EDINBORO UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

 

 

Dr. Frank G. Pogue, President

 

One of the 14 universities
in Pennsylvania's
State System of Higher Education

 

 

 

NCATE 2006 INSTITUTIONAL REPORT

updated 3/17/06

 

 


 

Table of Contents

  1. Overview of the Institution

  2. Conceptual Framework

II.a Shared Vision

II.b Coherence

II.c Professional Commitments and Dispositions

II.d Commitment to Diversity

II.e Commitment to Technology

II.f  Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Professional and State Standards

  1. Meeting the Standards

III.a Standard 1

III.b Standard 2

III.c Standard 3

III.d Standard 4

III.e Standard 5

III.f Standard 6

 


 

I. Overview of the Institution


Edinboro University of Pennsylvania is one of the 14 universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) and has existed for 149 years as an educational agent of service and change in northwestern Pennsylvania.  Founded as a teacher-training institution, the University has evolved into a comprehensive university with a full range of academic and support programs paralleling the region’s economic, population, and demographic changes.  It is currently designated as a “Master’s I-Public” university
.


Currently the University includes 23 academic departments organized into three schools:  the School of Liberal Arts; the School of Education; and the School of Science, Management, and Technology (0.1). Together, these departments offer over 100 academic programs including undergraduate, graduate, and certificate offerings. These range from traditional programs, such as history and biology, to pre-professional programs, such as the pre-medical arrangement, and the pre-pharmacy arrangement with the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine (LECOM). In addition, Edinboro offers professional programs, such as the Bachelor of Science in Nursing and the Master of Arts in Counseling, and programs on the cutting edge of development such as Animation and the Master of Science in Information Technology. In collaboration with Slippery Rock University and Clarion University, Edinboro offers a consortium degree, the Master of Nursing:  Family Nurse Practitioner and Nurse Educator. Several of our programs hold accreditation status, and some enjoy national reputations.

 

The University is “ home” to 7,691 students as of fall, 2005 (0.2) Of these, 6,523 are undergraduates, and 1168 are enrolled in graduate programs.  About 76% of the students attend classes full time (0.3).  Tuition, $4906 - Undergraduate and $5888 - Graduate/year, is among the most affordable in the nation (0.4).  Edinboro maintains six residence halls for approximately 2,600 students (0.5).  The remaining students live off campus or commute.   Partly because of its affordable tuition, Edinboro offers a first-time experience with higher education for many families.  Although the University primarily attracts students from northwestern Pennsylvania, its reputation ranges far beyond the region, and it now hosts students from across the state; Edinboro also hosts 772 out-of-state students and 138 international students (0.6).

 

The University’s mission includes a nationally recognized commitment to serve students with disabilities (0.7, 0.8).  This effort was initiated more than 25 years ago - long before the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Today, Edinboro University ranks first in the PASSHE in the number of wheelchair bound students and is ranked among the 10 top universities across the nation for service to students with disabilities.

 

Three-hundred-forty tenured and tenure-track faculty give a student-faculty ratio of 18:1.  Eighty-two percent of these faculty hold terminal degrees (0.9). Many faculty are recognized regionally and nationally for their outstanding research and scholarly accomplishments, and a number have held state and national leadership roles in their professional organizations.

 

The focus of the University is teaching, and the institution takes great pride in the teaching effectiveness of its faculty.  Many faculty members also sustain active research programs that involve undergraduates as well as graduate students.  At Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, faculty teach four courses with a maximum of three preparations per semester (0.10).  Faculty provide all classroom teaching and evaluation; graduate assistants do not teach courses (0.11).  In addition, faculty advise department majors and participate in a broad range of service functions through committee work, both departmental and university-wide.  Specific faculty contributions also occur on a continuing basis in the University Senate, University-Wide Curriculum Committee, Highlands Center for Faculty Initiatives (0.12) the Uniting for Success Initiative (0.13), the Institute for Human Services and Civility (0.14), the 21st Century Planning Committee (0.15), and the Commission on Civility (0.16).

 

Administrative and service functions are addressed by 416 full-time staff and administrators (0.17).  Administrative offices include undergraduate and graduate admissions, accounting, and student services, to name a few.  To recognize the growth of the graduate population, the Office of Graduate Studies and Research was recently renamed the School of Graduate Studies and Research (0.18).  There is considerable collaboration and interaction between faculty and staff on a wide range of issues.

 

The physical setting of the main campus of the University is serene and conducive to reflection.  The 43 buildings are situated on a spacious 585-acre campus, which includes open fields, a lake, and many wooded acres (0.19).  Waterfowl and other wildlife are a part of many campus vistas. The newly-renovated education building, Butterfield Hall, is equipped with up-to-date technology and includes both a distance-education classroom and a clinical site for counseling and social work students (0.20).  The recent renovation of Baron-Forness Library also adds to the beauty of the campus. The campus is located in the residential community of Edinboro, Pennsylvania (population: 7,750), 15 miles south of Erie, Pennsylvania (population: 104,000), and approximately 20 miles north of Meadville, Pennsylvania (population: 14,000).  The region served extends to the metropolitan areas of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Youngstown, Ohio; Cleveland, Ohio; and Buffalo, New York.

 

Edinboro maintains a presence in Erie through Edinboro University in Erie-the Porreco Center, a 27-acre estate with 11 buildings, which serves to centralize and expand outreach programs to the greater Erie area. (0.21).  Undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education offerings are provided at this campus.  Among its features are a large classroom building, a beautiful estate manor for smaller gatherings, a pond, orchards, and ample parking.  Classrooms and meeting rooms are fully equipped to serve the University’s educational programs.

 

In 2004, Edinboro University in Meadville opened to meet more completely the needs of the Meadville area students.  The University has expanded the number and variety of courses offered in the Meadville venue (0.22).

 

Recognizing the limitations often faced by citizens in a largely rural service region, the University has expanded its distance education offerings to assist those unable to come to the campus for a variety of reasons. The University collaborates with the Higher Education Councils and various agencies to bring undergraduate and graduate programs to regional citizens through Interactive Television (ITV) and on-site instruction.  Also, the University now offers eight programs through Web-based instruction:  M Ed: Special Education;  M Ed:  Reading;  M Ed:  Educational Leadership; M Ed:  Middle and Secondary Education;  post-baccalaureate institutional certificate in Character Education; post-master’s certification programs in K-12 Principal Certification and in the Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent, IU Director Letter of Eligibility (0.23, 0.24). In Fall, 2006, a ninth program, the M Ed:  Elementary Education, will be offered through Web-based instruction (0.25).

 

Four other institutions of higher education also serve our region.  Erie is home to three:  Gannon University, Mercyhurst College, and Penn State Erie - The Behrend College.  Meadville is home to Allegheny College, a small private liberal arts college. While Edinboro University is not the only institution of higher learning in northwestern Pennsylvania, it is the largest and most affordable.   As such, it occupies a unique niche in the region, to serve and educate with high quality, affordable education.

 

The NCATE Unit and the School of Education

There are three schools that house academic programs at Edinboro University:  Education (EDUC), Liberal Arts (LA), and Science, Management & Technology (SM&T).  Twenty-four graduate and undergraduate professional educator programs are located within the School of Education in the departments of Elementary Education, Health & Physical Education, Professional Studies, Secondary Education, and Special Education & School Psychology.  Programs in Art, Music, and Speech-Language Pathology are located in the School of Liberal Arts.  The School of Education plus the professional educator programs in Liberal Arts form the NCATE Unit.  The Dean of the School of Education is the head of the Unit and also serves as the certification officer for all professional educator programs at Edinboro University (0.26).

 

List of Evidence for Introduction

0.1    EUP Fact Book 2005-2006

0.2    EUP Fact Book 2005-2006

0.3    Freeze File

0.4    Financial Aid Web site

0.5    Edinboro-at-a-glance Web site

0.6    EUP Fact Book 2005-2006

0.7    Mission and Vision Statement

0.8    Disability Web site

0.9    Degreed Faculty

0.10  CBA pages 69-77

0.11  CBA pages 11-13

0.12  Highlands Center Web site

0.13  Interim Report from May of 2005

0.14  Institute for Human Services and Civility

0.15  21st Century Planning Committee

0.16  The Commission on Civility

0.17  EUP Fact Book 2005-2006

0.18  October 28th In-Touch from October 2005

0.19  Edinboro-at-a-glance Web site

0.20  Butterfield Hall

0.21  Edinboro-at-a-glance Web site

0.22  Edinboro-at-a-glance Web site

0.23  Online programs brochure

0.24  Graduate View Book

0.25  Web-based instruction

0.26  EUP organizational chart

 


 

II. Conceptual Framework

 

The Conceptual Framework construction began in January 2003, with a review of the framework that the Edinboro University NCATE Unit (Unit) was currently using, entitled Educating as Informed Decision Making (CF.1). The NCATE Steering Committee reviewed all of the components of the existing framework in light of the new NCATE Standards (CF.2). In the fall of 2003, the Conceptual Framework (CF) Committee (CF.3) was formed to continue the work of the Steering Committee.  The CF Committee was given the charge to develop a new framework to support the shared vision of the Unit, the university-at-large, and the new NCATE Standards.  The CF Committee was comprised of members from seven academic departments, the Office of the President, and University Planning, Institutional Research, & Continuous Improvement (UPIRCI), to ensure that the CF would be constantly viewed and revised from a wide perspective of faculty and administrators across the university. 

 

The fall 2003 semester was spent reviewing the former framework, adjusting, and revising it in many areas:

University Mission and Vision Statement (CF.4)

NCATE Standards (CF.5)

INTASC Standards (CF.6)

Graduate Mission Statement (CF.7)

School of Education Mission Statement (CF.8)

The Unit’s Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions at the Graduate level (CF.9)

PA-354 Standards (CF.10)

NBPTS Standards  (CF.11)

 

In order to involve all faculty and administrators in developing the framework, thereby sharing the vision, each draft of the new CF was posted to Edinboro University’s Web site for faculty and administrative input.  After three open sessions for discussion among the University faculty and administration, two on-line surveys of Unit faculty, an all-day Unit retreat, and ongoing discussions during individual department meetings, the CF was formally endorsed by President Frank Pogue in January 2004 (CF.12).

 

The NCATE Unit conceptual framework is entitled Effective Facilitators of Learning (CF.13) The knowledge base that provided direction for the framework narrative was collaboratively researched (CF.14).  Exit outcomes (CF.15) were developed for use in creating assessments that reflect the CF as candidates progress through their programs and as they complete their programs.

 

II.a. Shared Vision

The Unit’s CF, Effective Facilitators of Learning, is evident throughout the campus and the community. It is consistent with the Mission Statement of the University, as well as the Unit’s former CF Educating as Informed Decision Making, Edinboro University’s Graduate Mission Statement, and the SOE’s Mission Statement. Faculty and administration from outside the Unit contributed to building the CF.  The CF is consistently shared with students and the Unit. It appears on syllabi, and it is articulated by professors, clinical field supervisors, cooperating teachers, Unit graduates, and current students (CF.16)  The knowledge base for the CF contains references which were gathered from faculty members across the Unit.  Evidence that the CF is a shared vision can be found in the History of the CF Development (CF.17), the extensive list of references (CF.18), the alignments of the CF with INTASC, PDE, Grad KSD, NBPTS (CF.19), each individual SPA report (CF.20), and master’s level programs across the Unit. Agendas and minutes from Steering Committee and CF Committee meetings from January 2003 to the present outline the step-by-step process used in creating a framework that results from a shared, collaborative vision.

 

II.b. Coherence

The Unit’s CF, Effective Facilitators of Learning, provides philosophical grounding for all undergraduate and graduate programs. Each course offered in the Unit has aligned content with the CF.  This is evidenced by specific components of the framework being addressed in course syllabus (CF.21). Assignments that are submitted on LiveText and used in our assessment system (CF.22) identify specific portions of the framework that are addressed through candidate performance.  Each SPA and master's level program standards  are aligned to the CF (CF.23).  Candidates reflect and write how each course fulfills the belief statements of our CF. Field instruction and clinical practice assessments and supervision consistently mirror the CF. Evaluation tools used by cooperating teachers, university supervisors, and candidates are aligned with the CF.

 

II.c. Professional Commitments and Dispositions

The Unit’s CF, Effective Facilitators of Learning, provides a vision for professional commitments and dispositions.  As candidates progress through Unit programs, they must meet several criteria.  Applicants for candidacy must complete the Application for Admission to Teacher Candidacy (CF.24) form, which includes: (a) meet specific course grade and overall GPA requirements, (b) take designated courses, (c) pass the PRAXIS I reading, math, and writing exams, and (d) attend a career development workshop.  When application is made for candidacy at the Advanced level, a rating form identifying specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions must be completed and submitted by the department along with the candidacy application (CF.25)  Each semester, potential candidates must meet with their advisors.  During advisement, information regarding candidacy requirements and essential knowledge, skills, and dispositions are reviewed.

 

Following attainment of candidacy, certification programs require advanced methods classes, field experiences, and student teaching.  Monitoring of knowledge, skills, and dispositions is built into the observation and evaluation process.  As part of field experiences, candidates must demonstrate through student products, supervisor and cooperating teacher observations that their instruction is having a positive impact on student learning and behavior.  A Knowledge, Skills, and Disposition form (CF.26) is also filled out by graduate students at the time of candidacy.

 

II.d. Commitment to Diversity

The Unit’s CF, Effective Facilitators of Learning, provides a vision for appreciation and celebration of diversity.  Candidates are surveyed three times during their programs regarding their commitment to diversity.  In order to achieve candidacy, candidates need to have exhibited a commitment to diversity.   A designated course in diversity (CF.27) is required as part of the core curriculum, and a second course specific to diversity, SEDU 271 (CF.28) in education is also required of all teacher candidates.  A national search is in progress for the Carter Godwin Woodson Professor of Secondary Education (CF.29) position, which will be offered to a faculty member who is highly qualified in educational diversity.  Through an ongoing demographic study (CF.30) of the schools in which our student teachers are trained, the schools are ranked according to socioeconomic levels, numbers of children with exceptionalities, and ethnic diversity.  Each of our student teachers and field students are required to be placed in a school that has been designated as having a significant population of children of poverty, exceptionalities, and/or diverse ethnicity.  In addition, the opportunity to teach in Philadelphia provides an urban experience (CF.31) for those who plan to focus their career in the inner city.

 

II.e. Commitment to Technology

The Unit’s CF, Effective Facilitators of Learning, recognizes the importance of technology, and candidates are able to utilize current and appropriate technology for instruction, administration, and facilitation of learning.  A commitment to technology is evident across the Unit’s programs, courses, assessments, and facilities. All of the programs require teacher candidates and related professionals to demonstrate their ability to utilize technology appropriately. Required courses related to the specific use of educational technology, as well as integration of technology in all courses, through the implementation of LiveText, ensure that teacher candidates and related professionals are prepared to apply the knowledge, skills, and dispositions in the field experiences and clinical practices. A technology survey (CF.32) is administered to all candidates when they enroll in required technology courses SEDU 383 (CF.33), ARED 383 (CF.34), or HPE 384 (CF.35).

 

In order to collect data, the Unit has adopted the Web-based platform LiveText. Teacher candidates and other school professionals are required to submit assignments via the Web-based platform, LiveText. Faculty members provide feedback on assignments and assessments through LiveText. These data are collected and then tracked by Unit, program, and candidate. Decisions are made, based upon collected data, which contribute to the continuous improvement of the Unit (CF.36), program (CF.37), and individual (CF.38). Course syllabi and faculty vitae are posted in LiveText (CF.39).

 

The University has made a commitment to education and technology that is evident in the facilities that house the Unit’s programs. Renovations to Butterfield Hall (CF.40) have been completed that include updates of technology in every classroom and a completely wireless environment. The Crawford Center (CF.41) has multiple classrooms and labs which are equipped with the latest technology.

