New Jersey
City University
College
Of Education
NCATE Institutional
Report
April 30 – May 4, 2005
Dr. Muriel Rand, Dean
mrand@njcu.edu
Dr. Ivan Banks, Assistant Dean
ibanks@njcu.edu
Dr. Ken Counselman,
kcounselman@njcu.edu
NCATE Contact Person
College of Education
2039 Kennedy Blvd.
Jersey City, NJ 07305
http://www.njcu.edu
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 1 of 100
Table of Contents
I. INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW – NEW JERSEY CITY UNIVERSITY ..............................................4
HISTORY OF NJCU ...............................................................................................................................................4
MISSION OF NJCU ................................................................................................................................................4
OVERVIEW OF THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..................................................................................................5
EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................................6
SUMMARY OF CHANGES .......................................................................................................................................7
II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................8
SHARED VISION .....................................................................................................................................................9
THE UNIT’S PHILOSOPHY, PURPOSES AND GOALS ....................................................................................... 11
KNOWLEDGE BASES, INCLUDING THEORIES, RESEARCH, THE WISDOM OF PRACTICE, AND
EDUCATIONAL POLICIES ..................................................................................................................................... 12
CANDIDATE PROFICIENCIES ALIGNED WITH PROFESSIONAL AND STATE STANDARDS ......................... 15
A. Alignment of unit standards with national standards ........................................................ 17
B. Alignment of unit standards with state standards ................................................................ 18
C. Alignment of programs with NJCU’s Reflective Urban Practitioner Model
proficiencies ................................................................................................................................................. 20
D. Assessment of Candidate Performance ...................................................................................... 20
EVIDENCE FOR THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................... 21
Professional Commitments and Dispositions ............................................................................... 21
Commitment to Diversity ....................................................................................................................... 22
Commitment to Technology .................................................................................................................. 23
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................ 23
III. EVIDENCE OF STANDARDS.................................................................................................................... 25
STANDARD I. CANDIDATE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND DISPOSITIONS....................................................... 25
Element 1: Content Knowledge for Teachers ................................................................................. 25
Element 2: Content Knowledge for Other Professional School Personnel ........................ 29
Element 3: Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates ................................ 31
Element 4: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills For Teacher
Candidates .................................................................................................................................................... 34
Element 5: Professional Knowledge and Skills for Other School Personnel .................... 43
Element 6: Dispositions for All Candidates .................................................................................... 45
Element 7: Student Learning for Teacher Candidates ............................................................... 51
Element 8: Student Learning for Other Professional School Personnel ............................ 52
STANDARD II. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND UNIT CAPACITY .................................................................... 53
Element 1. Assessment System ............................................................................................................. 53
Initial Undergraduate Unit Assessments ....................................................................................................... 55
Additional Initial Undergraduate Program-Level Assessments ........................................................... 55
Initial Graduate Unit Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 55
Additional Initial Graduate Program Level Assessments ....................................................................... 56
Graduate Programs: Other Professional School Personnel Unit Assessments .............................. 56
Advanced Programs Unit Assessment ............................................................................................................ 56
Additional Other Professional School Personnel Program Assessments ......................................... 57
Additional Advanced Program-Level Assessments ................................................................................... 58
Unit Capacity Measures ........................................................................................................................................ 58
Element 2. Data Collection Analysis and Evaluation ................................................................ 60
Element 3. Use of Data for Program Improvement ..................................................................... 62
STANDARD III. FIELD EXPERIENCES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE ................................................................. 64
Element 1: Collaboration Between Unit and School Partners ................................................ 64
Element 2: Design, Implementation and Evaluation of Field Experiences ....................... 65
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 2 of 100
Element 3: Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills and
Disposition to Help All Students Learn ............................................................................................ 69
STANDARD IV: DIVERSITY................................................................................................................................ 70
