarized yearly. The unit and the IRA implement policies and procedures to collect and aggregate data. Multiple data sources are used to improve programs. All assessments are used to measure, manage, and improve the operations and programs at four levels: the unit, the program, the course, and the candidate. The IRA conducts an exit survey of graduates which includes general items, as well as a set of items specific to each program. The Office of Student Teaching also surveys candidates at the end of their student teaching semester or internship year. Because candidates are also surveyed at the completion of their programs, both surveys provide evidence of program elements which have been effective and those for which improvements are indicated. Results of IRA's current student survey administered to a random sample can also be used each semester to measure program improvement and institutional effectiveness. The professional attributes and characteristics scale, a PASS-PORT assessment, is administered at multiple portfolio portals, thereby providing individual, user group, and program data to track candidate progress throughout the initial or advanced programs. The IRA and unit collaborate to develop and improve instruments to appraise the value of candidates’ activities. Changes based on data derived from assessments have occurred over the past three years and are initiated as indicated by unit assessment system evaluations. Changes are then systematically linked to the CF and studied to measure effects on teacher education and other professional programs.

The unit assessment system uses data for program improvement. The process is both linear and recursive in that a proposed change can be sent back to a previous step to elicit additional information or clarification. Requests for program improvement can emanate from various sources. All proposals, regardless of their source, proceed through the system. Documentation on data and its uses are shared with stakeholders, such as supervising teachers and university supervisors of student teachers and interns. To complete the process, improvements must be substantiated.

All faculty have access to the data via PASS-PORT. They can create reports in a variety of ways to view aggregated data. PASS-PORT has a series of filters faculty use to create reports specific to their needs. If they need assistance, the assessment coordinator may also generate reports.

Data are shared with faculty and candidates to help them reflect on and improve programs. Minutes of Standard 2 Committee meetings indicate data are shared with faculty and discussions held about improvement of programs. Faculty post feedback in the comments section of all rubrics to generate reflection from candidates.

17

Summary of Strengths: The unit assessment system has been in place since fall, 2001. It is maintained and provides regular, comprehensive information on candidates, programs, and the unit. Data are systematically collected, compiled, aggregated, and analyzed. Data are shared regularly with stakeholders to improve program and unit operations. The unit’s PASS-PORT electronic assessment system is one of the most comprehensive, functional systems witnessed in most recent visits.



Corrections to the Institutional Report - None

18

Standard 3


interviews. [X]Yes [ ] No

Element Unacceptable Acceptable Target3a. Collaboration between Unit & School Partners – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

3a. Collaboration between Unit & School Partners – Advanced Preparation

X

Summary of Findings: The unit collaborates with 10 school districts within the Southeastern region. There is constant communication among the directors of student teaching and field experiences and all other stakeholders via principal meetings, informal meetings, direct telephone conversations, and shared expertise. These directors work directly with school districts in the recommendation and selection of qualified cooperating teachers and administrators providing the most beneficial and diverse opportunities. Faculty collaboratively design and implement multiple field and clinical experiences including the assessment of candidate performance. These multiple experiences allow candidates numerous contact hours. Clinical faculty contribute to the performance-based evaluations required in field experiences. Cooperating and supervising teachers model effective teaching strategies and integrate resources that offer opportunities for candidate learning. In the advanced programs such as Special Education and Curriculum and Instruction, these candidates, who are already licensed teachers, complete their field experience outside their classroom but in the same school or district in which they are employed.

In the Educational Leadership program, the internship is the culminating experience and candidates are assigned to mentors in the field who are generally from the districts in which the candidates are employed. Mentors are trained to guide candidates in acquiring the standard-driven skills necessary to lead schools. Other school professionals, such as counselors and speech pathologists, complete field experiences and clinical practice via their respective professional associations. University faculty and directors, local school partners, and other professionals assist initial candidates, advanced candidates, and other school professionals in developing knowledge, skills, and dispositions to positively impact student learning. Southeastern faculty members work with local school personnel to integrate resources and expertise in order to support candidates’ learning in multiple field experiences and clinical practice.

3b. Design, Implementation, & Evaluation of Field Experiences & Clinical Practices – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

3b. Design, Implementation, & Evaluation of Field Experiences & Clinical Practices – Advanced Preparation

X

Summary of Findings: Field experiences and clinical practice involve three levels: introductory, developing and

19

competency. Introductory includes 50 hours of observation and participation of pedagogical practices in a variety of settings involving different age groups, learning needs, socioeconomic, and diverse ethnic backgrounds. Developing includes 130 observation hours and active participation in the teaching process from small to whole group teaching under guidance of a cooperating teacher. Competency culminates with clinical practice totaling 180 hours of supervised direct teaching. Candidates plan and implement lessons and participate in school meetings and daily classroom routines. The Master of Arts in Teaching degree (M.A.T.) adheres to the same requirements, leading to internship for two semesters of full-time teaching supervised by a mentor. Advanced degree programs require a minimum of 50 hours of field experience with observations ranging from one hour to 125 hours in school improvement. Field experiences are documented in a detailed portfolio per the candidates’ master’s degree expectations.

Candidates in advanced programs and other school professionals are guided by the CF, state and national standards. Multiple and varied assessments ensure candidates develop necessary knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Interviews with candidates document clinical faculty provide regular and genuine support throughout the program. Advanced candidates and other school professionals possess the ability to apply coursework in the classrooms as well as analyzing data, and using technology and research.

Required initial and advanced courses, as well as field experiences and clinical practice, providecandidates with skills and knowledge necessary to effectively and ethically infuse technology into the classroom and facilitate the application of technology in leadership skills and techniques in a community or school setting. Criteria for clinical faculty include three years teaching experience, Louisiana certification, the principal’s recommendation, or LaTAAP training. Supervisors of student teachers, cooperating teachers at Professional Development Schools (PDS) and partner schools, and mentors of interns attend a two-hour training/orientation workshop each academic year addressing the CF, assessment instruments, and review of forms.

Professional development opportunities and resources are provided through Project IMPACT and PROJECT TEACH – both of which are highly involved with limited English proficient (LEP) students. The unit is involved in National Professional Development Title III competitive grants funded by United States Department of Education. The Wallace Grant provides support in terms of resources and professional development opportunities to extend the depth and breadth of programs and offers financial support for the intern semester in the ETL.