 

II.f. Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Professional and State Standards

The Unit’s CF, Effective Facilitators of Learning, provides the context for developing and assessing candidate proficiencies based on professional, state, and institutional standards.  Each individual program and SPA is aligned with CF Standards as well as INTASC, PDE, Graduate KSD, and NBPTS (CF.42). The CF is consistent with the mission of the University. Every program in the Unit has identified assessments that contribute to the Unit assessment system (CF.43). Each assessment is linked to professional and state standards and to the Unit's CF.  Cooperating teacher surveys and student teaching assessments are also aligned to the Conceptual Framework (CF.44, CF.45, CF.46, CF.47, CF.48, CF.49, CF.50). 

 

Conceptual Framework List of Evidence

CF.1    Former Conceptual Framework

CF.2    Steering Committee Documents

CF.3    Conceptual Framework Committee Members

CF.4    Mission and Vision Statement

CF.5    NCATE 2002 Standards

CF.6    INSTAC Standards

CF.7    Graduate Mission Statement

CF.8    School of Education Mission Statement

CF.9    KSD’s at the Graduate Level

CF.10  PDE Chapter 354 General Standards

CF.11  NBPTS Standards

CF.12  Conceptual Framework e-Mail invitation from November 5, 2003

CF.13  Effective Facilitators of Learning Brochure

CF.14  Conceptual Framework Narrative

CF.15  Conceptual Framework Exit Outcomes

CF.16  Conceptual Framework Reflection

CF.17  History of the Conceptual Framework

CF.18  Conceptual Framework References

CF.19  Conceptual Framework Standards Alignment

CF.20  SPA Documents

CF.21  Example syllabus, READ 712

CF.22  Instructional Assessment Plan Directions

CF.23  SPA Matrices

CF.24  Admission to Teacher Candidacy Form

CF.25  Graduate KSD Form

CF.26  Graduate KSD Form

CF.27  Undergraduate Catalogue, page 52

CF.28  SEDU 271

CF.29  Carter Godwin Woodson, Professor of Secondary Education

CF.30  Diversity by School District

CF.31  Urban Seminar Brochure

CF.32  Technology Survey

CF.33  SEDU 383

CF.34  ARED 383

CF.35  HPE 384

CF.36  Instructional Assessment Plan Unit Summary, Spring 2005

CF.37  Instructional Assessment Plan Elementary Ed. Summary, Spring 2005

CF.38  Instructional Assessment Plan of one student

CF.39  SEDU 271 LiveText Format

CF.40  Butterfield Hall

CF.41  Crawford Center

CF.42  SPA Matrices

CF.43  Unit Assessment Documents

CF.44  Spring 2004 Cooperating Teacher Survey

CF.45  Spring 2004 Teacher Efficacy

CF.46  Fall 2004 Cooperating Teacher Survey

CF.47  Fall 2004 Student Teacher Survey

CF.48  Spring 2005 Candidate Performance Profile

CF.49  Spring 2005 Student Teacher Survey

CF.50  Spring 2005 Cooperating Teacher Survey

 

 


 

III. Meeting Each Standard

 

III.a. Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Candidate's preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students' learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

 

Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

 

In order to facilitate the presentation for Standard 1, all programs offered within the NCATE Unit have been classified as either Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers or as Other Professional School Personnel (Table 1.1). The master’s degrees in Educational Leadership and Educational Psychology are not listed separately because they are prerequisites to the post-master’s programs for school principals and school psychologists, respectively. Table 1.1 also shows which programs are delivered on-line as well as in conventional face-to-face formats.

 

Table 1.1

NCATE Unit Programs at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania - Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers

                 

Program

Bachelors

Postbaccalaureate

Masters

Web-Based

Art K-12                                     

X

X

 

 

Early Childhood                          

X

X

 

 

Elementary K-6                           

X

X

X

 

Health & Physical K-12               

X

X

 

 

Music K-12                                 

X

X

 

 

Secondary & Middle School

 

 

X

X

Secondary Biology

X

X

 

 

Secondary Chemistry

X

X

 

 

Secondary Earth & Space

X

X

 

 

Secondary English

X

X

 

 

Secondary Foreign Language

X

X

 

 

Secondary Mathematics              

X

X

 

 

Secondary Physics

X

X

 

 

Secondary Social Studies

X

X

 

 

Special Education N-12

X

X

X

X

 

 

Table 1.2

NCATE Unit Programs at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania - Other Professional School Personnel

 

Program

Postbaccalaureate

Masters

Post-Masters

Web-Based

Counselor – Elementary                                     

 

X

 

 

Counselor – Secondary

 

X

 

 

Instructional Technology Specialist

X

 

 

 

Principal K-12

 

X

X

X

Reading Specialist

X

X

 

X

School Psychologist

 

 

X

 

Single Area Supervisor

 

 

X

 

Speech-Language Pathologist

 

X

 

 

Special Education Supervisor

 

 

X

 

Superintendent/IU Exec Dir

 

 

X

X

 

Candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions are aligned with the Edinboro University Conceptual Framework and the standards of NCATE, INTASC, NBPTS, and the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE). For ease of presentation the standards alignments are presented electronically in three super matrices that include all programs for Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers and Other Professional School Personnel (1.1).

 

Program specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions and their corresponding assessments are described in the Specialized Professional Association reports (1.2). In the cases of Counseling and Speech-Language Pathology, Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions are addressed in the most recent self-study reports to CACREP (1.3) and ASHA (1.4), respectively. 

  

Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates

Teacher candidates at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania are well prepared to teach the subject matter related to their programs of study. Strong subject area preparation is reflected in program curricula and evidenced in a wide variety of program and unit level assessments.

 

Rationale

One of the primary reasons for strong subject matter preparation at Edinboro University is the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s (PDE) General Standard IV of state regulations pertaining to teacher preparation:

 

“The preparing institution shall document that the academic content courses for initial preparation programs culminating in a bachelor’s degree or higher shall be the same as a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degree and shall also include all required electives in the content area that the candidates plan to teach or serve and allow completion in four years.”

 

At Edinboro University, required academic content courses are the same or comparable between education and arts and sciences programs with the same field of study. For example, a chemistry major and a major in secondary education chemistry take the same sequence of chemistry courses. (See paired advising sheets for program curriculum comparisons (1.5)). Academic requirements for initial programs are described in the 2005-2006 Undergraduate Catalogue on the following pages: 58-59 (1.6), 69-70 (1.7), and 122-139 (1.8). Academic requirements for continuing programs for teachers are described in the 2005-2007 Graduate Catalogue on the following pages: 60-62 (1.9), 70-72 (1.10), and 90-92 (1.11).

 

The general education requirements at Edinboro University include 48 hours of coursework in humanities and fine arts, social and behavioral sciences, natural science, mathematics, and health and physical education. These requirements are the same for all undergraduate degree programs including professional educator programs (51-55 (1.12) of the Undergraduate Catalogue and sample program advisement sheet (1.13)). The required coursework in each professional educator program enables candidates to provide instruction to students to meet the provisions of the Pennsylvania Academic Standards. Following a site visit in April 2004, PDE determined that all school personnel programs in the Edinboro University NCATE Unit meet state Academic Standards (1.14).

 

In addition to rigorous state academic standards, all candidates in initial teacher preparation programs must meet the conditions of candidacy (1.15), which include a minimum GPA of 2.8 as delineated in transition 3 of the Unit Assessment System for Initial Programs.  Because students are blocked from taking most methods classes until they have been granted candidacy, the GPA necessary for candidacy has to be established primarily in subject matter courses, either in general education or in the candidate’s subject area (e.g. social studies).

 

At the time of our last NCATE site visit, the GPA necessary for student teaching was 2.5; and - because there was no candidacy gate - it was not unusual for Edinboro University to graduate students with a 2.0 or less in the subject matter-oriented courses of general education. This is no longer the case as evidenced by a comparison of general education GPAs for fall 1999 graduates as opposed to graduates in fall 2005.  A random sample of 20 graduating seniors in fall 1999 had an average general education GPA of 2.65 as compared to a 3.25 general education average for 20 graduating seniors randomly selected from fall 2005.  The conclusion that candidates now are better prepared in content subjects than students at the time of the last NCATE site visit is also supported by faculty observations of the general knowledge of students now and then, particularly in Elementary Education.

 

Assessments

Table 1.3 shows the PRAXIS results by program for all Title II cohorts from 1999-2000 to 2004-2005. While some programs have small numbers and fluctuating percentages from year to year, most programs far exceed the 80% minimum, as does the aggregate pass rate for the Unit as a whole. PRAXIS II results have improved with the implementation of NCATE 2000 standards.

 

Table 1.3
PRAXIS Results for Title II Cohorts

Category

Academic Year 2000-2001

Academic Year 2001-2002

Academic Year 2002-2003

Academic Year  2003-2004

Test

Number Taking Assessment

Number Passing

% Pass

Number Taking Assessment

Number Passing

% Pass

Number Taking Assessment

Number Passing

% Pass

Number Taking Assessment

Number Passing

% Pass

Basic Skills

337

336

100%

241

236

98%

324

313

97%

339

337

99%

Professional Knowledge

325

282

87%

234

208

89%

302

268

89%

 

 

 

Academic Content Areas

293

242

83%

221

188

85%

342

299

87%

389

347

89%

Other Content Areas

35

35

100%

20

20

100%

17

17

100%

30

30

100%

Teaching Special Populations

78

65

83%

55

54

98%

56

56

100%

76

76

100%

Summary Totals

340

270

79%

242

205

85%

334

282

84%

374

350

94%

 

 

The Pennsylvania Department of Education 430 form (PDE 430) is a state assessment required for all student teachers effective fall 2004 (1.16). Faculty supervisors evaluate student teachers in four different categories of performance and provide evidence to support the evaluations. Category I is directly related to content knowledge of teacher candidates:

 

“Category I: Planning and Preparation – Student teacher demonstrates thorough knowledge of content and pedagogical skills in planning and preparation, student teacher makes plans and sets goals based on the content to be taught/learned, their knowledge of assigned students and their instructional context.” (1.17).

 

Individual scores for Category I performances range in points from 0, Unsatisfactory, to 3, Exemplary. Means and standard deviations are provided by program and by semester for all students in initial programs (1.18).

 

The Teacher Candidate Performance Profile (TCPP) (1.19) is a 53-item assessment based on INTASC standards. Each item in the Profile is rated as Target (3 points), Acceptable (2 points), Developing (1 point), or Unacceptable (0 points). The four categories of the PDE 430 Form are the same areas addressed in the TCPP.  These areas include planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction and, professionalism.  The correlation of these two assessments provides a richer and more detailed analysis on the teacher candidate's abilities in these four areas.  Means and standard deviations for the combined items - based on University supervisors, cooperating teachers and candidate self-evaluations - are provided for spring and fall 2005 semesters (1.20).

 

The TCPP, which has been in use for two semesters, is completed once by students and University supervisors during junior field and twice by students, University supervisors, and cooperating teachers during student teaching. There are four items on the Profile that are directly related to content knowledge as shown in Table 1.4. Teacher Candidates consistently rated well above the Acceptable (2 pts.) rating.

 

Table 1.4 Mean Ratings for Selected Item Related to Content Knowledge From the Teacher Candidate’s Performance Profile

 

 

Spring 2005

Fall 2005

Item

Mean

Standard Deviation

Mean

Standard Deviation

PP1: The teacher can represent and use differing viewpoints, theories, 'ways of knowing' and methods of inquiry in his/her teaching of subject matter.

2.78

0.44

2.71

0.5

PP2: The teacher engages students in generating knowledge and testing hypotheses according to the methods of inquiry and standards of evidence used in the discipline.

2.75

0.47

2.72

0.51

PP3: The teacher can create interdisciplinary learning experiences that allow students to integrate knowledge, skills and methods of inquiry from several subject areas.

2.74

0.5

2.7

0.54

PP4: The teacher can relate his/her disciplinary knowledge to other subject areas.

2.81

0.42

2.73

0.5

PP9: The teacher understands learning theory, subject matter, curriculum development and student development and knows how to use this knowledge in planning instruction to meet curriculum goals.

2.75

0.5

2.69

0.56

 

 

Examples of program specific assessments from courses, projects, comprehensive examinations, and student research demonstrate subject matter mastery, inquiry, critical analysis, and synthesis in Special Education and School Psychology (1.21).

 

Content Knowledge for Other Professional School Personnel

While the professional content knowledge of other professional school personnel is not assessed as part of the admission process to the Graduate School, the academic requirements for admission ensure that candidates have the ability to acquire the necessary content knowledge. Admission requirements are thoroughly described in the 2006-2008Graduate Catalogue  (1.22).

 

Other professional school personnel must demonstrate their content knowledge through a variety of internal assessments and by passing state required PRAXIS tests for each certification area as presented in Table 1.5.

  

Table 1.5 PRAXIS scores 2000-2005 for Professional School Personnel

 

 

2001

2002

2003

2004

Test

Number Taking Assessment

% Pass

Number Taking Assessment

% Pass

Number Taking Assessment

% Pass

Number Taking Assessment

% Pass

 Counseling

1

100%

22

77%

16

88%

8

100%

Principal K-12* (beginning 2003)

2

100%

51

100%

31

97%

14

93%

Reading Specialist

11

91%

19

95%

11

91%

25

88%

School Psychologist

 

 

9

100%

9

100%

10

100%

Specialist I Instructional Technology**

 

 

 

 

 

 

NA

NA

Specialist I  Speech Language Impaired

14

93%

9

100%

9

78%

8

100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

** Instructional Technology Specialist does not have a PRAXIS test for certification

 

 

          *Note: In Fall, 2003, the PRAXIS test for K-12 Principal Certification replaced the previous tests for
            Elementary Principal Certification and Secondary Principal Certification.

          **Note:  No students have completed this program to date.  It was conditionally approved for offering by the PDE in spring, 2004

 

 

In addition to PRAXIS assessments, all candidates in programs for other professional school personnel are assessed by the faculty with the KSD-GRAD (Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions Graduate 1.23), at candidacy (1.24) and when they apply for graduation. Using the KSD-GRAD assessment form (1.25), the candidate and faculty advisor analyze the candidate’s level of proficiency in knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The KSD-GRAD allows the faculty advisor to determine areas at the target, acceptable, developing and unacceptable levels for 7 knowledge areas, 7 skills areas, and 7 dispositions areas that the Unit has identified as applicable across all advanced programs. However, K1, S1, S5, and S6 of the KSD-GRAD (1.26) are related to content knowledge specific to the candidate’s discipline. If a candidate is not at target at the time of candidacy analysis, the advisor prepares a plan for improvement, which is included on the KSD-GRAD assessment form. Each department must have a remediation policy so that a protocol is followed when a student is having difficulty (1.27). Student LiveText files show the electronic version as well as the hard copies of the KSD-GRAD, which reside in the candidate’s file in the Graduate School Office (1.28).

 

In addition to state certification examinations and the KSD-GRAD, candidates demonstrate their understanding of central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of their fields through adherence to their specialized professional association standards, NCATE and PDE standards, the Edinboro University Conceptual Framework, and the standards of other accrediting bodies such as ASHA and CACREP. Matrices (1.29) have been created to demonstrate the manner in which Edinboro University’s Conceptual Framework aligns with the PDE, INTASC, NBPTS, and KSD-GRAD standards, and all programs for school personnel. These standards are reflected in the SPA program reports (1.30) and in the requirements and assessments specified in course syllabi (1.31).

 

Candidates for advanced certification and those in other master’s degree programs, which include all programs for other professional school personnel, also demonstrate their content knowledge through inquiry, critical analysis, and synthesis in their course assignments and course-embedded assessments (1.32).

 

Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teachers

Pedagogical content knowledge is the combination of subject knowledge with effective teaching strategies to produce student achievement. This is reflected in Belief Statement B of the Conceptual Framework (1.33): “Demonstrate pedagogical skills built on a solid foundation of discipline-specific content, reinforced by a broad liberal arts education and supervised clinical experiences.”