Element 1: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experiences
........................................................................................................................................................................... 70
Element 2: Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty ........................................................... 73
Element 3: Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates ................................................... 74
Element 4: Experiences Working with Diverse Students in P-12 Schools......................... 76
STANDARD V. FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS, PERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENT ................................... 77
Element 1. Qualified Faculty ................................................................................................................. 77
Element 2. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching............................................... 79
Element 3. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship ......................................... 80
Element 4. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service .................................................. 85
Element 5. Collaboration ........................................................................................................................ 85
Element 6. Unit Evaluations of Professional Education Faculty Performance. ............. 85
Element 7. Unit facilitation of Professional Development ....................................................... 87
STANDARD VI. UNIT GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES ................................................................................. 90
Element 1: Unit Leadership and Authority ..................................................................................... 90
NJCU College of Education Policy-making Process ................................................................................... 92
Element 2: Unit Budget ........................................................................................................................... 95
Element 3: Personnel ................................................................................................................................ 97
Element 4: Unit Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 98
Element 5: Unit Resources Including Technology ....................................................................... 99
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 3 of 100
I. Institutional Overview – New Jersey City University
History of NJCU
Historical Highlights…
■
1927: Chartered as The New Jersey
Normal School at Jersey City, planned for
1,000 students and opened with 330
students
■
1935: Became New Jersey State Teachers
College at Jersey City, offering B.S. in
Education
1958: Became Jersey City State College,
offering B.A. degree
■
■
1986: Gained fiscal and operational
autonomy
■
1998: Achieved university status and
became New Jersey City University;
reorganized into three Colleges: Arts and
Sciences, Education, and Professional
Studies
NJCU Today…
■
■
■
■
Students: 10,000 students from NJ, the
US, and other nations, speaking 50+
languages
Campus: 26-building campus on 34 acres
in central Jersey City, minutes from the
waterfront and New York City
Programs: 32 undergraduate and 19
graduate degree programs
New Jersey City University is one of the original nine public
colleges in New Jersey. It serves mostly first generation
commuter college students in Hudson county and
neighboring areas by offering a range of undergraduate and
Masters degree programs in the arts and sciences, education
and other professional fields. Its character is reflected in its
goal of becoming the “best urban university in the United
States.”
The University opened as a teacher-training school in 1929,
grew to be a liberal arts college in 1968, and in 1998
achieved university status. Although the founding principles
– access and excellence – have not changed, NJCU’s
physical presence has changed dramatically. The size of the
campus has expanded six-fold, the academic focus has
blossomed from normal school training to 32 undergraduate
degree programs and 19 graduate degree programs offered in
three colleges: College of Arts & Sciences, College of
Professional Studies, and College of Education.
The student body includes 6,000 undergraduates and 3000
graduate students, of whom only 275 are residential. The
average SAT of the incoming freshman class was 927 and the
average class rank was in the 63rd percentile. 64% of the
freshman class are classified as minorities.
Mission of NJCU
The mission of NJCU is to provide a diverse urban
population with access to an excellent university education
and the support services necessary for professional and
personal fulfillment. For almost seven decades, NJCU,
located in a city of perpetual immigrant influx, has focused
its efforts on this mission, developing the philosophy,
organization, and strategies for implementing it. The
university is also committed to improving the educational,
intellectual, cultural, socio-economic, and physical
environment of the surrounding urban region.
Resources: Among NJCU’s many unique
resources are:

Extensive, premier Cooperative
Education Program

University Academy Charter High
School

New Visual Arts Building and Sculpture
Garden

Participation in development of 21
acres at “Bayside,” a nearby 700-acre
urban redevelopment project, as
NJCU’s new West Campus.

Expansion of residential units for oncampus living.
This mission, throughout NJCU’s history, has been consistently defined within the context of its
urban location. Access and excellence are themes woven throughout the mission and goals of
NJCU. The conceptual framework of the College of Education, The Reflective Urban
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 4 of 100
Institutional Overview
Practitioner, supports this mission and serves as a foundation on which all College of Education
programs and services are built and planned.
Overview of the College of Education
In 1998, after Jersey City State College became New Jersey City University, the administration
created a separate College of Education with the following 7 academic departments
• Early Childhood Education
• Educational Leadership
• Educational Technology
• Elementary and Secondary Education
• Literacy Education
• Multicultural Education
• Special Education
The College of Education also includes the Center for Teacher Preparation and Partnerships
which manages all clinical field placements, Professional Development Schools, certification,
and other P-12 partnership activities. Also part of the College of Education is the A. Harry
Moore School, a demonstration school for 175 multiply disabled children.