3c. Candidates’ Development & Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, & Professional Dispositions to Help All Students Learn – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

3c. Candidates’ Development & Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, & Professional Dispositions to Help All Students Learn – Advanced Preparation

X

20

Summary of Findings:Candidates have multiple opportunities to develop and demonstrate knowledge, skills and dispositions to help all students learn. Documents verify the courses, requirements, and assessments completed at each portal. Multiple assessments occur throughout the experience, including the initial lesson plan; assessments by faculty, cooperating teachers and mentors; professional portfolios, and assessments in methods classes guided by the CF, LCET, and INTASC standards. Student teachers are formally observed on six occasions with five written evaluations by the university supervisor. Two formal observations and evaluations are conducted by the school principal. Initial candidates create an assessment plan during student teaching which measures student progress and is an indication positively affecting students. Advanced candidates and other school professionals participate in field experiences linked to professional, state, and national standards and are required to submit an emerging, proficiency, and capstone portfolio. These candidates are observed by course instructors in the field and mentor teachers observe interns twice a month with six visits and four written evaluations. School site visits by school and university faculty allow for discussion of candidates’ progress and performance. Advanced candidates and other school professionals plan and implement various culminating activities. These culminating activities are evaluated by a diverse team of professors in various departmental programs. Candidate activities and projects are utilized to document student learning.

The unit focused its efforts to provide field experience and clinical practice which involve multiple and diverse opportunities. Interviews substantiate initial candidates, advance candidates, and other school professionals work with students from diverse populations.

Written reflection, self evaluation, mid terms, and independent evaluations are numerous for initial teacher candidates. Candidates in advanced programs include reflections of learning which address the CF, national standards, and program specific standards. Candidates reflect on various course projects and also receive feedback from peers and faculty. Substantial opportunities and requirements exist for reflection and feedback at all levels.

Summary of Strengths: Both initial and advanced candidates have numerous opportunities for field experiences and clinical practice to work with students from diverse populations. Initial candidates attend methods classes at the school sites where they may be student teaching, resulting in the opportunity to directly apply theory to contemporary and practical applications. In addition, candidates logged up to 25,000 hours of observation and teaching opportunities within the last academic year. Advanced candidates who are already employed generally complete their field experience in their same school district but in a different classroom or local school. There is a great deal of support for both initial and advanced candidates in professional development opportunities and other resources provided to area classroom teachers through Project TEACH, Project IMPACT, and the Wallace grant. Substantial opportunities and requirements exist for reflection and feedback related to candidate performance and student learning.

21

Areas for Improvement and Rationales: AFIs corrected from last visit - None AFIs continued from last visit - None New AFIs – None


Corrections to the Institutional Report – None

22

Standard 4



Element Unacceptable Acceptable Target4a. Design, Implementation, & Evaluation of Curriculum & Experiences – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

4a. Design, Implementation, & Evaluation of Curriculum & Experiences – Advanced Preparation

X

Summary of Findings:Throughout their programs, initial and advanced candidates complete various required assignments related to diversity. Candidates effectively design and teach lessons that meet the needs of diverse students, adapt and connect instruction appropriately, and create positive learning environments as evidenced by the LCET candidate assessment data. LCET data reveal student teachers’ scores range from 3.45-3.91 on a four point scale for items directly related to planning and teaching diverse students. Examples of LCET items include, but are not limited to the following: identifies and plans for individual differences/needs, promotes a positive learning climate, adjusts lessons when appropriate, accommodates individual differences/needs, etc. The unit clearly identifies proficiencies related to diversity in the CF and IR. Both initial and advanced candidates are expected to develop these proficiencies throughout their programs. Candidates self assess proficiencies and dispositions related to diversity. The assessment data are used to identify areas for candidate and program improvement. Through interviews and poster sessions, candidates verified they communicate with students and families in ways that demonstrate sensitivity to cultural and gender differences during “Family Literacy Night” and through involvement with grant projects like “Project IMPACT and JUMPSTART.” 4b. Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

4b. Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty – Advanced Preparation

X

Summary of Findings:Candidates in all programs interact with professional education faculty, faculty from other units, and school faculty, both male and female, from at least two ethnic/racial groups. Table 7, faculty demographics included in the addendum to the IR did not sufficiently summarize the information needed; therefore, the team requested the chart be re-created to include more information (i.e., number of full-time and part-time faculty listed by race/ethnicity for both ITP programs and advanced programs). According to the revised Table 7, the full-time professional education faculty in all initial and advanced programs are predominately white (93% and 91%). The remaining faculty members are Hispanic and black, non-Hispanic. The part-time faculty in all initial and advanced programs are also predominately white, non-Hispanic (100% and 66.7%). The remaining part-time faculty are Hispanic and black, non-Hispanic. School-based faculty diversity is slightly higher. For instance, 12.1 percent of school-based faculty are minority, 87.4% are white, non-Hispanic and 0.2% are unknown. Approximately two-thirds of unit full-time faculty members for all initial and advanced programs

23

are female. Part-time female faculty in initial and advanced programs range from 67%-82%. [A complete breakdown of the percentages can be found in the addendum to the IR in Table 7.]

Unit faculty members bring a wide range of diversity in teaching backgrounds and experiences. They have teaching experience in urban and rural settings. Many have traveled and worked in other regions of the country. Two faculty in the COEHD are from Europe. The faculty are committed to incorporating diversity in their respective courses. A listing of faculty activities relative to presentations, publication, research and development addressing diversity topics is included in the documentation.

Anecdotal evidence from interviews confirms that the unit values diversity as demonstrated by good-faith efforts to increase or maintain faculty diversity. It was also confirmed diversity is a part of the institution’s strategic plan. The Diversity Task Force includes members from the COEHD along with representatives from other colleges and departments in the institution. The Diversity Task Force is co-chaired by the dean of the COEHD and the vice president of student affairs. The Diversity Task Force is responsible for addressing diversity related issues and topics such as recruiting and retaining a more diverse faculty and student body. Committee members indicate progress toward achieving these goals. Progress is assessed yearly. Each college does its own hiring and decides how to advertise positions. The COEHD advertises in minority journals and periodicals for faculty positions. Financial barriers prevent some hiring efforts, but $22.2 million has been allotted for faculty raises and hiring. In addition, through “Conversations on Diversity,” faculty and candidates are given opportunities to interact with diverse individuals and address diversity related issues and topics. Consistent efforts in targeted recruitment, including recruiting visits to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, resulted in an increase in the number of minority faculty members. 4c. Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

4c. Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates – Advanced Preparation

X

Summary of Findings:The institution and the unit continue to make good-faith efforts to increase and maintain a diverse pool of candidates. Candidates are predominately white at both the initial (83%) and advanced (88%) levels. The percentage of white candidates in the unit is slightly higher than campus-wide (77%). Unit and university demographics are in keeping with the geographic area served by the institution of which 79 percent of the population is white, non-Hispanic. There are more females (85% at the initial level, 89% advanced) enrolled in the unit than males. Campus-wide the percentages are 64 percent female and 36 percent male.