 

The content knowledge of Edinboro University candidates for initial certification is excellent as described in “Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates.” The following text will describe how students acquire pedagogical knowledge and how the Unit assesses candidates to ensure that they are Effective Facilitators of Learning in their applications of content and pedagogical knowledge.

 

The pedagogical knowledge required of candidates for initial certification is defined by  SPA, PDE, and INTASC standards, and the Edinboro University Conceptual Framework. The super matrices (1.34) demonstrate the alignment for all initial and continuing teacher preparation programs. These standards are reflected in the SPA program reports (1.35) and in the requirements and assessments specified in course syllabi (1.36). In particular, the pedagogical knowledge and specific strategies required for effective content delivery are provided in a wide variety of professional and methods courses as presented on the advising sheets for initial certification programs (1.37). For example, HPE 278 Physical Education in the Elementary School (1.38), SEDU 573 Instructional Techniques for Social Studies (1.39), and ELED 360 Methods of Teaching Science in the Elementary School (1.40).

 

In order to ensure that Edinboro graduates can apply pedagogical content knowledge to the needs of all students, candidates learn how to modify pedagogy to accommodate diversity. For example, SEDU 271 Education in a Multicultural Society is foundations course required of all students in initial teacher preparation programs (1.41). In particular, the course emphasizes viewing the world from a multicultural perspective. It encourages candidates to begin to explore the cultural contexts of a student’s world and understand how the family, community, socioeconomic factors, cultural influences, and societal issues may impact student learning. Students at this level are exposed to various pedagogical approaches that might address differences in learning, such as cooperative learning, culturally responsive pedagogy, differentiated instruction, learning styles, techniques for teaching the ESL learner, and adaptation of instruction for individual needs. Other courses that focus on meeting the needs of all students are HPE 360 Adapted Physical Education (1.42) and SPED 330 Adapting Instruction for Special Needs Students (1.43).

 

Assessments

The Unit level assessments of pedagogical content knowledge are the Teacher Candidate Performance Profile (TCPP), the Pennsylvania Statewide Evaluation for Student Professional Knowledge and Practice (PDE 430), and the Instructional Assessment Plan (1.44). The TCPP (1.45) is based on INTASC standards and is completed by the candidate and supervisor during junior field and by the candidate, cooperating teacher, and supervisor during student teaching (see Standard 3). The items in the Instruction portion of the TCPP are directly related to pedagogical applications; item 5 for example, “The teacher constantly monitors and adjust strategies in response to learner feedback.” Means and standard deviations for items on the TCPP are available (1.46).

 

The PDE 430 also permits the University supervisor to assess each candidate for pedagogical content knowledge (1.47). Category III of the assessment focuses on instructional delivery.

 

 “Category III: Student teacher, through knowledge of content and their pedagogy and skill in delivering instruction engages students in learning by using a variety of instructional strategies”

 

University supervisors are required to provide justifications and evidence for their evaluations on the PDE 430. Individual scores for Category III performances range from 0 to 3 points. Means and standard deviations are provided by program and by semester for all students in initial programs (1.48).

 

The Instructional Assessment Plan (1.49) is another major source of evidence that teacher candidates possess the appropriate pedagogical content knowledge to deliver and assess standards-based instruction and document the impact of their practice on student learning. Through teacher work samples, candidates provide evidence of their ability to use multiple teaching and assessment modes to assess student learning, before, during, and after instruction.  These data are used to profile student learning, communicate information about student progress, plan for future instruction, and reflect on instruction and student learning to improve teaching. The Instructional Assessment Plan was adapted from the Renaissance Partnership group. The Renaissance Group is a nationwide consortium of institutions dedicated to the development of high quality teachers. Since 1989, the Renaissance Group has been researching, developing, and implementing the teacher work sample with P-16 collaborative schools throughout the country. The Instructional Assessment Plan was piloted in spring 2005 and fully implemented in Fall 2005. A summary of each of the six areas of the Instructional Assessment Plan (1.50) rubric shows that the means of all teacher candidate scores exceed the acceptable (2.0) rating (1.51).

 

Candidates in continuing programs - usually master’s degrees - are assessed by the faculty with the KSD-GRAD (1.52, see “Content Knowledge for Other Professional School Personnel”). Items K4, K6, S1, and S6 are pertinent to the assessment of pedagogical content knowledge.

 

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates

Professional knowledge refers to what teachers know about education in addition to pedagogical and content knowledge. This would include information about learning theory, ethics, and diversity, for example. Professional knowledge explains the context in which teaching takes places and assists school personnel in designing and delivering instruction. The importance of professional knowledge is reflected in Belief Statement I in the Conceptual Framework (1.53): “Strive for congruence of professional and interpersonal dispositions to interact, communicate, and collaborate effectively with students, families, colleagues, and the community.”

 

Professional knowledge is addressed to some extent in almost all education courses. However, it is particularly prominent in the introductory course, SEDU 271 Education in a Multicultural Society, and in the various courses that accompany student teaching, such as ELED 450 Professional Performance in the Elementary Classroom and SEDU 486 Professional Topics in Education.

 

In addition to a multicultural perspective on education, SEDU 271 addresses state, national and local standards, school governance, history and philosophy of education, demographics, and the social, economic, political and cultural influences on education. ELED 450 provides teacher candidates with a research-based understanding of the theories, models, and techniques that build positive family and community collaborations and behavior management skills necessary for today’s diverse classroom environments. The course also examines professional development and critical issues facing elementary teachers.

 

Edinboro University is committed to preparing teachers who are highly qualified and have a developed awareness of the educational impact of cultural, socioeconomic, and family structure influences. The NCATE unit has demonstrated this commitment by redesigning the foundations course, SEDU 271, and implementing the requirement that all candidates must have an experience, either in junior field or student teaching, in a school identified as being highly diverse. One of the options is SEDU 300 Urban Seminar (1.56) an intense, two-week residential field experience in Philadelphia in which candidates teach lessons and work with small groups of students under the supervision of a certified teacher. Candidates are also introduced to the diverse cultures of Philadelphia, contribute to the community by completing a service project, and are invited to an ethnic dinner prepared by the Puerto Rican community.

 

In January 2005, Edinboro was awarded a congressional grant to facilitate the initiation of a professional development school partnership with the School District of the City of Erie. Three schools were selected based on diversity of the schools and quality of their faculties: Pfeiffer-Burleigh Elementary, Roosevelt Middle School, and Strong Vincent High School.  The schools are high poverty with high-risk student populations. The PDS collaboration began in April 2005 by gathering input from the teachers and administrators and was solidified by a long-term memorandum of agreement (1.57). Outcomes include graduate courses on-site, student teaching placements using a research based PDS model, state mandated professional development credit hours, administrative, counseling, and social work internship placements, and plans for summer activities to bring district students to the campus. Teachers and administrators have embraced the collaboration and are optimistic that the dual goals of increasing student achievement in the public schools and strengthening the teacher preparation program at the University will be met.

 

Assessments

The Unit level assessments of professional and pedagogical knowledge are the Teacher Candidate Performance Profile (TCPP), the Pennsylvania Statewide Evaluation for Student Professional Knowledge and Practice (PDE 430), and the Instructional Assessment Plan. The TCPP (1.58) is based on INTASC standards and is completed by the candidate and supervisor during junior field and by the candidate, cooperating teacher, and supervisor during student teaching (see Standard 3). The items in the Professionalism portion of the TCPP are directly related to the application of professional knowledge; item 12 for example, “The teacher establishes respectful and productive relationships with parents and guardians from diverse home and community situations, and seeks to develop cooperative partnerships in support of student learning and well being.” Means and standard deviations for items on the TCPP are available (1.59)

 

The PDE 430 also permits the University supervisor to assess each candidate for professional and pedagogical knowledge (1.60) during student teaching.  The four areas of the PDE 430 Form are the same areas addressed in the TCPP.  These areas include planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professionalism.  The correlation of these two assessments provides a richer and more detailed analysis of the teacher candidate’s abilities in these four areas.  Category IV specifically addresses professional and pedagogical knowledge: “Student teacher demonstrates qualities that characterize a professional person in aspects that occur in and beyond the classroom/building.”  University supervisors are required to provide justifications and evidence for their evaluations on the PDE 430. Individual scores for Category IV performances range from 0 to 3 points. Means and standard deviations are provided by program and by semester for all students in initial programs (1.61).

 

The Instructional Assessment Plan (1.61b) is another major source of evidence that teacher candidates can apply professional and pedagogical knowledge. In this student teaching assignment, candidates are required to design a sophisticated instructional plan that incorporates at least five lessons. What makes this assessment relevant to professional knowledge is that candidates must take into consideration a variety of contextual factors in designing the instruction. The Instructional Assessment Plan also requires candidate reflection and self-evaluation.

 

Candidates in continuing programs - usually master’s degrees - are assessed by the faculty with the KSD-GRAD (1.62, see “Content Knowledge for Other Professional School Personnel”). Items K7, S2, S3, S4, and S7 are pertinent to the assessment of professional and pedagogical knowledge.

 

Professional Knowledge and Skills for Other School Personnel.

The importance of professional knowledge to School Counselors, Reading Specialists, Speech Pathologists, and other school personnel is reflected in Belief Statement E in the Conceptual Framework (1.63): “Exhibit continual informed decision-making based on knowledge, research, best practices, state and national student performance standards, and ethical standards of the profession.” This belief statement is aligned with PDE, SPA, NBPTS, and KSD-GRAD standards for all advanced programs in the super matrices (1.64). Professional knowledge and skills for other school personnel are assured through alignment of programs with professional, state and institutional standards.

 

The standards relating to professional knowledge are assessed at the program level as presented in SPA program reports (1.65), course syllabi (1.66), and at the Unit level with the KSD-GRAD (1.67). The KSD-GRAD assesses candidate progress at the master’s degree candidacy stage and at the program completion stage. In the KSD-GRAD, Effective Facilitators of Learning demonstrate mastery of content, pedagogy, methodology, and research for their disciplines; goal setting that meets the diverse needs of each client; strategies to foster positive social interactions, intrinsic motivation, and active engagement; appropriate communication with colleagues, related service personnel, paraprofessionals, administrators, families and community members; critical thinking through inquiry, discussion, and reflection; the use of methodologies that reflect state and national standards; and procedures and routines that create a safe environment

 

Professional knowledge and skills for other school personnel are assured through course-embedded assignments and field experiences in the various programs. Examples of courses that require collecting and analyzing data, reflective practice, and/or the use of technology to support student learning include SCHA 700 Introduction to Educational Administration (1.68) and READ 709 Analysis and Correction of Reading Difficulties (1.69). These courses all make use of LiveText technology.

 

Professional knowledge and skills for other school personnel are also assured through candidate research. Candidates exhibit an in-depth understanding of professional knowledge in their fields, along with the ability to collect and analyze data related to their work through successful completion of EDUC 788, Research in Education (1.70). This course requires that the candidate formulate a problem for investigation, complete a literature review, choose statistical measures appropriate for the data to be gathered, and construct a plan for completion of the research. Research in Education requires skills in reflection and analysis in order to formulate a research problem, choose appropriate instrumentation, and establish valid procedures for data collection. 

 

The Master of Special Education and the Master of Educational Psychology/School Psychology require a second research course, APSY 789 Research in Special Education and School Psychology (1.71), which allows the student to concentrate on single-subject design as well as complete a study worthy of publication. The Master of Arts: Counseling utilizes EDUC 788 as the foundation for the grant-proposal assignment in COUN 725 Organization and Development of Programs in the Helping Professions (1.72). The Master of Middle and Secondary Instruction uses the study planned in EDUC 788 to complete the master’s thesis.

 

Edinboro University candidates for advanced degrees and certifications must demonstrate proficiency in the use of technology to support and improve instruction. They must demonstrate knowledge of and create materials for learners related to their fields. Courses in the various programs include, for example, SEDU 731 Selection, Utilization, and Production of Instructional Materials, SCHA 795 Computer Literacy for School Administrators (1.74), and ELED 626 Technology Integration in the Classroom (1.75).

 

Dispositions for All Candidates

The importance of dispositions in the preparation of teachers is reflected in Belief Statements A and I in the Conceptual Framework (1.76): “Accept the requirement to build a civil society that focuses on respect and embraces diversity” and “Strive for congruence of professional and interpersonal dispositions to interact, communicate, and collaborate effectively with students, families, colleagues, and the community.”

 

Assessment of candidates in Edinboro University of Pennsylvania’s NCATE Unit previously addressed the content and pedagogical knowledge and skills of candidates, but dispositions were largely eschewed except for issues of deportment related to field and clinical experiences. In recent years the faculty and administration of Edinboro University have become increasingly aware of the importance of dispositions. This third element in the Standard 1 triad was linked with knowledge and skills by NCATE in 2002 in Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Schools, Colleges, and Departments of Education. In the fall of 2004, the University incorporated the newly created PDE 430 Form (1.77) for assessing student teachers. This assessment includes criteria directly related to the Pennsylvania Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for Educators. The values and related behaviors inherent in the PDE 430 clearly focused on dispositions.  Since then the Unit has attempted to formalize the presentation and assessment of dispositions in a variety of ways.

 

Initially, both faculty and candidates lacked a clear understanding of the term “dispositions,” and it became the responsibility of NCATE Unit Committee on Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions to define exemplary dispositions and then to establish appropriate policies and assessments (1.78). As the team began to analyze existing instruments and to identify beliefs and attitudes that guide dispositions, a picture of an Effective Facilitator of Learning began to emerge. Values, commitments, and professional ethics emerged to present an ideal candidate - one who was prepared to work with students, families, colleagues, and communities in ways consistent with INTASC, PDE, and SPA standards. Positive dispositions include the display of respect for diverse populations and perspectives; modeling collaboration with colleagues, partners, agencies, and the larger community; demonstrating an enthusiasm for the profession and professional responsibilities; committing to an interactive, client-responsive learning community; reflecting on their own practice; and demonstrating ethical and professional behavior.

 

With the assistance of the Edinboro University/Intermediate Unit 5 K-16 Council (1.79), the faculty designed and approved a dispositions policy defined on pages 119-120 of the 2005-2006 Undergraduate Catalogue (1.80). This policy became the foundation for department-specific procedures for addressing professional dispositions and providing remediation when candidate dispositions are in need of improvement (1.81). Disposition policy and procedures are appropriate for candidates at both the initial and advanced levels.

 

Assessments

At the Initial Preparation level dispositions are addressed at pre-candidacy. Students enrolled in SEDU 271 Education in a Multicultural Society (1.82) must complete on LiveText an anonymous dispositions survey designed by the of NCATE Unit Committee on Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions (1.83). By this action, an awareness of the term dispositions and its accompanying behaviors are introduced to college students who aspire to become candidates in teacher education. As students begin their transition to candidacy, all students must attend a career development workshop prior to submitting their applications for candidacy (1.84).  The candidacy form also includes a statement addressing candidate dispositions and requires the signature of an academic advisor.

 

Dispositions are also addressed prior to junior field and student teaching. Candidates are required to submit Act 151 Pennsylvania Child Abuse History Clearance (1.85) and Act 34 Criminal Record Check (1.86). In addition, University supervisors, cooperating teachers, and candidates complete the Edinboro University Teacher Candidate Performance Profile (1.87) In this evaluation, the component of Professionalism addresses INTASC principles 1, 8, 9, and 10 and focuses on dispositions. In this area, thirteen statements portray the conceptual framework. Means and standard deviations for the Teacher Candidate Performance Profile (1.88) indicate that all candidates well exceed the 2.0 (Acceptable) level.

 

At the culmination of each student teaching placement, the candidate’s University supervisor also completes the PDE 430 (1.89). Category IV of this form, Professionalism, addresses dispositions:  “Student teacher demonstrates qualities that characterize a professional person in aspects that occur in and beyond the classroom/building.” Elements of Category IV include integrity, ethical behaviors, and professional conduct as stated in Pennsylvania Code of Professional Practice and Conduct.