The College of Education serves as the Professional Education Unit and as such also takes
responsibility for the following programs outside the college: Art Education, Music Education,
Health Education, School Nurse, School Psychology, and School Guidance. The following table
lists all the Professional Educational Programs at NJCU:
Table A. Professional Education Programs at New Jersey City University
Program Name
Early Childhood
Education, P-3
Early Childhood
Education P-3
Elementary Ed
Elementary &
Secondary Ed
Special Education
Special Education
English Education
Mathematics Ed
Social Studies Ed
Science Education
Spanish Education
Health Education &
School Nurse
Art Education
Music Education
Urban Education
ESL/Bilingual
Award
Level
Program
Level
(ITP or
ADV,
OSP)
Number of
Candidates
(fall 04)
Agency or
Association
Reviewing
Program
B.A.
ITP
180
M.A.
B.A.
M.A.T.
ITP
ADV
ITP
ITP
B.A.
M.A.
B.A.
B.A.
B.A.
B.A.
B.A.
B.S.
B.A.
B.A.
M.A.
NCATE Institutional Report
Status of National and State
Program Review
Status of
Program Review
NAEYC
Program
Review
Submitted
Yes
235
80
112
88
NAEYC
Yes
Extension
ACEI
NJDOE
Yes
No
Recognized
Approved
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
149
551
17
13
23
6
6
7
CEC
CEC
NCTE
NCTM
NCSS
NSTA
NJDOE
AAHE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Recognized
Recognized
In Rejoinder
Recognized
In Review
In Review
Approved
In Review
ITP
ITP
ITP
ADV
17
19
3
269
NASAD
NASM
TESOL
No
No
Yes
Accredited
Accredited
Recognized
Page 5 of 100
Recognized
Institutional Overview
Education
Urban Education:
Urban Studies
Elem. Reading
Music Education
School Health
Education
Urban Education
Admin. and Supervis.
Reading Specialist
School Psychology
Counseling (School
Guidance)
Educational
Technology
M.A.
ADV
25
NJDOE
No
Approved
M.A.
M.A.
M.S.
ADV
ADV
ADV
1
10
28
IRA
NASM
NJDOE
Yes
No
No
Recognized
Accredited
Approved
M.A.
ADV
(OSP)
ADV
(OSP)
ADV
(OPS)
ADV
(OSP)
ADV
(OSP)
503
ELCC
Yes
Recognized
29
IRA
Yes
Recognized
19
NASP
Yes
In Review
160
CACREP
No
137
ISTE
Yes
Program being
Revised
In Rejoinder
M.A.
M.A. or
Prof Dipl.
M.A.
M.A.
Educational Context of New Jersey City University
The New Jersey Department of Education approved a new Administrative Code for all teacher
licensing in January 2004. As a result, accreditation is now required of all teacher preparation
programs in the state for the first time and state standards for teacher preparation have also been
adopted for the first time. Also new is the requirement for all programs to be aligned with
national standards in each discipline. All programs in the state are currently undergoing new
approval by the NJDOE. Our scheduled date for state program reviews is June, 2005.
Major changes in the administrative code to meet NCLB legislation have affected our special
education programs. These certification programs now need to be dual licensure and we are
anticipating completely redesigned programs to begin in Fall 2005.
Licensure in New Jersey is a three-phase process in which candidates receive a Certificate of
Eligibility with Advanced Standing at the end of our programs, then a Provisional License for
one year when they obtain a job, and after a year of successful teaching, they receive permanent
licensure. New Jersey’s alternate route program allows candidates who have passed the Praxis II,
and have a 2.75 GPA to enter the classroom and complete 200 hours of professional coursework.
At the end of a successful year of teaching, they also become permanently certified. The
alternate route coursework can be completed as part of an MAT degree or for non-credit at state
Regional Training Centers. New Jersey requires all practicing teachers to complete 100 clock
hours of continuing professional development every five years.
The University is located in the heart of an urban area directly across the Hudson river from New
York City. This area includes Jersey City, Newark, and other surrounding cities. In 1998 the
New Jersey Supreme Court, in the Abbott v. Wade case, decreed that the 30 poorest school
districts in the state needed extra funds and services to provide a thorough and efficient
education. These districts have become known as Abbott Districts and 12 of them are located in
the NJCU area and serve as our clinical practice districts: East Orange, Garfield, Harrison,
Hoboken, Irvington, Jersey City, Newark, Passaic, Paterson, Perth Amboy, Union City, and
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 6 of 100
Institutional Overview
West New York. The University also founded the University Academy Charter High School
which is the only charter school in New Jersey on a college campus. Currently in its second year
of operation, the Charter School is in the beginning stages of becoming a Professional
Development School for the College of Education.