According to the vice president of student affairs, the office of student affairs is responsible for recruitment of a diverse candidate base, and support services for students who come from nontraditional settings and diverse backgrounds. A review of the evidence and an interview with the vice president of student affairs indicated his office provides support for candidates of color who are experiencing academic difficulty. Additionally, minority students are asked to give feedback regarding their experiences related to diversity upon leaving the institution. This information is used to inform decisions regarding diversity at the institution. Several recruitment efforts are being made to draw a more diverse student body. Candidates are recruited from

24

surrounding historically black high schools and colleges, and articulation agreements exist between the institution and the local community colleges. Scholarship funds are available for male candidates, minorities, and those demonstrating financial need. Candidates are encouraged to work with groups of different backgrounds through Student Government Association sponsored activities.

4d. Experiences Working with Diverse Students to P-12 Schools – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

4d. Experiences Working with Diverse Students to P-12 Schools – Advanced Preparation

X

Summary of Findings:The review of demographic data from P-12 school sites and interviews indicate candidates at both levels are given opportunities to work with P-12 students from diverse backgrounds. The team confirmed that in addition to diversity of racial and ethnic backgrounds, the unit makes efforts to ensure candidates have opportunities to work with boys and girls, special needs children, and children from varying socio-economic groups. Initial candidates complete a variety of field experiences in diverse settings in the surrounding area. In addition to student teaching and practica, each professional education course requires field experience hours in specifically assigned schools. Candidates in the advanced programs primarily depend on their current employment sites, which are often diverse, for internships. Advanced candidates complete field experiences in other classrooms and/or schools in the district to fulfill course requirements.

A process is in place to assure a variety of field placements. According to the field placement coordinator, the director of student teaching, and initial candidates, field placement experiences are recorded in PASS-PORT. PASS-PORT documents the diverse opportunities candidates experience by summarizing the demographic data of all field experiences. Prior to student teaching, candidates’ field experiences are reviewed and an appropriate student teaching placement is made. According to interviews with the field experience coordinator, faculty members work with advanced candidates to track field placement experiences and provide diversity.

The presence of college supervisors at field placement sites allows for ongoing assessment of candidates. Methods courses are held on P-12 school campuses and candidates at all levels are assessed on an ongoing basis by faculty and cooperating and mentor teachers. Included in the LCET assessment are items that address diversity issues.


The unit has shown a commitment to infusing diversity into the curriculum and field experiences. The unit is making efforts to increase minority enrollment.

Areas for Improvement and Rationales:

25

AFIs Corrected- Candidates have limited opportunities to interact with diverse faculty. Rationale:Efforts of the Diversity Task Force, increased institutional funding, and targeted recruitment resulted in an increase in the number of minority faculty members.

AFIs continued from last visit - None New AFIs - None


Corrections to the Institutional Report-None

26

Standard 5



Element Unacceptable Acceptable Target5a. Qualified Faculty – Initial Teacher Preparation X5a. Qualified Faculty – Advanced Preparation XSummary of Findings: The COEHD consists of 125 faculty with 108 full-time faculty. As documented, all faculty have earned master’s and/or doctorate degrees. Faculty at both the initial and advanced teaching levels are well qualified in their respective fields. Interviews with the university president and dean of the unit indicate all faculty have previous teaching experience in their field prior to assuming their positions. Faculty members hold advanced degrees in their respective disciplines, or are licensed or certified in their respective specialty areas. Faculty vitae provide evidence of the depth and breadth of faculty educational experience, scholarship, and leadership.

Specific qualifications exist for part-time and adjunct faculty. The unit dean and NCATE coordinator confirm faculty must meet SACS guidelines and hold master’s degrees in their respective disciplines. T&L part-time faculty must have P-12 teaching experience.

Clinical faculty are qualified to support and assist candidates. District superintendents, program principals, and candidates confirm clinical and field supervisors have at least three years of teaching experience, are certified in their content area, and meet at least one of the following: national board certified, LATAAP trained, hold a master’s degree or have completed the course for supervision of student teachers. 5b. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching – Initial Teacher Preparation X5b. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching – Advanced Preparation XSummary of Findings:

The review of syllabi provide evidence faculty are knowledgeable in the content areas and correlate course objectives to the four components of the CF. Most syllabi include a statement of the CF. Further evidence reveals instruction is also aligned with state and professional standards, theories, and current developments within the field.

The review of course requirements and interviews indicate technology is infused into instruction at the initial and advanced levels. Examples of technology include video casting, PowerPoint, SmartBoard, PASS-PORT, and Blackboard.

The review of evidence indicates faculty understand and model best practices such as differentiated learning styles, varied instructional strategies, and multiple forms of assessments including performance assessment.

27

Faculty encourage use of reflection, critical thinking, and problem solving skills with candidates by assigning case studies, action research, and completion of portfolios. The review of syllabi, candidate portfolios, and student opinion of teaching survey results confirm these skills are part of the instructional program.

Faculty make use of reflection and self assessment to ensure best practices in teaching. Faculty annually complete a self-assessment survey to assess teaching effectiveness and use the data to inform and improve practice.

5c. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship – Initial Teacher Preparation X5c. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship – Advanced Preparation XSummary of Findings: All faculty are actively engaged in scholarly work through publishing, grant writing, attending workshops, and presenting at conferences. The examination of professional journal articles, co-authored book chapters, and action research reports confirm scholarly activities. Scholarly works are aligned with the CF and unit mission.

Review of vitae and faculty productivity reports indicate faculty collaborate with other professionals to improve candidate learning and teacher preparation through their writings and presentations. Faculty participate at the international, national, regional, state, and local levels. All faculty have membership with one or more professional educational organization.

Interviews with faculty and staff from the Center for Faculty Excellence (CFE) further substantiate faculty scholarly activity involvement with action research and consultations with school systems. The CFE staff report grant funds are awarded to faculty for educational travel and to support action research and activities conducted as part of the unit. Approximately sixteen percent of all grant requests to the CFE originate from COEHD faculty. School principals confirm unit faculty are actively engaged with school systems in making recommendations for improvement.

5d. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service – Initial Teacher Preparation X5d. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service – Advanced Preparation XSummary of Findings: As stated in the COEHD mission and guidelines for promotion and tenure, unit faculty at initial and advanced levels are expected to serve the college, P-12 schools, and state, national and global communities. Additionally, information presented in the faculty handbook confirms faculty service counts as ten percent of the 100 points earned in the faculty evaluation rubric. Interviews with faculty confirm they engage throughout the school year in committee activities, participation on education boards, collaboration with practicing practitioners, and sponsorship of student professional associations. Faculty serve on various university committees and participate in community activities. T & L faculty serve on at least one of five different program committees: Special Education, Literacy and Language, Early Childhood, Foundations, or

28

Methods and Assessment Committee. Faculty engage in service to either the Curriculum Advisory Committee or the CTE. Evidence supports faculty participation in annual community events such as Family Literacy Night, Rock and Roar, and Relay for Life.