 

At the graduate level, assessing dispositions is also an on-going process. The KSD-GRAD (1.90), as previously described, is used to assess dispositions at several points in all master’s degree programs.  

 

Student Learning for Teacher Candidates

The importance of dispositions in the preparation of teachers is reflected in Belief Statement J in the Conceptual Framework (1.91): “Utilize personal creativity, flexibility, and skill in assessing, creating, and adapting instruction that provides opportunities for every student to be successful.”

 

The knowledge, skills, and dispositions to support the learning of all students are addressed in our conceptual framework and assessed throughout the program in coursework and field experiences. Candidates develop the ability to accurately assess and analyze student learning, make appropriate adjustments to instruction, monitor student learning and positively impact the learning of all students as indicated from the data collected from the Teacher Candidate Performance Profile (1.92), a final evaluation instrument used in junior field and student teaching at the initial certification level.  This form aligns with INTASC and SPA standards and the four categories of the PDE 430. Table 1.6 summarizes items from this student teacher final evaluation form that relate to student learning.  Mean scores all exceed the acceptable (2.0) rating.

 

Table 1.6  Mean Ratings for Selected Items Related to Student Learning From the Teacher Candidate Performance Profile
 

  

Spring 2005

Fall 2005

Item

Mean

Standard Deviation

Mean

Standard Deviation

PP5:  The teacher effectively uses multiple representations and explanations and links them to students' prior understandings

2.74

0.42

2.8

0.5

PP8:  The teacher varies his or her role in the instructional process in relation to the content and purposes of instruction and the needs of the students.

2.78

0.46

2.8

0.5

PP10:  The teacher knows how to take contextual considerations into account in planning instruction that creates an effective bridge between curriculum and students' experiences.

2.7

0.5

2.73

0.52

PP12: The teacher revises plans based on student needs

2.9

0.3

2.85

0.41

PP15: The teacher uses a variety of assessments to enhance knowledge of learners, evaluate students' progress and modify teaching

2.71

0.51

2.65

0.56

PP16: The teacher reflects on his/her practice

2.76

0.48

2.65

0.56

CE6: The teacher communicates expectation for academic success

2.7

0.55

2.7

0.52

CE9: The teacher modifies plans based on student success

2.82

0.46

2.76

0.49

CE10: The teacher understands that outside factors may influence student learning.

2.85

0.37

2.84

0.39

IN1: The teacher assess performance in order to design instruction that meets the needs of the learner

2.72

0.49

2.6

0.6

IN5: The teacher adjusts instruction in response to learner feedback.

2.78

0.5

2.7

0.5

IN9: The teacher creates lessons and activities at multiple levels to meet the needs of diverse learners

2.72

0.51

2.7

0.5

PR2: The teacher maintains useful records of student performance to communicate student progress to parents

2.76

0.49

2.75

0.47

PR5: The teacher seeks out professional development opportunities

2.76

0.49

2.7

0.5

 

The Instructional Assessment Plan is another major source of evidence that our teacher candidates possess the professional and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions to plan, deliver, and assess standards-based instruction and document the impact of their practice on student learning. Through the teacher work samples, candidates provide evidence of their ability to use multiple teaching and assessment modes to assess student learning, before, during, and after instruction. These data are used to profile student learning, communicate information about student progress, plan for future instruction and reflect on instruction and student learning to improve teaching. Table 1.7 summarizes each of the six areas of the Instructional Assessment Plan rubric.  The data indicate that all teacher candidate scores exceed the acceptable (2.0) rating.

 

Table 1.7 Mean Ratings and Standard Deviations from the Six Area of the Instructional Assessment Plan

 

Data Summary of Instructional Assessment Plan

 

Spring 2005

Fall 2005

Area Assessed

Mean

Standard Deviation

Mean

Standard Deviation

Contextual Factors

2.68

0.09

2.81

0.09

Learning Objectives

2.85

0.09

2.86

0.1

Assessment Plan

2.74

0.12

2.73

0.06

Design for Instruction

2.88

0.1

2.83

0.07

Analysis of Student Learning

2.78

0.15

2.7

0.11

Reflection and Evaluation

2.71

0.06

2.74

0.06

 

 

Employer surveys were also administered to principals and superintendents in Northwestern Pennsylvania, and principals, superintendents, or hiring specialists in other parts of Pennsylvania as well as other states that have hired Edinboro University graduates.  Some of the items from the employer survey addressed student impact on student learning.  The employer survey indicates little dissatisfaction on survey items related to student learning as shown in Table 1.8.

 

 

Table 1.8  Mean and Standard Deviation Ratings of Student Learning Items of Initial Candidates From 2005 Employer Follow-up Studies

 

Item Number and Topic

Mean

Standard Deviation

Percent Comparably prepared or Better Prepared

Percent Poorly Prepared

1. Preparedness as  

    compared to other NWPA    
    graduates

 

2

 

0.42

 

100%

 

0%

2.  Diversity

2

0.53

96%

4%

3.  Disabilities

2

0.50

100%

0%

4 & 5 Curriculum

2

0.52

96%

4%

6.  Technology

2

0.55

96%

4%

7.  Classroom Management

2

0.52

95%

5%

8.  Assessment

2

0.51

97%

3%

10.Willingness to hire

       EUP graduates

1

0.52

100%

0%

 

 

Student Learning for Other Professional School Personnel

Candidates for other professional school roles apply their knowledge, skills, and dispositions to promote growth and development among students enrolled in diverse settings. These candidates are equally successful in working with individuals and groups.  They create positive learning environments through reflection and effective use of data analyses, research, and standards-based practice. Each of the advanced programs that are classified as Other School Personnel is unique in the manner in which it facilitates student learning. A complete explanation for how this is accomplished by each program is beyond the scope of this document and can best be seen in the various SPA program reports (1.93) and in interviews with our students and graduates. The description below of the School Counseling program is one example of how an advanced program meets this element of Standard 1.

 

The mission of the CACREP-accredited (1.94) School Counseling program is to enhance the intellectual, cultural, social, and ethical development of candidates. To that end, the school counseling program emphasizes integration of theory, research, and practice. Candidates learn to create positive and comprehensive developmental school counseling environments through recognizing and understanding the cognitive, psychosocial, affective, and neuropsychological development of school-aged students (COUN 740, 1.95). Candidates also learn to apply developmental theory in practice with groups and individuals and to effectively organize, administer, and evaluate their programs. Candidates develop skills to work with diverse groups of students (COUN 745, 1.96) and guide their students toward successful occupational/career development (COUN 715, 1.97). Candidates are trained in research methodology (EDUC 788, 1.98) and must complete a culminating non-credit project or thesis. They complete three field-related curricular components, including a practice course COUN 730, 1.99), a 112-hour practicum (COUN 735, 1.100) and a 600-hour internship (COUN 795, 1.101). Candidates abide by ethical standards of the profession, which are reinforced throughout the school counseling.

 

Candidates critique and reflect upon their work and establish educational environments that support student learning throughout the school counseling curriculum as exemplified by completion of a self-analysis or case study in (COUN 740, 1.102), a poster session and model developmental school guidance program in (COUN 742, 1.103), a grant proposal in (COUN 725, 1.104), and a reflection paper in (COUN 730, 1.105). See pages 52-55 of the 2006-2008 Graduate Catalogue (1.106).

 

Through coursework, field experiences, and innovative projects, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania aims to maximize the professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills for teacher candidates. As a Unit, we continually reflect upon our ability to prepare highly qualified teachers and are committed to incorporating research of best practice, feedback from practitioners, and feedback from students into our plans for growth.

 

Evidence List for Standard 1

1.1    SPA Matrices

1.2    SPA Program Reports

1.3    CACREP Report

1.4    ASHA Report (CAA Reaccredidation Letter)

1.5    Paired advising sheets (e.g. biology vs. secondary biology)

1.6    Undergraduate Catalogue, pages 58-59

1.7    Undergraduate Catalogue, pages 69-70

1.8    Undergraduate Catalogue, pages 122-139

1.9     Graduate Catalogue, pages 60-62

1.10   Graduate Catalogue, pages 70-72

1.11   Graduate Catalogue, pages 90-92

1.12   Undergraduate Catalogue, pages 51-55

1.13    Sample program advisement sheet

1.14    Letter from PDE reaccrediting all programs

1.15    Candidacy application form

1.16    PDE 430 form

1.17    PDE 430

1.18    PDE 430

1.19    Teacher Candidate Performance Profile (TCPP)

1.20    Table of means and standard deviations as described on pervious page

1.21    Course Demonstrations

1.22    Graduate Catalogue, pages 13-15

1.23     KSD From

1.24     Graduate Candidacy Application

1.25     KSD Form

1.26     KSD Form

1.27     Sample departmental disposition  policy

1.28     Completed KSD-GRAD assessment

1.29     SPA Matrices

1.30     SPA Documents

1.31     Course syllabi

1.32     Course Demonstrations

1.33     Conceptual Framework belief statements

1.34     SPA Matrices

1.35     SPA Documents

1.36     Course syllabi

1.37     Student advising file

1.38     Course syllabi HPE 278

1.39     SEDU 573

1.40     ELED 360

1.41     SEDU 271

1.42     HPE 360

1.43     SPED 330

1.44     Instructional Assessment plan

1.45     TCPP

1.46     TCPP

1.47     PDE 430

1.48     PDE 430 Fall 2005 data

1.49     Instructional assessment plan

1.50     Instructional assessment plan rubric

1.51     Instructional assessment plan unit summary spring 2005

1.52     KSD form

1.53     Conceptual framework belief statements

1.54     ELED 450

1.55     SEDU 486

1.56     SEDU 300, urban seminar

1.57     PDS agreement

1.58     TCPP

1.59     TCPP summary 2005

1.60     PDE 430

1.61     PDE 430 Fall 2005

1.61b   Instructional assessment plan

1.62     KSD form

1.63     Conceptual framework belief statements

1.64     SPA Matrices

1.65     SPA Documents

1.66     Course Syllabi

1.67     TCPP form

1.68     SCHA 700

1.69     READ 709

1.70     EDUC 788

1.71     APSY 789

1.72     COUN 725

1.73     SEDU 731

1.74     SCHA 795

1.75     ELED 626

1.76     Conceptual framework belief statements

1.77     PDE 430

1.78     KSD Meeting documents

1.79     K-16 Documents

1.80     Undergraduate Catalog pages 119-121

1.81     Sample departmental disposition  policy

1.82     SEDU 271

1.83     KSD form

1.84     Teacher Candidacy Application

1.85     Act 151

1.86     Act 34

1.87     TCPP form

1.88     TCPP summary 2005

1.89     PDE 430

1.90     Graduate KSD form

1.91     Conceptual framework belief statements

1.92     TCPP form

1.93     SPA documents

1.94     CACREP report

1.95     COUN 740

1.96     COUN 745

1.97     COUN 715

1.98     EDUC 788

1.99     COUN 730

1.100   COUN 735

1.101   COUN 795

1.102   COUN 740

1.103   COUN 742

1.104   COUN 725

1.105   COUN 730

1.106   Graduate Catalogue pages 52-55

 

 


 

III.b. Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs.

 

Unit Assessment System
The purpose of the Edinboro University Unit Assessment System is to ensure a clearly defined process that documents attainment of outcomes defined by the conceptual framework and institutional, state, and national standards for all candidates at initial and advanced levels of preparation. A critical and collaborative self-study of the previous assessment system was initiated in the fall, 2003. The Assessment Committee (2.1) examined the existing mechanisms for data collection, alignment with standards, and availability of data analysis for reporting and subsequent decision-making, and utility of technology at the candidate, program, and unit levels. Based on this extensive analysis, the committee found that the existing system was comprised of isolated pockets of data with cumbersome mechanisms for access and little capacity to aggregate data at the program or unit levels in order to inform meaningful change. In fact, the committee found that according to NCATE defined elements of an assessment system under Standard 2, the existing “model” was unacceptable. The development of the Assessment System now in place in conjunction with the revision of the conceptual framework has resulted in a comprehensive system for assessing candidates, programs, and the Unit. The system uses multiple measures at multiple transition points to provide both summative and formative evaluations at candidate, program, and Unit levels as shown in Figure 2.1. The system is transparent to all stakeholders and has been widely disseminated in print and electronic formats throughout the educational community.

 

Figure 2.1: Edinboro University's Assessment System

 

The Unit Assessment System that was designed for all initial (2.2) and advanced (2.3) levels resulted from careful examination of  NCATE Standard 2, existing assessment designs from a number of NCATE accredited colleges and universities, consultation with Dr. Kate Steffens (EUP NCATE Consultant), and collaboration with program faculty and P-12 partners. In addition, the Assessment Committee sought input from various departments on campus that housed relevant data under the previous “model.” The committee provided an overview of Standard 2 at the Unit retreat in the fall of 2003 (2.4) and developed a survey (2.5) for Unit faculty designed to examine the level of knowledge and application of assessment consistent with Standard 2. In addition, the committee conducted a series of data queries (2.6) to determine the capacity of the previous “model” to retrieve, organize and analyze candidate data. The committee also conducted a study of PDE 430 (2.7) data collection from student teaching and piloted an INTASC-based survey (2.8) of cooperating teachers.  Based on these investigations, the committee made several recommendations to the Unit Leadership Committee. These recommendations included 1) Transition Points for initial (2.9) and advanced levels (2.10), 2) appointment of an Assessment Director with release-time and support staff, 3) adoption of INTASC standards at the initial level, 4) development of Graduate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions (2.11) for advanced levels, and 5) adoption of LiveText for candidate and faculty use.

 

Because of these recommendations issued in the spring of 2004, the Unit Assessment System was phased in during the fall of 2004 with a pilot of LiveText in several courses, significant training for faculty and students in LiveText (2.12), and deliberate alignment of programs with the conceptual framework, state, and national standards. All programs within the Unit developed program matrices (2.13) that identify courses in which specific standards are assessed. Program faculty collaborated to identify targeted standards-based assessments and develop associated rubrics that are used within LiveText to evaluate candidate performance. These embedded assessments allow for the aggregation of data at the program and Unit levels that describe performance as Target, Acceptable, Developing, and Unacceptable.

 

Starting in the spring of 2005, all students were required to use LiveText within initial and advance levels. LiveText training expanded and continues each semester.  

 

Although the design of the Assessment System has not been substantially modified since the fall of 2004, clarification of responsibility for data collection and the development of assessment metrics have been added because of weekly collaborations between standards chairs commencing with the spring 2005 semester (2.14). For example, in order to assess candidate dispositions at the initial level of preparation, the CDAI (2.15) is administered in SEDU271 both pre and post, as well as during student teaching. Candidates at the advanced level complete the Graduate KSD (2.16) at candidacy and program completion. The graduate KSD is also completed by program faculty at candidacy and program completion and by site supervisors during internship experiences. Finally, the current Student Teacher Performance Profile (TCPP) (2.17) evolved from the INTASC survey (2.18) and through dialogue with program faculty and P-12 cooperating teachers. Following a series of complaints, the Dean of Education, invited several P-12 faculty to review items and proposed changes in the Student Teacher Profile (2.19).

 

The regular collaboration between NCATE standards chairs has resulted in a clarification of several key elements of the system. First, all data collection is clearly identified in terms of frequency, instrumentation, and responsible party(s). Second, the implementation of Zeus as a robust relational database allows for the access of candidate profiles (2.20). Third, standards chairs regularly review assessments and share input from external partners in P-12 schools that inform assessment decisions. Fourth, the Unit Assessment System is supported by dedication of resources including an Assessment Director (9-credit semester release), two full-time graduate assistants, LiveText training and technology support, technology consultant, and dedicated server Zeus (2.21).