Summary of Changes and Progress Regarding Weaknesses from 2000
Review
• Reflective Urban Practitioner Conceptual Framework revised and approved by faculty
• New Governance Structure for the College of Education approved
• COE Assessment system developed and became operational
• 9 Professional Development Schools initiated and Clinical Field Placements reorganized within
Partnership Districts
• Teacher Education Advisory Council reformed with P-12 community members & candidates
• 25 grant-funded programs initiated and maintained in the College of Education
• New Pathways to Teaching Alternate Route program with NJ Community Colleges developed
and operational
• 9 new faculty members hired
• New Dean and Assistant Dean hired
• Reorganization of Center for Teacher Preparation and Partnerships and hiring of Assistant
Director
• Assistant to the Dean position created
• University Academy Charter High School opened
• Electronic Classroom (P203) created and operational
• Center for Instructional and Teaching Innovation (CITI) laboratory opened for faculty training
and development
• Master of Arts in Teaching with Elementary Education concentration approved
• College of Education Writing Assessment revised, strengthened, and extended to all
undergraduate programs
• College of Education Writers Group, COE Research Group, and Technology Learning
Community begun
Table B. Actions taken to address weaknesses from the 2000 review.
Category I: Design of Professional Education
Weakness Cited
Corrective Actions Taken
C. The COE has not
Many resources have been put into the program review process
ensured that all initial
which has changed substantially since the 2000 visit. All
programs meet the
departments have carefully reviewed weaknesses and made
content preparation
programmatic changes (see exhibit room). All departments had
guidelines and
faculty attend national meetings of SPAs to understand the review
standards of specialty
process better, and all of these departments had consultants work
organizations, esp.
with them on program improvement and on SPA review preparation.
Elem, Science, Social
Elementary and Math have been nationally recognized; Science and
Studies, English &
Social Studies are under review of their first submission; English
Math
met 44 standards and did not meet 14. The rejoinder is still under
review. Early Childhood and Special Ed programs continue to be
nationally recognized.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 7 of 100
Institutional Overview
F. The COE has not
School Psychology has substantially revised its program since 2000
ensured that all
with the help of a consultant from NASP. Two rejoinders were
advanced programs
submitted but weaknesses in the program continued. The program
meet the professional
was again revised to include a stronger assessment system and
studies guidelines and
another complete review was submitted in January 2005.
standards of specialty
Educational Leadership (ELCC), Reading Specialist (IRA), Special
organizations, esp.
Ed (CEC), and ESL (TESOL) programs have been nationally
ELCC & NASP
recognized.
Category IV: The Unit for Professional Education
Governance and Accountability
Weakness Cited
Corrective Actions Taken
The unit is not clearly
Both of these weaknesses have been corrected by focusing on a new
established as the entity governance structure for the College of Education. Immediately
with the responsibility
after the 2000 NCATE visit, the faculty met to begin work on a new
and authority to
structure that incorporated more fully the faculty from outside the
develop, organize,
COE in Professional Education. After revisions and feedback the
unify, and coordinate
full faculty voted and approved this structure in December 2001.
all professional
This structure included a College of Ed Council as the formal
education programs at
policy-making body of the unit, and it had representatives from Art,
NJCU. There is no
Music, Health, and Psychology which are outside the COE. In
formal structure that
addition, faculty from outside the COE were included in the
ensures that candidates, committee structure as well. The committee structure allowed P-12
others in the
practitioners, candidates, and all faculty to participate in the
professional
governance. After 3 years of working with this structure, it gradually
community, and all
evolved to meet these weaknesses in more effective ways. In the fall
faculty involved in the of 2004, the COE Council proposed a revised structure that included
preparation of
greater participation of candidates and better alignment with the new
education professionals assessment system. This structure was approved by a full faculty
are meaningfully
vote in January 2005 and became operational in the Spring 2005
engaged in the unit’s
semester. The details of this governance structure can be found in
policy-making.
Standard VI.