Unit faculty collaborate with faculty and staff in P-12 schools. Faculty are awarded grants such as Project TEACH to increase the number of teachers for students with limited English proficiency skills; Project IMPACT to train teachers to work with ESL students; and JUMPSTART to prepare candidates to work with preschool students.

Unit faculty assist P-12 teachers with instructional programs and with professional development topics. They also assist with mentoring, grant writing, and service activities. Faculty collaborate with mentor teachers in various parishes to present at the Louisiana Super Conference on Special Education. Faculty teamed with P-12 teachers to secure a five-year grant to increase the number of teachers for ESL students.5e. Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance – Initial Teacher Preparation X5e. Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance – Advanced Preparation XSummary of Findings: Faculty at the initial and advanced levels are evaluated annually in the categories of teaching, professional activity including research, and service. Levels of achievement are designated as excellent, distinctive, adequate, or inadequate. Annual evaluations of faculty conform to promotion and tenure guidelines established for each department and are aligned with policies stated in the faculty handbook. Promotion and tenure guidelines support functions of the effective professional described in the CF. Any faculty rated as inadequate are placed on a remediation plan and receive assistance from the department head for improvement. Two other components of the evaluation process include collaboration with the professional community and the leadership within the institution and the profession.

Non-tenured faculty are observed by the department heads once each semester and individual clinical faculty are evaluated at the conclusion of the fall and spring semesters. Evaluations are part of an end-of-year conference for full-time faculty to guide development of annual professional plans.

The annual faculty evaluations serve several purposes. The results determine merit awards, promotion and tenure, and needs for faculty and professional development. Exhibits from 2006-2007 demonstrate unit faculty performed adequate to excellent in all categories, utilizing a scale from inadequate to excellent. Only four of 93 members were rated inadequate in one or more categories.

Full-time faculty use self-assessment in completion of their end-of-year reports to improve the impact of their teaching on candidate performance and to organize portfolio for promotion and tenure. Faculty use personalized survey results, university assessment results from student opinion of teaching surveys, and student teacher exit survey results as part of the self-assessment process. 5f. Unit Facilitation of Professional Development –

29

Initial Teacher Preparation X5f. Unit Facilitation of Professional Development – Advanced Preparation XSummary of Findings: Faculty professional development is a priority as identified by the university president and dean of the college. Opportunities are made available to faculty through the CFE. Professional development is offered through the center in various forms such as workshops, presentations, and information sessions. Surveys are conducted each year by the head of each department to identify topics to be covered. The results of surveys are used by the center to plan for the incoming year. As documents illustrate, various technology workshops were offered during the 2006-2007 school year. A year-long Institute for Teaching and Professional Enhancement was also conducted. The topic covered in the institute was “Issues in Assessment” with emphasis on improving professional judgment in grading candidates’ assignments, portfolios, and projects. Twenty-nine percent of the 14 institute participants were faculty from the unit. The center director reports that in an academic year, about fifty-two percent of unit faculty attend professional development offerings.

As confirmed by the dean of the unit, the Center for Educational Services and Research (CEDSAR), another site for professional growth, is located in the COEHD and offers professional development for unit faculty. The center provides faculty with more than 2,500 catalogued materials to help enrich faculty teaching. New faculty receive induction orientations and attend workshops and lectures offered through the center to meet professional development requirements.

Eighty-nine workshops in support of the CF were offered in the past year. More than fifty percent of faculty in the unit attended the sessions.

Summary of Strengths:The unit is committed to developing effective teaching professionals who actively engage in service to global communities and to the university. The commitment to meet expectations of effective professionals is evident through modeling best practices in delivery of instruction and use of technology. Unit faculty scholarship is demonstrated through multiple faculty publications and titles as well as grant writing.




30

Standard 6

Information reported in the institutional report for Standard 6 was validated in the exhibits and interviews. (If not, provide an explanation and indicate the pages of the IR that are incorrect.)

[X] Yes [ ] No

Element Unacceptable Acceptable Target6a. Unit Leadership & Authority – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

6a. Unit Leadership & Authority – Advanced Preparation

X

Summary of Findings: The COEHD has the primary responsibility and authority for planning, delivering, and operating all programs for the preparation of candidates and other professional school personnel. The dean and the DAC provide administrative leadership for the unit. The DAC functions as the advisory body to the dean. Discussions with the DAC confirm its level of involvement in conversations relative to all matters related to the unit including strategic planning, diversity, field experiences, and assessments.

The CTE manages the unit and is comprised of representatives from university departments offering degree/certification programs, school partners, and a student representative. This council reviews and approves all teacher education design plans and subsequent catalogue changes.

The COEHD guarantees candidates’ access to both academic advising and personal/mental health counseling. Faculty mentors advise candidates according to the COEHD faculty handbook. Interviews with initial and advanced candidates verify the quality of career planning and advising received from faculty mentors/ program directors. The SARTE monitors the recruiting, admission, and retention of candidates into or from any of the teacher education programs. Candidates, faculty, and the unit’s administrative body speak consistently and highly of advisors’ hands-on and personable approach as a solution to recruitment and retention. Recruiting and admissions policies, academic calendars, catalogues, publications, and grading polices are described clearly and consistently in a variety of media.

6b. Unit Budget – Initial Teacher Preparation X6b. Unit Budget – Advanced Preparation XSummary of Findings: The COEHD budget reflects a commitment to its stated mission, programs, and activities. The documentation indicates a budget of $97,534,245 which reflects a $22.2 million dollar increase in funding to Southeastern in FY 2007-08. From 2005-2006 through 2007-2008, the total allocated unit budget increased from $5,314,959 to $6,567,301. For the fiscal year 2007-2008, the total unit budget was disbursed as follows: professional salaries, $6,358,825; operating, $147,196; travel, $61,280. Faculty receive a majority of travel funds through the CFE, the dean’s development fund, and grants. Budgetary allocations provide a continued level of support for teaching, service, and scholarship. As indicated in an interview with the president, the increased funding also enables the university to fund pay raises consistently, convert part-time positions

31

into full-time faculty positions, and to further enhance the quality of COEHD programs. The unit’s resources are equal to or exceed those of other units/departments at the university.

Written and anecdotal evidence indicate the unit provides high-quality experiences for faculty professional development. Funding for these activities is generated through the CFE and supplemented by individual departments.