 

Relationship to the Conceptual Framework (2.22)
All initial and advanced preparation programs are firmly grounded in the same conceptual framework - Effective Facilitators of Learning - responsive to professional practice though alignment with and assessment of performance consistent with state and national standards. Student outcomes are directly linked to the conceptual framework at all transition points using multiple measures including external tests such as PRAXIS. The system allows for feedback mechanisms that inform all members of the educational community, internal and external stakeholders alike, regarding the performance of candidates, programs, and Unit consistent with the conceptual framework and mission (2.23) as shown in Figure 2.2.

 

Figure 2.2: Unit Assessment System Design for Initial Programs

 

Fairness, Accuracy, and Consistency of Assessment
Communication of the Unit Assessment System during its development and adoption with candidates, program faculty, and the broader professional community in order to establish a transparent and consistent alignment with the conceptual framework, and clearly articulated knowledge, skills and dispositions significantly contributes to system fairness. The use of multiple assessments at each transition point and the publication of standards-based rubrics and all other evaluation metrics in course syllabi, programs of study, and through other print and electronic forms of dissemination adds to the fairness of the assessment system. In cases where multiple sections of the same course and where performance in clinical experiences is typically assessed by different University faculty and clinical supervisors, the use of common assessments ensures the consistent application of standards to candidate performance. The capacity of the system to aggregate and disaggregate performance data and examine relationships between various metrics at each transition point allows the Unit to determine the reliability and validity of multiple forms of assessment.

 

Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation
As reflected in the Unit Assessment System for initial (2.24) and advanced (2.25) program preparation, the system provides multiple forms of assessment that contribute to a comprehensive analysis of performance for knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Transition points for initial (2.26) and advanced (2.27) preparation are consistently evaluated through appropriate metrics that include standardized test data, standards based assessments, grade point average, survey tools, and evaluations from clinical experiences as shown in Figure 2.3. Candidates are required to complete a Conceptual Framework Reflection (2.28) in each course at both initial and advanced levels. External partners including the K-16 Council (2.29), school superintendents, principals, and hiring specialists (2.30), site supervisors for both student teaching and clinical experiences regularly contribute to the assessment of candidate performance at designated transition points. Feedback for first-year professionals is also collected via employer surveys (2.31). The conversion from an antiquated paper file system that was cumbersome and disconnected to a robust electronic system allows for regular analysis and evaluation at candidate, program, and Unit levels. The system also allows for an interface with Unit data related to recruitment, retention, diversity, and faculty qualifications. The current system is a significant departure from the previous “model” and is designed to adapt to changes in information technology. The Unit-wide adoption of LiveText and Zeus serve as excellent examples of the Unit’s commitment to testing different information technologies.

 

Figure 2.3: Unit Assessment System Design for Advanced Programs

 

In addition to regular assessment of knowledge, skills, and impact on student learning, the assessment system ensures evaluation of candidates related to professional dispositions. Candidates complete dispositions surveys (2.32) at designated transition points and are expected to exhibit behaviors consistent with professional dispositions. At candidacy, a formal assessment is completed that includes dispositions and departments have adopted a Dispositions Policy (2.33) that outlines expectations, process, and consequences. Candidates have a right to appeal unfavorable decisions related to dispositions. In addition, candidates may follow the Grade Appeal Process (2.34) on grounds of grade miscalculation or prohibited discrimination. Finally, other formal student complaints are reviewed and processed by Human Resources and Faculty Relations (HRFR) at the discretion of the President. Files of formal complaints, grade appeals, and subsequent resolution are maintained by HRFR.

 

Use of Data for Program Improvement
The following is an example of how data were used to reduce bias and increase the accuracy of the assessment system. During the spring 2005 semester, the Unit piloted the CDAI with approximately 200 undergraduate students. There were two different cover pages for the instrument: one that asked for the candidate’s name (Name Group) and one that did not (No Name Group). These were randomly distributed among the candidates within classes. There were large and significant differences between the two groups with the “Name Group” having higher scores. The Standards Chairs interpreted the results as evidence of response bias and determined to make the CDAI an anonymous instrument arguing that it would be better to have accurate data for cohort groups than inaccurate data at the level of the individual candidate (2.35).

 

Data analysis is shared with program heads, department chairs, program faculty, NCATE standards chairs, Dean of the School of Education and Dean of the Graduate School. Currently, analysis is essentially cross-sectional in nature since the system was not fully operational until last spring. However, program faculty and advisors already use assessment data at the candidate level to inform candidates as to performance on knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Program and unit level reports as aggregated in LiveText and Zeus have recently been piloted and will serve to inform decisions starting in the spring 2006 semester. For example, data from standards based assessments from any given program may be aggregated to the program level to determine the frequency and percentage of candidates judged to be target, acceptable, developing, or unacceptable against the Conceptual Framework, state, and national standards.  At the unit level for initial level candidates, data may be aggregated against INTASC standards at all transition points. For advanced level candidates, the Graduate KSD serves for unit level aggregation. 

 

Although formally launched in spring 2005, the Unit Assessment System has already demonstrated the capacity to promote substantial change in program and Unit operations. For example, analysis of data from the INTASC survey of cooperating teachers (2.36) revealed that student teachers were typically placed in schools lacking a diverse student population (race, SES, special education, etc.). A follow-up school diversity study was conducted to determine the level of student diversity from over 200 schools in the University’s service area of Northwestern Pennsylvania (2.37) . As a result of these two studies, all candidates in initial programs are required to complete a field experience or student teaching in a diverse setting (2.38). Also related to preparing candidates as Effective Facilitators of Learning with diverse student populations, data analysis led to the development of SEDU 271, Education in American Society (2.39) as a required course to ensure that all candidates at the initial level of preparation successfully meet standards related to working with diverse students. The use of the CDAI  (2.40) at pre and post has informed faculty teaching SEDU 271 as to the impact of the new course on student awareness, skills, and dispositions toward diverse student populations. For students in initial certification programs, the INTASC based Teacher Candidate Performance Profile (2.41) as a formative and summative assessment in field experience and student teaching.  

 

Examination of PRAXIS test performance data has resulted in significant course revisions and alignment with standards (2.42) and the development of PRAXIS workshops offered by the Division of Academic Support Services (DASS, 2.43), and Elementary Education Department (2.44). Career counseling is now a candidacy requirement for all students in initial certification programs. Two PRAXIS studies conducted by the Department of Professional Studies at the advanced level for Educational Leadership (2.45) and an initial level study conducted by the Dean of Education (2.46) further support the effectiveness of the Assessment System at providing data for decision making at the program and Unit levels.

 

The Professional Development School (2.47) agreement between Edinboro University and The City of Erie School District is another prominent example driven, in part, by the Unit Assessment System. At each of the three urban sites, university and P-12 faculty and administrators implement a variety of assessments designed to improve student achievement and inform the Unit as it prepares candidates to work effectively with diverse student populations. To that end, each site has developed formal evaluation plans (2.48) using valid and reliable quantitative and qualitative measures. These empirical studies were initiated in the fall of 2005 and will continue to inform the university as to curriculum, assessment of student performance, and the effective structuring of clinical experiences in urban school settings.  

 

Summary
The Unit has a fully developed assessment system that requires standards-based performance of candidates at initial and advanced levels of preparation. The system uses multiple forms of authentic assessments designed to measure performance of knowledge, skills, dispositions and impact on student learning. All transition points are clearly articulated and data collection is imbedded at each point. The system is grounded in the Unit’s conceptual framework and represents a collaborative model. The system uses information technology including LiveText and a relational database (Zeus) that integrates data at candidate, program, and unit levels. The Unit has already demonstrated significant changes in unit operation based on data analysis conducted by the system. The system has deliberately evolved over the past two years and represents a significant departure from the system in place prior to 2003. The Unit has assigned adequate resources to manage data collection and analysis to sustain an empirical approach to program improvement.

 

Evidence List for Standard 2

2.1        Assessment Committee Members

2.2        Under Graduate Assessment Poster

2.3        Graduate Assessment Poster

2.4        Gollnick Mitchell PowerPoint

2.5        Faculty Survey

2.6        Banner Query Examples

2.7        PDE 430 Examples

2.8        Teacher Candidate Performance Profile August 19, 2005

2.9        Initial Assessment System

2.10      Advanced Assessment System

2.11      Advanced KSDs

2.12      LiveText Training

2.13      SPA Matrices

2.14      Standards Chairs Meetings

2.15      CDAI

2.16      KSD Form

2.17      TCPP Spring 2005

2.18      INTASC Survey, Fall 2004

2.19      TCPP Input Email

2.20      Zeus Under Graduate Profile Sample

2.21      Unit assessment system resources

2.22      Conceptual framework brochure

2.23           

2.24      Undergraduate Assessment Poster

2.25      Graduate Assessment Poster

2.26      Initial Assessment System

2.27      Advanced Assessment System

2.28      Conceptual Framework Reflection

2.29      K-16 Documents

2.30      Northwest Pennsylvania Survey

2.31      Masters of Speech Language Pathology Survey

2.32      Dispositions Form

2.33      Dispositions Policy Elementary Education Disposition Policy

2.34      Grade Appeal Process

2.35      Diversity Summary

2.36      Cooperating Teacher Survey spring 2004

2.37      Diversity by School District

2.38      Diversity Placement

2.39      SEDU 271

2.40      CDAI

2.41      TCPP Form

2.42      SPA Documents

2.43      DASS Web site

2.44      ELED PRAXIS II Study Session

2.45      Professional Studies PRAXIS Study

2.46      Dean of Education PRAXIS Study

2.47      Erie City Professional Development School Agreement (PDS)

2.48      PDS Evaluation plans


 

III.c. Standard 3: Field Experience and Clinical Practice
The unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical practice so that teacher candidates and other school personnel develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn.

 

Initial Preparation of Teachers

 

Each year the NCATE Unit graduates approximately 350 candidates who have completed programs for initial certification either in bachelor’s or postbaccalaureate programs.  All of these candidates have participated in two levels of field experience and one 15-week clinical experience, student teaching. Most foundations and methods classes have some field component. For example, ELED 180 Child Studies I (3.1) requires students to use observational techniques to collect and analyze data as they explore the theoretical foundations of child development. These initial contacts with public schools constitute the first level of field experience.

 

The second level of field experience is referred to informally as junior field. Each department has its own junior field course, special requirements, and there is no centralized placement service. However, all junior field courses have the following commonalities:

 

 

Field experiences as described above provide candidates with varied opportunities to observe and work with students and school personnel prior to student teaching.

 

Student teaching is the clinical capstone experience for all candidates in initial programs. It is a semester long, full-time assignment with significant prerequisites as described in the Undergraduate Catalogue (3.7). Student teaching differs from junior field in its intensity (3.8), duration, and the expectations of the faculty. In addition, placements and general requirements - as specified in the NCATE Unit Student Teaching Guidebook Spring 2006 (3.9) - are determined by the Office of Student Teaching and Student Assistance rather than by individual departments.

 

The number of candidates eligible for clinical practice varies from semester to semester with the spring semester having the highest number, which ranges from 150 to 200 candidates across all initial teacher preparation programs, see Table 3.1.

 

Table 3.1 - Teacher Candidates Eligible for Clinical Practice

 

 

Number Eligible

Number Completed

Number Dropped

Fall 2003

157

154

3

Spring 2004

218

214

4

Fall 2004

158

152

2*

Spring 2005

173

168

4*

Fall 2005

136

129

7*

Spring 2006

167

**

**

*Does not include those students with partial completion of 6 credits

** To be determined

 

Collaboration between Unit and School Partners

The Unit and its school partners collaborate in all aspects of field and clinical experiences and have written agreements to support the collaborations (3.10).  School personnel including superintendents, principals, and teachers who become cooperating teachers are consulted on all phases of field experience and clinical practice from initial placement to final evaluation of the candidate. This information is available in the various junior field handbooks (3.11) and the NCATE Unit Student Teaching Guidebook Spring 2006 (3.12).

 

The design of field and clinical experiences is primarily the responsibility of the higher education faculty in the Unit. However, the Unit routinely solicits from school faculty input that influences the design of the program. For example, the Department of Elementary Education pilots all new assessments and requests feedback from cooperating teachers (3.13). The department also requests feedback from school personnel on the overall quality of each junior field experience placement (3.14). In some cases there are intense collaborations in the design of field and clinical experiences. Pfeiffer Burleigh is an excellent example.

 

Pfeiffer Burleigh Elementary is one of three Professional Development Schools in the City of Erie (3.15). Faculty from Pfeiffer Burleigh, the NCATE Unit, and the School of Liberal Arts serve together on a steering committee that creates the instructional and research agenda for the PDS (3.16). The school’s major project for 2005-2006 has been the redesign of the student teaching experience (3.17).  School partners are intimately involved in the delivery and evaluation of field and clinical experiences. The roles of school principals and cooperating teachers are described on pages 19 and 26-29, respectively, in the NCATE Unit Student Teaching Handbook Spring 2006 (3.18) and in departmental junior field handbooks (3.19). Cooperating teachers also participate in formative and summative evaluations of candidates in junior field and student teaching (3.20, 3.21).

 

The Office of Student Teaching and Student Assistance collaborates on student teacher placements with more than 100 individual schools in 20 school districts. Each district has its own set of procedures and contact requirements (3.22). In general, candidates make geographical requests for placements (3.23), which are then matched with a database of cooperating teachers. Proposed matches are submitted by the Office of Student Teaching to individual schools or districts for approval and additional recommendations (3.24). The Director of Student Teaching then discusses individual cases with principals and other contact persons until placements are finalized.

 

Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical Practices

The Unit’s conceptual framework is reflected in all field and clinical experiences. The conceptual framework is aligned with INTASC, Pennsylvania State Standards, and the pertinent SPA standards (3.25), which are in turn aligned with program requirements and assessments. These alignments guarantee that the conceptual framework is reflected in field and clinical experiences. In addition, all candidates in junior field and student teaching complete an assignment that requires them to describe how the experience has enriched their understanding of the conceptual framework (3.26). 

 

There are a variety of ways in which technology is infused in the student teaching experience. First, all student teachers are required to participate in an intensive technology orientation at the Northwest Tri-County Intermediate Unit in which an instructional media specialist trains groups of 20 candidates in the uses of educational databases and other electronic resources available to public school teachers (3.27). Second, the Office of Student Teaching has 20 laptop computers, which it loans for the entire semester to candidates based on need and expressed interest. Third, all student teachers are required to use LiveText to submit instructional plans, observations, and surveys (3.28). Fourth, individual departments have unique technology requirements. For example, Health & Physical Education requires all student teachers to create an electronic portfolio that includes their credentials, accomplishments, and a video of them teaching (3.29).

 

Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions to Help All Students Learn   

Entry (3.30) and exit criteria (3.31) for student teaching are published and reiterated for candidates in orientation meetings conducted by the Office of Student Teaching during the semester preceding student teaching, immediately prior to student teaching, and in the middle of the student teaching semester. Multiple assessments, such as the Teacher Candidacy Performance Profile (3.32), are aligned with candidate competencies in professional, state, and institutional standards. The Pennsylvania Department of Education also requires that all student teachers be assessed using the PDE 430 (3.33), a performance evaluation that requires evidence to support demonstrations of knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions. In addition, the Instructional Assessment Plan (3.34, 3.35), requires candidates to provide evidence of effects on student learning.

 

Evaluations are numerous and varied, with University supervisors and cooperating teachers having shared responsibilities. Student teachers are evaluated by their University supervisors three times during each half semester (3.36). These evaluations are in writing and are followed by a conference in which the supervisor meets with the teacher candidate and/or the cooperating teacher. The cooperating teacher evaluates and confers with the candidate formally on a weekly basis and informally on a daily basis (3.37). Each candidate is required to complete an instructional unit and an in-class observation on LiveText. Candidates must reflect on every lesson they prepare and teach. The candidate is required to keep a three-ring binder that is divided into 4-5 sections that include:  school policies, lesson plans with reflections (3.38), and observations by the candidate with reflections.