II. Conceptual Framework Overview
In 1995, the School of Professional Studies and
Education at Jersey City State College (precursor of the
NJCU College of Education), developed a model and
philosophy of education with four major frameworks.
The four major facets of this model, the Reflective
Urban Practitioner, were as follows:
 The Reflective Practitioner (our candidates and
faculty)
 Professional Education (the community context
in which our candidates and faculty works, the
constituents within that community that we
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 8 of 100
Institutional Overview


serve, and those elements within our programs which allow us to serve that community
and those constituents)
Process (the acquisition, modification, and reframing of knowledge and skills), and,
The Learner in the Urban Environment, embodying the themes of cultural diversity and
learning, abilities and potential of urban learners, motivation and maintenance of a
positive school culture, and the underlying belief in the resilience and strengths of the
urban learner.
Prior to the last visit by the NCATE Board of Examiners, the faculty reviewed and reaffirmed its
commitment to this Conceptual Framework at major retreats in May 1999, January 2000, and
May 2000. In addition, mini-retreats were held throughout the Spring 2000 semester, and in the
Fall of 2000 a seminar/discussion group was held to introduce new faculty to this Reflective
Urban Practitioner Framework. Following the NCATE visit of October 2000, at which point the
Board of Examiners found that our Conceptual Framework was “well-defined and integrated in
course syllabi” and that “Members of the professional community, including candidates, spoke
knowledgeably of the conceptual framework and its applications to both initial teacher
preparation and advanced programs (NCATE BOE Report 2000),” we continued to revisit,
revise, and otherwise refine the Conceptual Framework.
At the COE retreat of Fall 2001, several faculty pointed out the need to put the Conceptual
Framework into language which would serve us well into the 21st Century, and at our retreat the
following semester, in May 2002, we began the process of looking once again at the document
and our commitment to it. By December of 2002, we had rephrased the four elements of the
document into a series of questions, which attempted to pinpoint exactly what we wished to
accomplish by using this model. By the retreat of March of 2003, we had reformed the model
into a three section form, aligning it with national standards by using the three major areas of
knowledge, skills, and dispositions and the faculty used a significant portion of this meeting to
craft the document into a form which was voted upon, and approved, by the faculty in the
summer of 2003.
During the school year 2003-2004, we relied upon these three major frameworks to guide us in
our work, and, at our retreat in May 2004, workgroups developed the candidate outcomes. These
outcomes were incorporated into the document and a summary version was prepared in the Fall
of 2004. Finally, over the course of the school year 2004-2005, clarifications on our assumptions,
knowledge base, and alignment with University, national, and state standards were incorporated
into the document.
Shared Vision
The Reflective Urban Practitioner Model is the vision and purpose of the College of
Education’s efforts in preparing educators to work in P-12 schools. It is well articulated,
knowledge-based and consistent with NJCU’s mission to provide a quality education to all and to
improve the urban community. Our Conceptual Framework is the result of the work of many
different individuals and groups. Over the course of the two-year revision process, we gathered
significant input from faculty, principals, superintendents, cooperating teachers, university
supervisors, students, secretaries, administrators, and parents. Most of this was done at faculty
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 9 of 100
Conceptual Framework
retreats held twice each year and with our Teacher Education Advisory Council that represents
the P-12 community and parents.
The Reflective Urban Practitioner Model supports the full range of development for classroom
teachers and other school professionals. Further, it is our belief that school-based practitioners
and university faculty and staff are effective when they work together with parents, students, and
community within a seamless P – 16 system to promote and build upon reciprocal processes
grounded in inquiry and mutual respect; and the sharing of knowledge, skills, and dispositions
and resources. Minimally, responsibilities required to develop Reflective Urban Practitioners
must be carried out through the collaborative and collective actions of the following constituent
groups:
 University faculty and staff administratively housed in the College of Education and in
other academic units,
 teacher education candidates,
 the professional P – 12 community,
 P -12 students and their families,
 External advisory committees and the urban community at-large.
The Reflective Urban Practitioner Model consists of three frameworks which are each centered
on a guiding question, and statement of belief.
Framework I. Knowledge Foundation. Guiding Questions: What knowledge do candidates
need to gain from liberal arts, sciences, parents, community, and professional education
programs to work effectively with learners, colleagues, and families in an urban community?