The recent increases to the budget have clearly benefited the college and the COEHD. It has allowed the COEHD to advertise within a more competitive market and employ more full-time professional and tenure track faculty members, accept more candidates, and provide a myriad of incentives to all faculty. 6c. Personnel – Initial Teacher Preparation X6c. Personnel – Advanced Preparation XSummary of Findings: Southeastern’s faculty handbook states faculty and staff members “are encouraged to become involved in activities that enhance the university’s mission of instruction, research, and service.” Full-time tenure track unit faculty teach, advise, work in the unit’s laboratory school and partner schools, conduct research, publish, and secure grant funding. At the advanced level, faculty support candidates with advisement, thesis and dissertation support, and continuous feedback.

Documents and discussion with faculty at the initial and advanced levels indicate most tenure track faculty workloads for COEHD faculty are 12 hours for undergraduate faculty, nine hours for master’s level faculty, and six hours for doctoral level faculty. COEHD faculty supervise student teachers and interns as part of faculty workload. As indicated by written documentation, the number of student teachers per faculty has decreased to 3.8:1 from 5.4:1 over a three-year period. Faculty teaching distance education courses are not compensated with release time or additional funding. The distance education courses are considered part of the faculty member’s workload.

The work climate within the unit promotes intellectual vitality, best practices, and scholarship. In written and anecdotal documentation, faculty productivity is proven by the quality and quantity of professional activities in the areas of teaching, professional activity, and service.

The dean stated part-time and adjunct faculty are used in emergency situations when full-time faculty members cannot immediately be replaced, while a search is being conducted, or to help carry out the unit’s mission of outreach and public service to the service region.

The support personnel are classified as technology staff, administrative assistants, secretaries, student workers, and graduate assistants. The unit has 32 graduate assistants which support staff through research, lesson preparation, and serve as liaisons between faculty and candidates. These personnel support the smooth operation of the unit programs and enhance the candidates’ success in the program. 6d. Unit Facilities – Initial Teacher Preparation X6d. Unit Facilities – Advanced Preparation XThe unit facilities support candidate learning. In 2003, the TEC was expanded to include a new wing which provides 14 additional classrooms, 34 additional faculty offices, two new computer

32

labs, and a 200-seat lecture hall.

To expand collaborative opportunities and enhance outreach efforts, candidates have access to off-campus facilities. Turtle Cove Environmental Research Station is the field research station of Southeastern’s CST. The Livingston Parish Literacy and Technology Center offers Southeastern core curriculum courses including COEHD evening undergraduate and graduate courses, continuing education programs, business training, community music programs, high school scholars program, and summer academic camps. The St. Tammany Center offers off-campus undergraduate and graduate courses. 6e. Unit Resources including Technology – Initial Teacher Preparation

X

6e. Unit Resources including Technology – Advanced Preparation

X

Summary of Findings: Faculty and candidates have access to library, curricular materials, and informational technology resources to prepare educators to integrate technology into PK-12 instruction. Multiple technology resources are available to unit faculty and candidates at both the initial and advanced levels. All TEC classrooms are equipped with interactive white boards and presentation stations. The TEC has a video conference room and four computer laboratories. Not only can the candidates use the available technology, but the faculty also model best practices. Faculty self report technology usage in annual performance assessment surveys, while student usage of technology is monitored by examination of their electronic portfolio artifacts. The university provides funds to replace faculty and staff computers every three years.

The unit’s assessment system is supported by PASS-PORT. The integration of the system assists the unit in aggregating data which are used in program assessment. The faculty and candidates confirm PASS-PORT’s usability, accessibility, and manageability in the implementation of the assessment system.

Evidence abounds (e.g., syllabi, interviews, and candidates’ technology demonstrations) that faculty and candidates at both initial and advanced levels use technology in courses and for instructional support, classroom management, and data analysis. Candidates in school settings were observed using a variety of technology from digital cameras to interactive white boards. School partners noted candidates use a variety of technology in course projects and during field experiences.

Sims Memorial Library provides materials and professional support required by the unit faculty for the purpose of effective teaching and quality scholarship. Library resources specific to COEHD include approximately 19,000 monographs (books) and about 1100 journal subscriptions. The library staff extends its expertise to the unit by providing a librarian liaison who functions in the following roles: collaboration, purchase acquisition accuracy, and instructional and research support. The most noted library resources are: the service-oriented atmosphere, accessibility to library resources online, and an active librarian staff. Faculty and candidates both commented the library resources and services meet their research needs.

33


The COEHD provides the leadership and resources necessary to prepare candidates to meet professional, state, and institutional standards. The budget reflects a commitment to the unit’s mission and demonstrates a support structure for faculty involvement in scholarship and professional development opportunities. Pay raises are based on merit. The unit is noted for being the second highest funded college of five at Southeastern per student credit hour produced. The abundant use of technology is evident in the COEHD which demonstrates a strong commitment to providing cutting-edge technology for candidates, faculty, and unit operations.




34

IV. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

Documents reviewed:

OVERVIEWTable 1: Academic Rank Table 2: Programs Review Status

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKCF 1 Mission and Vision Statements CF 2 List of TermsCF 3 CF Standards TablesCF 4 DispositionsCF 5 CF SurveysCF 6 CF Graphic

CF Unit DocumentsCF Comprehensive ReportCF MinutesCF Survey Results

STANDARD 11a.1 Table 3: Pass Rates Initial Preparation1a.2 Professional Development Activities1a.3 Initial E-Folio Results1a.4 Content Knowledge1a.5 EDF 600 Project1a.6 PDAs – 05-061a.7 PDAs – 06-071a.8 Advanced PDA Results1a.9 Comprehensive Examination1a.10 Advanced E-Folio Results1a.11 T & L Follow-Up Survey1b.1 Pedagogical Knowledge1b.2 NCTM Addendum1b.3 Education 304 Pre-Assessment1b.4 ETEC 306 Technology Portfolio1b.5 Technology Pedagogical Knowledge1b.6 PEC Technology Assessment1b.7 EDUC 660 Exam1b.8 Concept Map1b.9 Advanced PowerPoint Presentation1c.1 Initial Skills1c.2 Lesson Plan Rubric1c.3 NBPTS Summary1d.1 Assessment Plan Summary

35

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std1/ExhibitStandard1d1.htm

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std1/ExhibitStandard1c3.htm

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/Lesson%20Plan.doc


http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std1/ExhibitStandard1b9.htm





http://selu.pass-port.org/main/browse.asp?viewby=alpha&alpha=d




http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std1/ExhibitStandard1a11.htm











http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ConceptualFramework/ConceptualFrameworkSurveyResults.htm

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ConceptualFramework/ConceptualFrameworkMinutes.htm