 

All partner school districts have embraced inclusion models, which means that candidates have many opportunities to work with special needs students in realistic settings. Candidates are also required to conduct observations in which special needs are the primary focus (3.39). Special education majors and elementary/special education majors have K-12 experiences with special needs students in the areas of learning disabilities, life skills, and emotional support. The Unit has imposed on itself the requirement that all candidates will have a significant field or clinical experience in a school with students from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Currently, 84% of current student teachers are in schools that fit Edinboro University criteria for diversity or were placed in a diverse setting for junior field. Historical data and a complete discussion of the research and placement methodology are presented in Standard 4.

 

 

Clinical Experiences for Advanced Programs


Field and clinical experiences in advanced programs for teachers and other school personnel are different from initial programs in a variety of ways. For example, instead of having fairly homogenous field and student teaching experiences, advanced programs call for practica and internships with radically different durations and requirements that are driven by the standards of individual SPAs. The required field and clinical experiences for school psychology and educational leadership, for instance, have much less in common than do the field and clinical experiences for secondary chemistry and special education. Therefore, copies of advanced program SPA program reports are available in the both the electronic and physical evidence rooms (3.40).

 

In all advanced programs at Edinboro University, clinical practice is an integral component of the candidate’s preparation. In combination with professional preparation, these experiences provide opportunities for candidates to put theory into practice, to demonstrate progress in the attainment of the acquired knowledge and skills, to demonstrate growth in essential dispositions, and to prepare for required licensure assessments.

 

There are 10 advanced programs in the Unit, see Table 3.2.  Five of the advanced programs that lead to certification and/or master's degrees have capstone internship experiences. These are School Counseling, Speech-Language Pathology, School Psychology, Instructional Technology, and Educational Leadership. Four programs lead to master's degrees without certification.  These are Special Education, Art, Elementary Education, and Middle and Secondary Education. The Instructional Technology Specialist (ITS) is a certification program that can be tied to a master's program.

  

 

Table 3.2 - Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program

 

Course/Program

Experience

Time Spent

EDUC 788 Research in Education (taken by all candidates enrolled in a Master’s in Education program)

A research thesis is developed by the student, advisor, and professor that reflects the student’s area of study and interest.

3 credited hours

 

 

 

Educational Leadership

Each course has a field experience that is a minimum of 15 hours.  These consist of interviews, observations, action research and plan development.  Student reflection is a part of all the field experiences.

135 hours

Educational Leadership

Post-masters certification programs each have internship opportunities.  Field experiences similar to those in the Master’s courses are completed in these courses.

300 hours

Superintendent’s Letter of Eligibility – 150 hours

135 hours in the Med

Elementary Education

Action research, learning center, and curriculum development

Embedded in various courses in program

Middle and Secondary Education

Ethnographic interviews and action research

Embedded in various courses in program

Reading Specialist

Case Studies, reflections, and on-site clinical experiences

Embedded in various courses in program

School Psychology

Practicum and internship experiences in APSY 725, APSY 735, and APSY 795

Practicum 200 hours minimum

Internship 1200 hours minimum

Special Education

Classroom Observations, comprehensive evaluations, family interviews, Strategy Intervention Model on Word Identification

Classroom Observation – 4 hours

Comprehensive Eval. – 20 hours

Family Interviews – 15 hours

Word Identification – 20 hours

Art

Action Research and Curriculum Development

Embedded in various courses in program

Counseling

Every course in counseling presents a variety of field experiences in the form of observations, interviews, case studies, reflection and assessments.

Practicum – 112 hours

Internship – 600 hours

Speech-Language Pathology

Field experiences, practicum and internships

Field experience – 30 hours

Practicum – 6 credit hours

Internship – 24 credit hours

Instructional Technology

Each course has a field experience ranging from 3 to 30 hours.  These consist of interviews, observations, implementation and assessment, instructional design and project management.  Student reflection is a part of all the field experiences.

Field Experiences – 96 hours

Practicum – 70 hours


 

Collaboration Between Unit and School Partners

The design of field and clinical experiences is a primary responsibility of the higher education faculty in each program. However, clinical practice is informed and modified by feedback from site supervisors (3.41) and from program specific advisory boards (3.42). With respect to delivery and evaluation, the site supervisors for internships are intimately involved in directing, monitoring, and evaluating the progress of individual interns (3.43). For example, candidates in School Counseling are required to develop and implement an assessment plan. The program faculty member, the candidate, and the site-supervisor collaborate to develop an assessment plan that meets the needs of the assessment and the students, the site and time availability, and resources needed. This process is highly collaborative in order to bring the plan to fruition (3.44).

 

The placement process for interns is highly collaborative. Edinboro University has formal written agreements with various schools and agencies (3.45), and candidates are expected to contact them to secure their own internships. In some cases candidates find alternative sites, but written permission from both the school or agency and the higher education program head are required in a contractual arrangement that defines the roles and responsibilities of the school or agency, site supervisor, and University supervisor. The advanced programs with internships all have handbooks that outline the parameters of the experience and the expectations of the faculty (3.46). 

 

Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

Clinical experiences are designed to meet the standards of the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) as well those of their respective SPAs and are aligned with the foundation belief statements in the Conceptual Framework (3.47).  All advanced programs include field or clinical experiences pertinent to program objectives. However, programs that lead to new certifications have field and clinical experiences of greater duration and intensity. During this time, candidates are able to refine and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions while demonstrating the connections to the Unit’s conceptual framework.  These collaborative activities allow the candidates to observe and interview practitioners in their field as well as being observed and interviewed by peers and practitioners. The Evidence Room includes outlines by program for all courses with field or clinical components, for example SCHA 700 (3.48).

 

The prospective site supervisor’s credentials are submitted as part of the candidate’s application. The site supervisors must meet requirements determined by the relevant SPA and academic department. Criteria include are but are not limited to possessing current certification/licensure, having a minimum of two years experience, and being active in the pertinent professional capacity. Site supervisors are expected to demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of highly accomplished practitioners (3.49). At the beginning of each internship, the site supervisor is provided with copies of syllabi and handbooks that contain the Conceptual Framework and program objectives. Professional development activities sponsored by the University, Unit, and program are open to site supervisors. Schools regularly open their professional development activities to candidates and University faculty. For instance, interns participate in IEP meetings, sit with SAP teams, contribute in career fairs and tutoring programs, and participate in other related school-based professional development opportunities. Candidates are expected to be Effective Facilitators of Learning and active members of professional teams working to improve student achievement. This involvement also includes data collection, data analysis, action planning, and reflection.

 

Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions To Help All Students Learn
Entry and exit criteria are clearly presented in the handbooks for clinical experiences (3.50). All of the programs at the Advanced level provide several opportunities to the candidates to demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The opportunities include, but are not limited to production of:

 

 

Assessment of knowledge, skills, and dispositions occurs before and after clinical experience through the Graduate KSD (3.51) and during the clinical experience with a variety of assessments described in the pertinent course syllabi (3.52). These include case studies, interviews, observations, audio and videotape presentations, and action research. Dispositions are continually assessed on an informal basis but are specifically addressed at candidacy and at the time of exit (3.53).  Each of the departments in the Unit has adopted a disposition policy to address disposition concerns (3.54).

 

Evidence List for Standard 3

3.1              ELED180 Syllabus

3.2              Under Graduate pages 119-121

3.3              School of Education Faculty Supervision

3.4              Field Experience

3.5              Instructional Assessment Plan Unit summary, Spring 2005

3.6              SPA Documents

3.7              Under Graduate pages 119-121

3.8              Field Experience

3.9              Student Teaching Handbook

3.10          Agreement for Cooperating Teachers

3.11          Secondary Handbook

3.12          Student Teacher Handbook

3.13          ELED 425 Field Experience Evaluation

3.14          ELED 425 Evaluation Summary

3.15          PDS Report

3.16          PDS Steering Committee

3.17          PDS Student Teaching Experience

3.18          Student Teaching Handbook

3.19          Secondary Handbook

3.20          Student Teaching Handbook pages 33-35

3.21          Student Teaching Handbook pages 63-69

3.22          Placement Guidelines

3.23          Student Teacher Documents

3.24          Student Teacher Documents

3.25          SPA Matrices

3.26          Conceptual Framework Reflections

3.27          IMTS overview

3.28          Student Teacher Handbook  pages 88-90

3.29          HPE 324 Electronic Portfolio

3.30          Under Gradate Catalog 119-121

3.31          Student Teacher Handbook

3.32          Student Teacher Handbook pages 66-69

3.33          PDE 430

3.34          Student Teacher Handbook pages 51-53

3.35          Instructional Plan Assessment

3.36          Student Teacher Evaluations

3.37          Cooperating Teacher Weekly and Daily Evaluations

3.38          Student Teacher Lesson Reflections

3.39          Special Needs Observations

3.40          SPA Documents

3.41          Clinical Practice Feedback from Sight Supervisors

3.42          Advisory Councils Documents

3.43          Internship Evaluation

3.44          Council Manual

3.45          Internship Formal Agreement

3.46          Counseling Manual

3.47          SPA Matrices

3.48          SCHA 700

3.49          Internship Site Supervisors Credentials

3.50          Counseling Manual

3.51          KSD Form

3.52          SCHA 700

3.53          Graduate Assessment System

3.54          Professional Studies Disposition Policy

 


 

III.d. Standard 4: Diversity
The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and experiences for candidates to acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. These experiences include working with diverse higher education and school faculty, diverse candidates, and diverse students in P–12 schools.

 

Diversity refers to differences among groups of people and individuals based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area (NCATE, 2005). The Edinboro University of Pennsylvania campus and NCATE Unit are remarkably diverse in some respects and seriously lacking in diversity in others. For example, 95% of all wheelchair students in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education attend Edinboro University, which is consistently ranked among the top 10 schools in the United States for its programs and accommodations for students with disabilities (4.1). However, as of fall 2004 only 8.16% of Edinboro students were persons of color (4.2).

 

Following the last NCATE site visit in fall 2000, the Edinboro University NCATE Unit was cited for not meeting the two diversity standards: According to the BOE report, “The Unit is not successful in recruiting and retaining a diverse student body.” and “Cultural diversity is limited” (4.3). In the intervening five and a half years, the Unit has modified its conceptual framework, courses, clinical experiences, professional development, and recruitment efforts to increase the diversity of the Unit. Much of the impetus for positive change has come from the NCATE Diversity Committee, which was formed in fall 2003 to address the diversity needs of the Unit (4.4, 4.5).

 

The importance of diversity to the Unit is reflected in Belief Statement A of the Conceptual Framework (4.6): “Accept the requirement to build a civil society that focuses on respect and embraces diversity.” The community in the immediate area surrounding Edinboro is primarily white and rural.  However, the NCATE Unit has a responsibility to educate school personnel for service in all schools, including those that are urban and heavily populated by people of color. Preparing teachers for service in all schools, especially those that are urban, demands that the NCATE Unit be more diverse than the community in which it is located.

 

Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experiences

The Unit articulates the proficiencies and dispositions that candidates are expected to develop during the professional program. All candidates for initial certification are required to take EDUC 271 Education in a Multicultural Society (4.7). This course was introduced in spring 2005, clearly states what candidates must learn about diversity, and links the proficiencies to the Conceptual Framework, INTASC, and Pennsylvania state standards. Candidates also learn how to adapt instruction for students with disabilities in SPED 330 (4.8) Exceptional Learners in P-12 Inclusive Classrooms. This course has replaced APSY 213 Human Learning with Exceptionalities, which provided an overview of disabilities but preceded major methods courses and provided little opportunity for adapting instruction for special needs students.  In addition to SEDU 271 and SPED 330, all undergraduate, degree seeking candidates are required to take at least one three-credit course in the core area of Cultural Diversity and Cultural Pluralism (4.10). At the advanced level there are a variety of program-specific courses that address diversity issues and faculty expectations for candidates; for example, APSY 721 Cultural, Social, and Biological Bases of Personality Development (4.11), SPED 780 Learning Disabilities (4.12), READ 702 Reading and the Special Needs Student (4.13), and COUN 745 Multicultural Counseling (4.14).

 

There are also many courses in which diversity is addressed as an important component of the course. For example, Elementary Education, Elementary/Early Childhood, Elementary/Special Education, and Special Education majors take ELED 240 Teaching Children’s Literature (4.15) in which students are introduced to using literature to reflect the culture of students, address issues of racism, religious discrimination, ageism, and sexism, and instill a respect for others. Health & Physical Education majors are introduced to diversity and taught how to modify instruction for students with disabilities in HPE 360 Adapted Physical Education (4.16). Courses with strong diversity components at the advanced level include SCHA 760 Legal Aspects of School Administration (4.17), ARED 519 Arts and Crafts for Exceptional Children (4.18), and COUN 744 Techniques for Counseling the Student with a Disability (4.19). These courses and others feature a wide variety of activities and assignments that focus on diversity (4.20).

 

Field and clinical experiences, particularly at the initial level of preparation, have been modified to enhance the experiences of candidates. In fall 2004 a survey of cooperating teachers revealed that a majority of Unit candidates had no opportunity for a significant field or clinical experience in a diverse setting (4.21). The Unit Head, the Director of Student Teaching, and the Chairs of the NCATE Standards Committees agreed to require of all initial candidates a significant experience working in a diverse setting.

 

Data from the Pennsylvania Department of Education, the local intermediate unit, and individual schools were used to establish the percentage of students of color and the percentage of students from low income families for 110 partner schools in northwest Pennsylvania. The percentages of students of color and the percentages of students from low income families were converted to z-scores, which were then summed for each school. This yielded a diversity metric relative to northwest Pennsylvania (4.22), a combination of the variables ethnicity and poverty. The highest diversity metric was 7.16 for a school with 92% students of color and 96.7 students from low income families. The lowest diversity metric was -2.27 for a public school with 1.5% students of color and 0% students from low income families. Schools with positive z-scores are classified by the Unit as diverse. Schools with negative z-scores are classified as nondiverse. The intent of the Office of Student Teaching has been to place as many students as possible in diverse schools. The Unit has not yet reached its objective of having 100% diversity placements for candidates in either junior field or student teaching, but the placement rate has gone from 62% to 84% in the last year and a half.

 

In fall 2004, Edinboro University signed an agreement with the School District of the City of Erie to establish three professional development schools. “The mission of the collaboration is to close the achievement gap between people of poverty and people of privilege.

 

The mission-driven objectives of the collaboration are as follows:

 

 

 

The agreement provides for financial support of PDS initiatives, research, professional development, and expanded opportunities for candidates in field experiences, student teaching, and internships. All three schools are high diversity with enthusiastic faculties eager to improve their professional practice and the achievement of their students. The goals, activities, and management of the PDS are consistent with NCATE standards for professional development schools. Each PDS has a steering committee comprised of faculty from the PDS and faculty from Liberal Arts and Science, Management, & Technology as well as the School of Education. The major project at Pfeiffer-Burleigh Elementary School has been a reinvention of the student teaching experience to better prepare candidates to work in urban schools (4.24).

 

Student teaching provides the best opportunity for candidates to demonstrate their ability to establish a diversity friendly classroom climate and adapt instruction to suit the needs of all students. All candidates are required to design a sophisticated Instructional Assessment Plan (4.25) that requires - among other things - adaptation of instruction based on school, classroom, and student characteristics. Student teachers are also required to complete two planned observations in which diversity is a significant component (4.26).

 

The assessment system requires the evaluation of candidates at significant transition points (4.27, 4.28). For candidates in initial teacher preparation programs, the assessment of dispositions and behaviors related to diversity begins in the foundations course SEDU 271 Education in a Multicultural Society (4.29) in which candidates are assessed at the beginning and the end of the course with the Selection of Cultural Diversity Inventory (CDAI) (4.30). The CDAI was designed to assess the attitudes of teachers toward multiculturalism and diversity. Later in their programs, candidates complete the CDAI on LiveText during junior field and student teaching. The instrument is anonymous to prevent response bias, but group performances over time will allow the faculty to test the success of the curriculum in fostering appropriate dispositions and behaviors related to diversity.

 

Diversity is also assessed with the Teacher Candidate Performance Profile (4.31) during junior field and student teaching. The TCPP is based on INTASC standards, some of which relate directly to diversity, for example, “The teacher creates a learning community in which individual differences are respected” (4.32). Candidates are rated target, acceptable, developing, or unacceptable for each item. Candidates in advanced programs are evaluated using the Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions: Graduate (4.33). Items directly related to diversity are: S2 “Goal setting that meets the diverse needs of each client” and D2 “Effective facilitators of learning respect and value diverse populations and perspectives.”

 

Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty

Edinboro University candidates in school personnel programs do have an opportunity to work with a diverse faculty in the Unit. However, those opportunities should be expanded. At the time of the last NCATE site visit, there were only two faculty of color (2.17%) in the Unit (4.34). The Unit developed a comprehensive diversity plan in fall 2000 (4.35), which included a goal of 10% faculty of color by the end of 2004. There are currently 66 full-time tenure track faculty in the NCATE Unit, five (7.6%) of whom are persons of color (4.36). This represents an improvement over 5.43% faculty of color at the time of the last NCATE site visit. A revised diversity plan (4.37) calls for aggressive strategies to meet our goal of 10%. For example, the Department of Secondary Education is currently searching for a new, senior level faculty member who will hold the title of Carter G. Woodson Professor of Secondary Education. The expectation is that the Woodson Professor will be an expert in multicultural and urban education (4.38).

 

Candidates do not have an opportunity to work with a diverse faculty in the public schools, primarily because there are so few faculty of color. This is especially distressing in some of the urban schools in the City of Erie where the faculties are mostly white and the students are mostly African American. For example, Pfeiffer-Burleigh Elementary School has a faculty of 56 with three persons of color, which makes the faculty 95% white while the students are 69% persons of color. This inequitable distribution denies the students at Pfeiffer-Burleigh important role models and reinforces - however unintentionally - the racist notion that the people in charge are supposed to be white.

 

The serious shortage of minority teachers has been recognized by the administration of the School District of the City of Erie and the Greater Erie Community Action Committee (GECAC), which have entered into a formal collaboration with Edinboro University to increase the numbers of minority school personnel (4.39). This collaboration has resulted in what is referred to as the East Erie Cohort. East Erie is the poorest part of the city, and most of the people who live there are African Americans. With the financial and political assistance of GECAC and the Erie Schools, Edinboro University is offering an Associate Degree in Liberal Studies with a minor in Special Education at a cost to candidates of $50 per credit (4.40). The program is being delivered in East Erie and will qualify graduates to be teacher aides, or they can move smoothly into a bachelor’s program in education. In fall 2005, the East Erie Cohort began with the maximum number of 30 candidates, most of whom are African American. Edinboro University and the NCATE Unit are committed to creating a caring and nurturing environment in which all students learn regardless of ethnicity, race, economic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, or geographical location. 

 

While the great majority of faculty in the Unit are white, many of them have special credentials or professional experiences that give them credibility in the areas of diversity and multicultural education (4.41). The Unit also supports professional development in diversity. For example, in 2004-2005 the Department of Professional Studies arranged three symposiums featuring Dr. Thomas Parham, Dr. Theresa LaFromboise, and Dr. Juan Baughn. Their presentations were Afrocentric Counseling, Teen Suicide Among Native American Adolescents, and Multicultural Leadership in Education, respectively.

 

Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates
Institutional data indicate that 8.17% of the students at Edinboro University are persons of color, and 7.6% of the students have a disability. The 2000 Institutional Report sets the “Percent Minority” of the student body at 4.29% (4.42). Currently, the Unit has 30 candidates with physical disabilities, and they fit in with the other candidates. It is almost impossible to walk through a classroom or across campus without seeing students with profound physical disabilities. Our candidates learn to accept students with disabilities and this translates to the classroom as evidenced by candidate performances on diversity items of the TCPP (4.43). Edinboro candidates work well with students with disabilities, and candidates with disabilities demonstrate to students in the public schools that disabilities can be overcome.

Age and experience are another dimension of diversity, and Edinboro University has the highest percentage of nontraditional students of the 14 universities in the Pennsylvania State System (4.44). Each year 30 to 60 candidates complete programs at the postbaccalaureate level for initial teacher certification (4.45). With respect to ethnicity, the Unit is not satisfied with the number of students of color in the Unit, although the percentage of students of color has almost doubled since the time of the last NCATE review. The current Diversity Plan calls for increasing the number of students of color to 10% by 2010 (4.46).

 

Experiences Working with Diverse Students in P-12 Schools
The Unit provides for frequent, extensive, and substantive field experiences as documented in Standard 2. And, based on the school diversity matrix (4.47) and related procedures, the Unit is close to reaching its goal of guaranteeing each initial candidate a field or clinical placement in a diverse setting. A special opportunity for a diverse field placement is provided by SEDU 300 Urban Seminar (4.48) for students in Art, Elementary, and Secondary education. This three-credit, two-week, supervised field experience in center city Philadelphia immerses students in school settings that are ethnically and linguistically diverse.

 

Through coursework, field experiences and innovative projects, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania aspires to maximize the professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills for teacher candidates so that all students are academically successful. As a unit, we continually reflect upon our ability to prepare highly qualified teachers and are committed to incorporating the research of best practice, feedback from practitioners, and feedback from students into our plans for growth.

 

Evidence List for Standard 4

4.1       2005-2006 Undergraduate Catalogue, page 29

4.2       Institutional data

4.3       NCATE 2003 Annual Report

4.4       Diversity Committee Members

4.5       Diversity Minutes

4.6       Conceptual Framework Belief Statement

4.7       SEDU 271

4.8       SPED 330

4.9       ASPY 213

4.10     2005-2006 Undergraduate Catalogue page 52-53

4.11     APSY 721

4.12     SPED 780

4.13     READ 702

4.14     COUN 745

4.15     ELED 240

4.16     HPE 360

4.17     SCHA 760

4.18     ARED 519

4.19     COUN 744

4.20     Diversity Assignment Examples

4.21     Cooperating Teacher Survey Fall 2004

4.22     Diversity by School District

4.23     PDS Agreement

4.24     Erie City PDS Report

4.25     Student Teacher Handbook page 51 -53

4.26     Student Teacher Handbook page 55-56

4.27     Initial Assessment System

4.28     Advanced Assessment System

4.29     SEDU 271

4.30     History of the CDAI and the CDAI instrument

4.31     Teacher Candidate Performance Profile

4.32     TCPP Form page 8

4.33     KSD Form

4.34     2000 Institutional Report page 59

4.35     2000-2004 Diversity Plan

4.36     2000 Institutional Report page 85

4.37     2005-2010 Diversity Plan

4.38     Carter Godwin Woodson Professor Position

4.39     AA East Erie Agreement

4.40     AA East Erie Brochure

4.41     Faculty Diversity Matrices

4.42     2000 Intuitional Report page 59

4.43     TCPP, Diversity

4.44     State System email

4.45     Chart showing numbers of postbaccalaureate initial certification students 2005

4.46     2005-2010 Diversity Plan

4.47     Diversity by School District

4.48     SEDU 300

 


 

III.e. Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development
Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching, including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance. They also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systematically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.

 

Edinboro University professional education faculty are well qualified to perform the many tasks involved in providing high quality programs for school personnel at the initial and advanced levels.  They are engaged in teaching, scholarship, and service that model best professional practices, including the assessment of their own effectiveness, as related to candidates’ performances.  They are actively engaged in the work of P-12 schools and collaborate with colleagues in their respective disciplines and in local schools (5.1).  Faculty performance is systematically evaluated on an annual basis and at planned intervals from pre-tenure to post-tenure review.  Workloads are established that provide time for faculty to engage in professional development and resources are available that support these efforts at the college and university levels. 

 

Qualified Faculty
The professional education faculty in the NCATE Unit include all full-time, permanent School of Education faculty as well as Liberal Arts faculty in the areas of Music Education, Art Education, and Speech-Language Pathology. Currently, there are 66 full-time permanent faculty dedicated to the preparation of school personnel; 59 in the School of Education, three in Speech-Language Pathology, three in Art Education, and one in Music Education.  Sixty-two (94%) of the tenure-track faculty in the Unit have doctoral degrees and 4 hold Master’s degrees (5.2). According to the 2000 NCATE Institutional Report (5.3), the percentage of faculty with terminal degrees was 72%. This represents an increase of 22%.

 

Higher education and school-based clinical faculty are well prepared for their responsibilities as supervisors of Edinboro University candidates.  Most full-time faculty supervise field experiences or clinical experiences as well as teach (5.4). All higher education faculty with supervisory responsibilities have previous experience as P-12 teachers and/or contemporary experience working with schools (5.5).

 

Temporary University supervisors are hired as additional faculty to supervise teacher candidates during the junior field experience, student teaching, or internships. These part-time University supervisors are hired when the demand for supervision exceeds the capacity of the regular faculty. For example, during the spring 2006 semester, 84% of the 161 student teachers and 100% of the 133 interns and junior field experience students are being supervised by the regular faculty. Each academic department provides faculty supervisors for its own candidates and matches the faculty with candidates based on professional credentials.  All temporary University supervisors must have at least a master’s degree and relevant professional experiences (5.6).

 

P-12 clinical faculty who supervise candidates on site for initial teacher preparation programs must meet the following criteria:  (a) three years of successful teaching experience; (b) a valid Pennsylvania instructional certification; and (c) recommendation of the school principal or district superintendent. In addition, cooperating teachers for candidates in student teaching must participate in a mentor workshop/seminar at Edinboro University (5.7). In advanced programs with internships (i.e. Educational Leadership, School Counseling, and School Psychology), clinical faculty in public schools or agencies must be certified in their respective fields and at minimum hold a Master’s degree in the relevant discipline (5.8). 

 

Unit faculty are frequently recognized for their teaching, advising, and scholarship. In the past five years awards to Unit Faculty have included: Edinboro University Teacher of the Year, Edinboro University Advisor of the Year, Health Educator of the Year, Educator of the Year, nomination for U.S. Professor of the Year, Researcher of the Year, Middle Level Educator of the Year; and Pennsylvania Middle Level Educator of the Year for the Northwest Pennsylvania region (5.9).

 

Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching
The fact that 94% of the Unit faculty have earned doctorates is strong evidence of faculty content knowledge, and this knowledge is reflected in the faculty-developed course syllabi for all Unit programs (5.10). Syllabi also reflect the Unit’s conceptual framework and a wide variety of instructional strategies as well as current research, theories, and developments within the fields represented by the various programs.

 

The quality of teaching at Edinboro University is the driving force in promotion, tenure, and faculty evaluation in general (5.11). The quality of faculty teaching is assessed through regular peer and student evaluations of faculty teaching (5.12, 5.13). A wide variety of program and Unit level assessments demonstrate that faculty encourage candidates’ development of reflection , critical thinking, problem solving, professional dispositions, and the importance of diversity in education (5.14, 5.15, 5.16). Multiple forms of assessments are utilized in classes and provide opportunities for students to demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and dispositions of the components identified in the conceptual framework (5.17).

 

The application of technologies in the preparation of school personnel is one of the faculty’s great strengths. All Unit faculty have access to good computers and outstanding classroom, clinical, and distance education technology (5.18). Some faculty have their own Web sites; many use Blackboard; and all faculty use LiveText to supplement instruction and contribute to the Unit assessment system (5.19). In addition, the Unit has developed a series of Web-based degree, certification, and certificate programs during the past five years; and approximately 30% of all graduate students are on-line using the eCollege platform (5.20). The faculty has developed its own standard for maintaining the instructional quality of Web-based programs (see General Standard XI, 5.21).

 

Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship
Unit faculty are actively engaged in a wide variety of scholarly activities involving pure and applied research as well as scholarship directly related to the improvement of curriculum and instruction. These endeavors are reflected in publications (5.22), grant writing (5.23), artistic creations (5.24), and presentations at local, state, and national conferences (5.25). Additional scholarly activities cited in faculty vitae include serving on editorial boards, reviewing books and instructional materials, and conducting evaluations for funded projects (5.26).

 

The Unit faculty, Liberal Arts faculty, and the faculty in the Edinboro University Professional Development Schools in the School District of the City of Erie are also engaged in inquiry-based practice grounded in research and practitioner knowledge (5.27) consistent with NCATE Standards for Professional Development Schools. The research is learner-based and designed to improve test performances as well as the real skills and knowledge of the students. For example, the current project at Strong Vincent High School is focused on the improvement of school climate (5.28).

 

Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service
At Edinboro University, service to the profession is highly valued and faculty are expected to engage in service that contributes to the betterment of society and Edinboro University’s position as a leader in the preparation of school personnel (5.29). Unit faculty serve on a wide variety of important committees at the University (5.30) and in positions of leadership for local schools and professional organizations at local, state, and national levels (5.31). In addition, faculty are actively involved in dialogues about the design and delivery of educational programs. The best examples of this are in the Instructional Leaders Academy (5.32), the PDS in the City of Erie (5.33), and the redesign of clinical experiences in the Corry Area School District (5.34).

 

Collaboration
Professional education faculty develop relationships, programs, and projects with colleagues in P-12 schools and faculty in other units of Edinboro University to refine knowledge bases, conduct research, make presentations, publish materials, and improve the quality of education for all students (5.35).  Unit faculty are actively involved in contemporary P-12 schools through the supervision of candidates (5.36), committee work, consultation, research, and service. The Art Smart Project offers an excellent example of comprehensive P-12 collaboration. Art Smart is now in its second cycle of funding and is a federally funded project in partnership with Edinboro University, the Warren County School District and the Early Enrichment Centers of the Smithsonian Institution (5.37). Unit faculty have been able to demonstrate a closing of the achievement gap in elementary school literacy performances when literacy activities have been infused with fine arts (5.38).

 

Another example of collaboration is the Elementary Education Department’s partnership with a local daycare provider and preschool, the Early Learning University, which is owned and operated by the YMCA. This partnership has allowed over 400 teacher preparation students to observe and interact with preschool-age children in a school-like setting in the past year. A final example is the collaboration between Saint Vincent Hospital and Counseling faculty in the Department of Professional Studies. The project is designed to improve relationships between children and parents in low-income environments (5.39).

 

Collaboration and cooperation between the NCATE Unit and other units on campus are both cordial and regular. The President’s Executive Council, which includes the NCATE Unit Head, meets weekly and has included NCATE on the agenda each week since fall 2004 (5.40). The academic deans meet biweekly with the provost to discuss educational issues including teacher preparation and NCATE. There is a clear understanding among the President, vice presidents, and deans that the preparation of school personnel is the business of the entire Edinboro University community. This is an environment that nurtures dialogues across the disciplines (5.41). The following are specific examples of collaboration between the NCATE Unit and colleagues in Liberal Arts, and Science, Management & Technology.

 

At the request of the Department of Elementary Education in spring 2003, the Department of Mathematics & Computer Science developed two new math courses that could be used to meet general education requirements for college students in disciplines outside of mathematics and the physical sciences; MATH 110 and MATH 210. The courses are not watered down math for elementary majors but are instead a rigorous examination of arithmetic theory, geometry, statistics, and mathematical applications of particular benefit to school personnel (5.42).

 

One of Edinboro University’s residential living-learning floors is reserved for students in history, anthropology, and social studies. The Department of History and Anthropology provides the faculty liaison, and the Dean of Education and the Dean of Science, Management & Technology split the costs (5.43).

 

For the past six years Edinboro University has collaborated with 12 other State System schools in a National Science Foundation project called CETP, Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (5.44). The purpose of the project has been to disseminate inquiry-based science education in higher education as well as in the public schools. At Edinboro University this has been a collaboration among faculty in the departments of Chemistry, Elementary Education, Mathematics & Computer Science, and Secondary Education. In addition, CETP has involved teams of science faculty and administrators from public schools. CETP also sponsors the Evening of Science each year, an exciting, daylong affair in which students from local schools present science projects (5.45).