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ConceptualFramework/CFComprehensiveReport.htm

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ConceptualFramework/CF6.htm






http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Overview2.htm

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Overview1.htm

1d.2 Teacher Work Sample1e.1 Table 4: Pass Rates Other Professionals1e.2 EDL EXIT Survey1e.3 Summary of M.Ed. Assessments1e.4 School Leader Licensure Results1e.5 Case Study1e.6 Action Research1e.7 Diversity1e.8 School Leader E-Folio Results1e.9 Ed.D. E-Folio Results1e.10 Environmental Scan1e.11 EDL Technology Work Sample1e.12 CPCE Assessment of Counseling Candidates1e.13 ASHA Accreditation Report1e.14 Speech-Language Pathology Data1e.15 EDL Alumni Survey1e.16 EDL Follow-up Program1g.1 Initial Dispositions Summary Fall 061g.2 Initial Dispositions Summary Spg. 071g.3 Initial Dispositions Evaluations1g.4 Advanced Dispositions Summary1g.5 Advanced Dispositions Evaluations

STANDARD 22a.1 COEHD Assessment System Description 2a.2 Table 5 Assessment System Charts: Initial & Advanced 2a.3 Description of Candidates' Progression Through PASS-PORT2a.4 COEHD Assessment System Chart2a.5 Basic Program Follow-Up2b.1 Use of Data for Program Improvement Chart 2b.2 Unit Policy for Handling Formal Candidate Complaints2b.3 Formal Candidate Complaints Form and Reports: 2005-2006 & 2006-20072b.4 Candidate Sample Summative Assessment Passing Portfolio: Educational Leadership2b.5 Sample Summative Assessment Non-Passing Portfolio: Educational Leadership

PASSPORT Advanced Portfolio Assessment2b.6 Sample Formative Assessment: Introductory Level Portfolio PASS-PORT Evaluation of

Assessment Artifact: Holistic Rating Scale (4/27/05) 2b.7 Sample Formative Assessment: Introductory Level Portfolio PASS-PORT Evaluation of

Lesson Plans (4/27/06)2b.8 Sample Formative Assessment: Introductory Level Portfolio PASS-PORT Evaluation of

Classroom Management Plan (7/23/06)2b.9 Sample Formative Assessment: Developing Level Portfolio PASS-PORT Evaluation of

Assessment Plan for Elementary Methods 1-Math (12/07/06)2b.10 Sample Formative Assessment: Developing Level Portfolio PASS-PORT Evaluation of

Lesson Plan-Reading (12/06/06)

36























http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std1/ExhibitStandard1g5.htm





http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std1/ExhibitStandard1e16.htm

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std1/1e15_2003-Grad.pdf




http://drhancock.org/Artifact/









http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std1/1e2_2006_2007.pdf



2b.11 Sample Formative Assessment: Developing Level Portfolio PASS-PORT Evaluation Professional Attributes & Characteristics Methods 1 Class (11/21/06)

2b.12 Sample Formative Assessment: Developing Level Portfolio PASS-PORT Evaluation Louisiana Components of Effective Teaching Methods 2 Implemented Lesson Plans Summative Evaluation (5/13/07)

2b.13 Sample Formative Assessment: Competency Level Portfolio PASS-PORT Evaluation of Teaching Mid-term Student Teacher/Intern Evaluation Report of Teaching-2 (10/23/07)

2b.14 Sample Formative Assessment: Competency Level Portfolio PASS-PORT Evaluation of Assessment Plan Student Teaching/Internship (11/11/07)

2b.15 Sample Formative Assessment: Competency Level Portfolio PASS-PORT Evaluation of ACEI Components-ACEI Addendum (11/19/07)

2b.16 Sample Formative Assessment: Competency Level Portfolio PASS-PORT Evaluation-Final Report on Student Teaching (11/19/07)

2b.17 Sample Formative Assessment: Samples of Portfolio Level (Introductory, Developing, Competency) Summative Assessments for Jane Doe (pseudonym), Spring 2007 Graduate, Initial Certification Program, Department of Teaching and Learning

2b.18 Major Field Assessment Webpage and Sample2c.1 Policies and Procedures for Data Collection and Use of Data for Improvements2c.2 NCATE Standard 2 Meeting Minutes November 20052c.3 NCATE Standard 2 Meeting Minutes December 20052c.4 NCATE Standard 2 Meeting Minutes January 20062c.5 NCATE Standard 2 Meeting Minutes February 20062c.6 NCATE Standard 2 Meeting Minutes April 20062c.7 NCATE Standard 2 Meeting Minutes April 20072c.8 NCATE Standard 2 Meeting Minutes September 20072c.9 Examples of data driven changes in programs and courses2c.10 Board of Regents Grant Notice on Southeastern website and Grant Final Report2c.11 PRAXIS Committee2c.12 Deans' Newsletter

STANDARD 33a.1 Professional Attributes Scale3a.2 End of Year Questionnaire3a.3 Wallace Grant Team Members

Wallace meeting Minutes 8/313a.4 Program Selection Procedures3a.5 Wallace Meeting Minutes3a.6 Sample Principal Input3a.7 Intern contract-Washington Parish3a.8 Agreement with 10 Southeastern Districts3a.9 Internship Specific Criteria - Office of Student Teaching3a.10 Master List of Districts / Schools3a.11 Project TEACH3a.12 Project IMPACT3b.1 Undergraduate Courses and Field Hours Required3b.2 Internship Guidelines for Master’s in EDL

37




http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std3/ProjectTEACHBrochureFinal.doc


http://www.selu.edu/acad_research/programs/stu_teach/criteria_in/index.html






http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std3/ExhibitStandard3a3_2.htm

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std3/ExhibitStandard3a3_1.htm



http://www.selu.edu/acad_research/colleges/edu_hd/about/newsletters/The_Standard_for_Exc5.pdf





























3b.3 Table 6: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice Programs3b.4 Course Syllabi3b.5 Student Philosophy3b.6 Methods Examination3b.7 G raduate Curriculum and Instruction Courses 3b.8 Making Connections/GLE3b.9 Lesson Plan Format3b.10 Teacher Work Sample3b.11 SPED 663 Evaluation Rubric3b.12 Seminar I3b.13 SREB Module Training3b.14 Fieldwork Reporting Form 3b.15 EDL SPA Report3b.16 Ed.D Portfolio Templates3b.17 Form A3b.18 Supervising Teacher Journal3c.1 Initial Candidates Eligibility and Completion Rates3c.2 A dvanced EDL Eligibility and Completion Rates 3c.3 COEHD Assessment System3c.4 Lesson Plan3c.5 PASS-PORT Rubric3c.6 Electronic Portfolio Handbook3c.7 Professional Improvement Plan3c.8 Supervising Teacher's Journal3c.9 Evaluation Report of Teaching3c.10 Video Taped Lesson3c.11 University Supervisor Weekly Report3c.12 Masters of Educational Leadership Guidelines3c.13 Seminar 13c.14 Seminar 23c.15 Seminar 33c.16 Practicum Evaluation3c.17 Form C3c.18 Reflections of Learning Questionnaire