 

Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance
The faculty evaluation system includes regular and comprehensive reviews of the faculty’s teaching, scholarship, service, collaboration with the professional community, and leadership in the institution and profession as defined in the CBA (5.46). The intent of the review process is for professional development as well as evaluation.  Probationary evaluation includes (a) student course evaluations (5.47), (b) peer faculty classroom observations and evaluations (5.48), (c) written evaluation by the department chairperson (5.59), and (d) written evaluation by Dean of Education. The format of the Dean of Education’s written evaluation was revised in 2005 to reflect the NCATE rubrics for the Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development Standard (5.50). Comprehensive feedback is provided each year giving faculty an assessment of their progress toward tenure and/or promotion. Once tenure is granted, evaluation measures (a) through (d) are repeated every fifth year of employment. Student evaluation data are available in the Baron-Forness library, and all faculty performance evaluations are housed in the Human Resources/Faculty Relations office.  

 

Unit Facilitation of Professional Development
Faculty are encouraged to engage in professional development that enhances their roles as Effective Facilitators of Learning and as educational leaders. Each year, the Unit and academic departments within the Unit sponsor a wide variety of professional development activities based on Unit and department needs (5.51). For example, in response to the Unit’s adoption of LiveText as a data collection and assessment tool, the NCATE assessment coordinator organized a comprehensive LiveText training program for all faculty and candidates in the Unit (5.52).

 

In addition to professional development opportunities on the Edinboro University campus, the Unit encourages professional development through external experiences.  For example, the Unit Head allocates funds to individual faculty members to present and attend professional conferences (5.53).

 

Evidence List for Standard 5

 

5.1       Faculty vitae-R. Omniewski

5.2       Faculty Information

5.3       2000 Institutional Report, page 68

5.4       Unit Faculty Supervision

5.5       Faculty vitae-K. Dailey

5.6       Unit Temporary Supervisors

5.7       Cooperating Teacher Agenda

5.8       Clinical Faculty for Advanced Programs

5.9       Advisor of the Year Letter

5.10     ELED 180

5.11     CBA Article 12

5.12     Peer Evaluation

5.13     Student Evaluation

5.14     SCHA 700

5.15     Course Demonstrations

5.16     SEDU 271

5.17     Conceptual Framework Reflection

5.18     Butterfield Hall

5.19     Graduate Assessment Poster

5.20     Online Program Brochure

5.21     PDE  General Standard 11

5.22     Publications

5.23     Grant Writing

5.24     Artistic Creations

5.25     Presentations

5.26     K. Adams - Vitae

5.27     Erie City PDS Report

5.28     Strong Vincent Behavior Agreement

5.29     CBA Article 12

5.30     Committee Assignments

5.31     Leadership Positions

5.32     Instructional Leaders’ Academy Documents

5.33     Erie City PDS Report

5.34     Corry Area School District Student Teaching

5.35     Presentations

5.36     Unit Faculty Supervisions

5.37     Art Smart

5.38     Art Smart Outcomes

5.39     Saint Vincent Overview

5.40     PEC Agenda

5.41     Dialogues Across the Discipline

5.42     Undergraduate Catalog pp. 194-195

5.43     Living Learning

5.44     CETP Pennsylvania

5.45     CETP Evening of Science Activity

5.46     CBA Article 12

5.47     Student Evaluations

5.48     Peer Evaluations

5.49     Chair Evaluations

5.50     Dean Evaluations

5.51     Dialogues Across the Discipline

5.52     LiveText Training

5.53     Unit Travel Reimbursement

 

 

 

 


 

III.f. Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resources
The unit has the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources, including information technology resources. for the preparation of candidates to meet professional, state , and institutional standards.

 

Unit Leadership and Authority
The Edinboro University of Pennsylvania NCATE Unit includes the programs and program faculty in Art Education, Music Education, and Speech-Language Pathology as well as all five departments in the School of Education: Elementary Education, Health & Physical Education, Professional Studies, Secondary Education, and Special Education & School Psychology. The Dean of Education is the head of the NCATE Unit.

 

The leadership and structure of the Unit are quite different from the time of the last NCATE site visit in the fall of 2000. At that point there were no mechanisms in place to allow the Unit to function as a coherent entity. The school personnel programs in the Schools of Education and Liberal Arts operated independently without Unit meetings and without collaborative instruments for admission to teacher education, curriculum development, or creating coherent, Unit-wide policies and procedures pertinent to the preparation of school personnel. The following chronology details the evolution of Unit leadership and structure from fall 2000 to spring 2006.

 

During the spring 2001 semester, an ad hoc committee with faculty representatives from all initial teacher preparation programs was formed by the Unit Head to address the issue of admission to teacher education (see Chapter 354 Committee Minutes, 6.1). The most important product from the committee was a detailed policy and a set of procedures for admission to teacher education. The admission policy applies to all initial programs in the Unit and is articulated in the 2005 - 2006 Undergraduate Catalogue on pages 119-120 (6.2) and in the Candidacy Application Form (6.3). Samples of candidacy applications (6.4) and candidate profiles (6.5) from the assessment database, Zeus, are available to document the actual application of candidacy procedures.

 

On May 6, 2002 President Pogue approved the reorganization of the School of Education following a relatively brief but acerbic set of debates. The reorganization retired two departments, Educational Services and Counseling, and created two new departments, Professional Studies and Secondary Education. The most significant aspect of the reorganization was shifting administrative responsibility for student teaching to the Office of the Dean of Education, thus making student teaching the responsibility of all departments rather than a single department (see “Relationship of NCATE Standards to School Reorganization,” (6.6) and organizational charts of pre- and post-reorganization relationships, (6.7)).

 

In the spring of 2004 the Dean of Education replaced School of Education meetings with Unit meetings, which are attended by Education and Liberal Arts faculty, the Deans of the Graduate School, Liberal Arts, and Science, Management, & Technology, and other administrators. At the same time, the Dean of Education created the NCATE Leadership Committee, which is comprised of the Dean of the Graduate School, the Deans of Liberal Arts and Education, and the Chairs of all eight departments in Liberal Arts and Education that house school personnel programs (see NCATE 2004 Annual Report: Governance, 6.8). The agendas for Unit meetings (6.9) for the last two years have been focused on NCATE issues but not exclusively. Major changes in policies or procedures that may affect the entire Unit as opposed to an individual program (e.g., changes in admission requirements) are brought to the attention of the Dean of Education, usually as recommendations from the NCATE Standards Chairs Committee.  Issues are presented and discussed at Unit meetings and then referred to the Leadership Committee for disposition. The members of the Leadership Committee have agreed to bind themselves to the will of the committee majority, and this process appears to be working. Procedural or curriculum changes that require approval of the Curriculum Committee, Provost, or President are submitted by the Dean of Education on behalf of the Leadership Committee (see Organizational Chart of Unit Leadership, (6.10), and Leadership Committee documents, (6.11)).

 

The admissions practices are described on pages 21-23 and 14-17 in the 2005 - 2006 Undergraduate Catalogue (6.12) and the 2006-2008 Graduate Catalogue (6.13), respectively. These catalogues also include the current academic calendar (6.14). A variety of graduate and undergraduate publications related to school personnel programs are available for review (6.15).

 

Candidates have access to a wide variety of student services including: advising, counseling, test preparation, and remediation as they progress toward graduation and certification. The requirements for certification are increasingly complex, and the Unit does an excellent job of advising students of candidacy, program, and certification requirements through one-to-one faculty advising (6.16), regular e-mails to candidates (6.17), and with signage in classroom buildings and academic departments (6.18). In addition, the Office of Student Teaching and Student Assistance maintains a help desk Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. for all education majors and Unit candidates.

 

Faculty tutoring and assistance in preparing for PRAXIS I tests is provided by the Division of Academic Support Services (DASS, 6.19). Pre-candidates who fail a PRAXIS I test are automatically notified by the Office of the Dean of Education that assistance is available through DASS (6.20). Students who have difficulty with PRAXIS II tests receive assistance from their respective academic departments. The Department of Elementary Education is particularly attentive to the PRAXIS II needs of candidates (6.21). Finally, career counseling is a candidacy requirement for all students in initial certification programs (6.22).

 

The Unit faculty and administration collaborate with P-12 practitioners on many levels. Edinboro University and the Northwest Tri-County Intermediate Unit have a K-16 Council (6.23) that has assisted the NCATE Unit in evaluation of the School of Education reorganization and the revision of the School of Education mission statement (6.24). K-16 collaborations have included, for example, placing a class of low incidence, multiple-handicapped children in the building that houses Elementary and Early Childhood Education (6.25). Educational Leadership and School Psychology have independent advisory groups (6.26). Superintendents and school principals evaluate the general quality of Unit graduates (6.27), and academic departments conduct graduate and employer surveys in conjunction with periodic reviews required by the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (6.28). Finally, the teachers and administrators in the School District of the City of Erie and the Corry Area School District are actively engaged with Unit faculty in the experimental redesign of clinical experiences for candidates at the initial level (6.29 and 6.30).

 

Unit Budget
The Unit receives allocations that are proportional to other units on campus. By comparison with the Schools of Liberal Arts and Science, Management, & Technology, the School of Education fares as well or better in its allocations for library resources (6.31), for example. The complete 2005-2006 budgets for the three schools are accessible but may require some interpretation during the site visit (6.32).

 

Personnel
The APSCUF/PASSHE collective bargaining agreement (CBA) defines workload policies for all faculty. The standard workload is 12 semester hours for undergraduate courses, 9 semester hours for graduate courses, and 12 semester hours for mixed loads of graduate and undergraduate courses (6.33). The workload for student teacher supervision is .6 load hours per student teacher, which equals 20 student teachers per FTE faculty (6.34). Online courses and face-to-face courses have equivalent value in the calculation of faculty load. However, faculty receive additional compensation for teaching online courses (6.35); faculty are never assigned more than one online course per semester; and the number of students in online courses is strictly limited to 25 (6.36).

 

The CBA provides support for faculty development in the form of regular sabbaticals and educational leaves as defined in Article 18 (6.37). All faculty with at least seven years of service may apply for a sabbatical of 18 weeks at full pay or 36 weeks at half pay for restoration of health, study, travel or other appropriate purposes. Faculty members may apply for sabbatical leave every seven years, and the University may fund up to 7% of its faculty in any one year. Sabbatical proposals are competitive and are reviewed by a University committee that makes prioritized recommendations to the President. In 2004-2005, 78% of all sabbatical proposals were approved. In addition, the Unit provides significant funding for travel to conferences and other professional venues (6.38).

 

The CBA prohibits the use of teaching assistants at Edinboro University (6.39), so all courses and clinical experiences are assigned to faculty. Part-time faculty are hired with the approval of the relevant academic department and academic dean and must have academic credentials appropriate to the teaching or supervisory assignment (6.40). The Unit makes no distinction between clinical faculty and teaching faculty. Almost all full-time faculty supervise as well as teach (6.41). The Unit has adequate support personnel (6.42). In fall 2005 the Unit hired a full-time technology specialist to assist with technology-related NCATE initiatives, online program development, and faculty technology training.

 

In addition to travel support, the Highlands Center for Faculty Initiatives (6.43), the NCATE Diversity Committee (6.44), the Graduate School (6.45), and other Unit/University constituents provide a wide variety of symposia and professional development activities for faculty. For example, in 2004-2005 the Diversity Committee arranged for presentations to the University community by Dr. Thomas Parham, Dr. Theresa LaFromboise, and Dr. Juan Baughn on Afrocentric Counseling, Teen Suicide Among Native Americans, and Multicultural Educational Leadership, respectively.

 

Unit Facilities
There are five buildings that house Unit faculty, administrative offices, classrooms, clinics, and computer labs: Butterfield Hall, Crawford Center, Doucette Hall, Heather Hall, Leader Clinic, and Miller Research Learning Center. Butterfield Hall houses the Office of the Dean of Education, the Department of Professional Studies, and the Department of Special Education & School Psychology. Following a 30-year life cycle renovation, Butterfield Hall is a wireless environment with 18 smart classrooms, new furniture, an Interactive Television (ITV) distance learning classroom, and a clinical facility with audio, video, individual counseling/assessment rooms, a classroom, and a conference room (6.46).

 

Crawford Center houses the Department of Health & Physical Education. Crawford facilities include: a 15-station lab, gymnasium, three smart classrooms, a fitness center with 20 strength and 10 aerobic stations, and a human performance lab with computerized motion analysis, VO2 Max. cardiorespiratory testing, and hydrostatic body composition analysis (6.47). 

 

The technology for Music Education is housed primarily in Heather Hall (6.48), which includes a Rehearsal Hall and adjoining auditorium. Both rooms have smart stations, a piano, and stereo systems, a conductor podium, music stands, and student chairs appropriate for maintaining musically appropriate posture.

 

Leader Clinic (6.49) in Compton Hall is home to the Speech-Language Pathology program. The facility includes a reception area, administrative space, a classroom, two small therapy rooms, an Internet-connected computer laboratory and library, two large IAC sound suites, a clinical prep room with laptop computers, a counseling room, and treatment rooms that support activities such as instrumental voice analysis and AAC clinical service delivery.

 

Miller Research Learning Center houses the Department of Elementary Education, Department of Secondary Education, and the Office of Student Teaching & Student Assistance. Facilities include a Mac lab, PC lab, Reading Clinic, six smart classrooms, and the Math and Science Materials Center for the Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (6.50).

 

Unit Resources Including Technology
In the past five years the Unit has secured resources from the U.S. Department of Education, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education to design and implement innovative programs (6.51). For example, a $350,000 grant from PASSHE provided technology, faculty release time, training, and staff support to initiate Edinboro University’s first online graduate program, a master’s degree in Special Education (6.52).

 

Evidence List for Standard 6

6.1   PDE Documents

6.2  Undergraduate Catalogue, pages 119-121

6.3  Fall 2005 Teacher Candidacy Application

6.4  Completed Candidate Applications

6.5  Zeus Undergraduate Profile Sample 1

6.6  SOE Rational Change

6.7  SOE Organizational Chart

6.8  NCATE Annual Report 2004

6.9  Unit Meeting Documents

6.10 NCATE Organizational Structure

6.11 Leadership Committee Documents

6.12 Undergraduate Catalogue, pages 21-23

6.13 Graduate Catalogue, pages 13-15

6.14 Academic Calendar

6.15 Program Brochures

6.16 Student Advising File

6.17 Teacher Candidacy Graduate Email

6.18 Unit Signage

6.19 Fall 2005 DASS Tutoring

6.20 Tutoring Email

6.21 Elementary Education PRAXIS Flyer

6.22 Career Planning from DASS Web site

6.23 K-16 Documents

6.24 Mission Documents

6.25 Miller Agreement

6.26 Advisory Counsel Documents

6.27 NWPA Survey

6.28 Graduate Survey

6.29 Erie City PDS Report

6.30 Corry Student Teaching

6.31 Library Allocations

6.32 Financial Summary

6.33 Collective Bargaining Agreement, pages 62-63

6.34 Collective Bargaining Agreement, pages 62-63

6.35 Collective Bargaining Agreement, page 100

6.36 INET Seat Counts Email

6.37 Collective Bargaining Agreement, pages 38-40

6.38 Unit Travel Reimbursements

6.39 Collective Bargaining Agreement, pages 11-13

6.40 Unit Temporary Employees Document

6.41 Unit Faculty Supervision

6.42 Unit Support

6.43 2004-2005 Highlands Center Annual Report

6.44 NCATE Diversity Committee Members

6.45 Graduate Professional Development

6.46 Butterfield Hall

6.47 Crawford Center

6.48 Heather Hall

6.49 Leader Clinic

6.50 Miller Research Center

6.51 Summary of Grants

6.52 Special Education Online