STANDARD 44a.1 Alignment of Proficiencies with Assessment of Standards 4a.2 Curriculum Components Addressing Diversity Issues 4a.3 Assessment Instruments and Scoring Guides Related to Diversity 4a.4 Summary of Candidate Performance Results4b.1 Demographics on Diversity of Faculty, Candidates, and Clinical Sites4b.2 Practices, and/or Procedures That Facilitate Experiences with Faculty from Diverse

Groups4b.3 Summary of Faculty Expertise Concerning Diversity Issues4c.1 Practices, and/or Procedures That Facilitate Experiences with Candidates from

Diverse Groups

38





http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/_blank










http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std4/4a2%20Revised.doc

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std4/4a_1%20Alignment%20of%20Proficiencies%20with%20Assessment%20of%20Standards.pdf











http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std3/Student%20Teaching%20Handbook.pdf


http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std3/ElectronicPortfolioHandbook.pdf







http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std3/Student%20Teaching%20Handbook.pdf



http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/SPAReports/rep/Educational%20Leadrship.pdf


http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std3/SREBModelEdTechGuidelines.pdf





http://mconn.doe.state.la.us/







4d.1 Practices, and/or Procedures That Facilitate Field Experiences with P-12 Students from Diverse Groups

4 Standard 4 Meeting Minutes

STANDARD 55a.1 Faculty Qualifications Matrix 5a.2 Clinical Faculty: University Supervisors, Fall 2006 – Spring 20075a.3 Clinical Faculty: School Supervisors, Fall 20065a.4 Clinical Faculty: School Supervisors, Spring 20075a.5 Educational Leadership Clinical Faculty (Internship Mentors), 2006-20075b.1 Professional Practices in Teaching, Percent of Faculty Employing Various Instructional

Strategies5b.2 Professional Practices in Teaching, Percent of Faculty Employing Various Assessment

Strategies or Practices5b.3 SPED 495 Lesson Plan Template and Rubric5b.4 Professional Practices in Teaching, Percent of Faculty Employing Various Technology

Integration Strategies or Practices5b.5 Selected SOT Average Scores for the Unit5b.6 Scores on Selected Exit Survey Items5b.7 University Supervisor Evaluations by Student Teachers, Fall 20065b.8 University Supervisor Evaluations by Student Teachers, Spring 20075b.9 School Supervisor Evaluations by Student Teachers, Fall 20065b.10 School Supervisor Evaluations by Student Teachers, Spring 20075b.11 Faculty Self-Assessment: Modeling Best Practices 2006-20075c.1 Scholarly Activity Reported by Faculty in 2006-20075c.2 Unit Faculty Productivity over a Three-Year Period5d.1 Unit Committee Membership in 2006-20075d.2 Number of Service Activities reported by Faculty, 2006-20075d.3 Service Activities in PK-12 Schools, 2006-20075d.4 Number and Types of Collaboration Activities5d.5 Selected Examples of Collaboration Activities, 2006-20075d.6 EDUC 415 Language Arts & Social Studies Syllabus Dr. Edwards, Fall, 20075d.7 SPED 361 Dr. Hines, Fall, 2006, Methods and Materials for Teaching Students with

Mild/Moderate Disabilities5e.1 End-of-Year Faculty Evaluation, Department of Educational Leadership and Technology5e.2 End-of-Year Faculty Evaluation, Department of Teaching and Learning5e.3 Summary of Annual Faculty Evaluation Results, 2006-2007 5e.4 Summary of Evaluations of University Supervisors, Fall 20065e.5 Summary of Evaluations of University Supervisors, Spring 20075f.1 Center for Faculty Excellence Activities in Response to Department Head Survey

Responses, 2006-20075f.2 Center for Faculty Excellence Workshops in 2006-20075f.3 Technology Professional Development Activities Sponsored by the COEHD 5f.4 Total Number of Professional Development Activities Reported in Pass-Port5f.5 COEHD Faculty Participating in Center Workshops5f.6 University Faculty Development Funds received by COEHD faculty through CFE

39

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std5/ExhibitStandard5f6.htm




































http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std5/Exhibit%205a_5.xls



http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std5/Exhibit%205a_2.pdf

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std5/Exhibit%205a_1%20Faculty%20Qualifications%20Matrix.pdf

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std4/ExhibitStandard4MM.htm

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Std4/ExhibitStandard4MM.htm




STANDARD 66a.1 Organizational Chart of Academic Programs for the College of Education and

Human Development6a.2 Council for Teacher Education6a.3 COEHD Polices on Advising from the COEHD Faculty Handbook, Section 66a.4 Teacher Development Center6a.5 Southeastern Comprehensive Counseling Center6a.6 Selective Admissions and Retention in Teacher Education (SARTE) Page 202-204 of

the 2007-08 catalogue6b.1 University Revenues and Expenditures 2004-20076b.2 AACTE/NCATE Joint Data Collecting System (PEDS) Reports6b.3 Budget by Student Credit Hour by College6b.4 Center for Faculty Excellence Grants Awarded to COEHD 2006-076b.5 COEHD University Budget for 2007-086c.1 University Teaching Load Policy from the University Faculty Handbook6c.2 COEHD Faculty Handbook Section 5 on Teaching Loads6c.3 Faculty Full-Time Work Load (COEHD) from PEDS Reports6c.4 Number of Student Teachers per Faculty Supervisors from Institutional Reports from

2004 through 20076c.5 Tenure promotion policies6c.6 Faculty Productivity: A Summary from the Standard 5 Report.6c.7 University Faculty by College by Rank Fall 20066c.8 COEHD Faculty by Academic Rank by Year6c.9 List of Faculty Support Personnel as of November 1, 20076e.1 Technology Resources in the Teacher Education Center6e.2 Technology Resources in White Hall and McGehee Hall6e.3 Pass-Port Web Site

Louisiana Supplement StandardsLASS 1.1 Initial Level Certification Candidates, Results of Louisiana

Supplement Standards Survey, 2006-2007LASS 1.2 2006-2007 Program Year Initial Certification Program Candidate Responses on

School Improvement and Impact on Student LearningLASS 1.3 POST ASSESSMENT – Fall 2006 & Spring 2007 - Advanced Louisiana

Supplement StandardsLASS 1.4 Advanced Programs - Leading in a Culture of Change - EDUC 693LASS 1.5 Advanced Programs - School Improvement Plan – EDUC 688LASS 1.6 Advanced Programs Mini-Research Project - EDUC 678 LASS 1.7 EDL Assessment 2: Case Study, Seminar I: Facilitating a High Quality

Learning CommunityLASS 1.8 EDL Assessment 3: School Improvement Plan, Seminar II: Organizational

Management and Legal IssuesLASS 1.9 EDL Strategic Plan, Seminar III: Human Resources and School Community

Relations

40

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/LASS/ExhibitLASS19.htm






http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/LASS/ExhibitLASS1_6.pdf

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/LASS/LASS15Artifact_EDUC688.pdf

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/LASS/ExhibitLASS1.4.pdf






































LASS 1.10 Follow-Up Survey - Employer/Employee Data - Educational Leadership Program

LASS 1.11 2005-2006 Southeastern Exit SurveyTable 16 Educational LeadershipTable 17 Counselor Education ProgramTable 18 Teaching And LearningTable 20 Communication Sciences and Disorders2006-2007 Southeastern Exit Survey

LASS 1.12 Spring 2007 Professional Attributes ScaleLASS 1.13 CSD 611 Clinical PracticumLASS 1.14 Advanced Programs - Reading Competency MatrixLASS 1.15 Teacher Education Graduate Follow-Up Survey 2006-2007LASS 1.16 Teacher Education Graduate Follow-Up Survey 2005-2006LASS 1.17 Final Report on Student Teaching/Internship/Practicum 2004-2007LASS 1.18 CSD Application Form 2005-2006LASS 1.19 CSD Clinical Skills Competency ChecklistLASS 1.20 CSD Knowledge and Skills Acquisition (KASA)LASS 1.21 Results of Faculty Evaluation - Advanced Dispositions Form 2006-2007LASS 1.22 C&I Advanced Programs - ESL Concentration Candidate Responses

41



http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/LASS/LASS120.xls









http://www.selu.edu/admin/ir/surveys/exit/files/2006_2007.pdf

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/LASS/LASS111.pdf



PASS-PORTPASS-PORT SystemPASS-PORT Folios

PASS-PORT Surveys Diversity – Initial Diversity - Advanced Technology – Initial Technology - Advanced Dispositions - Pre / Post Assessment LASS

PASS-PORT Instruments Assessment Instrument Assessment Plan Classroom Management Dispositions Evaluation E-Folio Initial Rubric E-Folio Advanced Rubric Final Report of Student Teaching/Intern LCET Summative Evaluation Lesson Plan Philosophy

42

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/Philosophy.doc


http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/LCET%20Summative%20Evaluation.doc

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/Final%20Report%20on%20Student%20Teaching_Internship%20Evaluation.doc

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/E-Folio%20Advanced%20Rubric.doc

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/E-Folio%20Initial%20Rubric.doc

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/Dispositions%20-%20Evaluation.doc

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/Classroom%20Management%20Plan.doc

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/Assessment%20Plan.rtf

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/Assessment%20Instrument.doc

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/Louisiana%20Supplement%20Standards_LASS%20Survey.doc

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/Dispositions%20-%20Pre%20and%20Post%20Assessment.doc

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/Technology_Advanced.pdf

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/Technology_Initial.doc

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/Diversity_Advanced.pdf

http://www2.selu.edu/orgs/NCATE/ncate/ExhibitRoom/Passport/Diversity_Initial.doc

http://selu.pass-port.org/main/browse.asp

https://selu.pass-port.org:9002/index.asp?bhcp=1

Persons interviewed:

BOE Team Chair MeetingDr. Diane AllenLinda EasleyBudd Sapp

Dean and NCATE Coordinator

Dr. Diane AllenMs. Flo WinsteadBudd SappFrancis Davis

Faculty: COEHD and Partner Colleges

Paul SimoneauxLeigh Ann BeardBeth BerryTroy WilliamAngie AndersonTerri Miller DrufnerSonya CarrKim Finley-StansburyWendy JacocksChristine MitchellJames KiryloPaul FrecheuFrancis WoodJeff OescherCynthia B. ElliottTena L. GoldingCheryl EdwardsLou SchultzGwen AutinCamille YatesKitty AinsworthGwen TraylorJulie LesterJanis VicknairJohn FulwilerElizabeth RhodesSara BidnerRayma HarcharCharlotte HumphriesMargaret Marshall

43

Hunter AlessiDavid EvansonJason HancockRuth CaillouetKenneth Lane

Partner Colleges: Department Chair & Liaisons

Lucia HarrisonDavid SeverChristine MitchellDaniel AcostaDavid HansonWilliam B. RobisonTim HudsonGerald BlanchardDavid EvensonKaren FontenotEdward Hebert

Budget and Finance: Chief Financial Officer

Mr. Stephen SmithDiane Allen

COEHD Curriculum Committee

Bill NealRebecca DayShirley JacobEllen RatcliffJohn TrowbridgeFred DembowskiAnn NaumanKaty CampbellMary BallardHunter AlessiHeidi Kulkin

University Technology Liaison

Phil Calvin

COEHD Technology Committee

44

John FulwilerJason HancockWendy SiegelBecky Parton

Sims Memorial Library Visit

Eric JohnsonJanie BranhamCathy TijerinoLynette RalphBeth Stahr

COEHD-Faculty Open Meeting

Debra WarrenJohan W. Van der JagtKimberley DavisAngie AndersonHeloise MorganNicki SkeltonFrances WoodKitty AinsworthRebecca CheekBeth BerrySusan SawyerTerri Miller-DrufnerGail McMillonJohn TrowbridgeLeigh Ann BeardCynthia B. ElliotLead SaddenJune WilliamsSara BidnerBeth WadlingtonPaige SchulteJoy HinesJames KiryloJohn FulwilerWendy JacocksPaulette FelderPaul SimoneauxDeborah McCarthyLori BrocatoCheryl Edwards

45

Charlotte HumphriesMary Ellen SchererPam TaylorEllen RatcliffJulie LesterGwen TraylorElizabeth PartridgeDiane ColeJanis VicknairCamille YatesPaul GoodwinMartha ThornhillSonya CarrElizabeth RhodesWendy SiegelRebecca DayColleen Klein-Ezell

COEHD-Candidates Open Meeting

Janine RogersMelanie SmithHeather RaymondKrystle PaytonLynn GreshamJulie Welch

46

Board of Examiners Report - Southeastern …€¦ · Web view1e.6 Action Research 1e.7 Diversity...

Documents

Transcript of Board of Examiners Report - Southeastern …€¦ · Web view1e.6 Action Research 1e.7 Diversity...