We believe that to work effectively in an urban education community, candidates
demonstrate knowledge of: Literacy required to present their subject matter, development and
learning theory, legal and ethical issues, subject area content, and family and community.
Framework II. Pedagogical Skills. Guiding Question: What skills do candidate need to
translate theory into practice?
We believe that in order to translate theory to practice, candidates must have skills in
understanding motivation, behavior, learning theories, the use of technology, communication
techniques, planning individualized services and instruction, using a variety of instructional
strategies, assessing development and adapting practice.
Framework III. Dispositions for Urban Education. Guiding Question: What dispositions do
candidates need to be successful in urban schools, i.e., help all students learn?
We believe that the dispositions needed for success in urban schools include a belief in
the ability and potential of all urban learners; a belief in education as a vehicle for social justice;
recognizing and valuing diversity, a commitment to lifelong learning and reflection; a
commitment to an ethic of caring and empathy, the recognition and valuing of commonalities
and differences students manifest across cultures (including language, gender, socioeconomic
status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and exceptionalities), a belief in the ability and
potential of all learners in our urban environments and the commitment to excellence and high
expectations for all learners; a belief in the potential of the educational environment to empower
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 10 of 100
Conceptual Framework
learners to impact the urban environment in just and socially responsible ways; the ability and
motivation to analyze situations, set goals, plan and monitor actions, and evaluate professional
thinking; the belief that educators can have a positive impact on children, schools, and the
community coupled with the commitment to take action on that belief; a belief and commitment
to lifelong learning and professional growth, including content, pedagogy, and the satisfaction of
intellectual and professional curiosity; a personal commitment to an ethic of care and empathy,
political advocacy, social justice, and equity that is embodied in New Jersey City University’s
Reflective Urban Practitioner Model.
Relationship of Reflective Urban Practitioner Model to NJCU Mission
The synthesis of academic knowledge and professional practice that flows from the University
mission is apparent in the Reflective Urban Practitioner Model. Most NJCU students are the first
in their families to attend college and most view higher education as an essential step in
professional preparation. Applied learning is an effective bridge between classroom instruction
and the world of work, providing students with a solid base of professional experience to
reinforce their intellectual and academic growth. This, too, is reflected in the Reflective Urban
Practitioner outcomes and philosophy.
The student body of the University reflects the social and cultural diversity of the New
Jersey/New York metropolitan area, and includes a significant number of international students.
This cultural richness is a unique adjunct to the educational environment and supports the
preparation of students for a pluralistic society and global economy. This richness is highlighted
in the emphasis on diversity in the conceptual framework and the NJCU mission. The University
is committed to improving the quality of life in its urban community and works along with other
colleges in the county, businesses, community organizations, government agencies, and local
school districts to accomplish this. It is an institution in and of the city and this emphasis on
improving the urban community is at the heart of the Reflective Urban Practitioner Model.
The Unit’s Philosophy, Purposes and Goals
The following describes the philosophy, purpose and goals of each framework:
Framework I Knowledge Foundation. Candidates need knowledge about learners including
their cognitive, physical, social and emotional development and the needs of all learners, i.e.,
 Knowledge about families including diverse cultural assumptions about varied family
structures and the impact of urban conditions on children and their families.
 Knowledge about learners including the cognitive, physical, social and emotional
development and needs of all learners.
 Knowledge about the urban community.
 Knowledge about the influences of political, economic, and social development on
schools, families, and learners.
 Mastery of content knowledge in curricula that are taught, as well as understanding the
debates within the disciplines of liberal arts and sciences about the social construction of
knowledge itself.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 11 of 100
Conceptual Framework
Framework II Pedagogical Skills. Candidates need the following skills to translate theory into
practice, i.e.,
 Skills to communicate effectively across cultures.
 Skills to effectively develop, apply, and evaluate the appropriateness of instructional
strategies in their content disciplines for diverse learners.
 Skills to implement those practices which best meet the needs of children and families.
 Skills in applying new information and knowledge learned through decision-making,
investigation, experimental inquiry, and invention.
 Skills in synthesizing, evaluating, and applying contemporary, research-based principles
and techniques.
 Skills in critical reflection that set the stage for candidates developing new knowledge
and understanding about teaching and learning as they move beyond novice status.
Framework III: Dispositions for Urban Education. The dispositions for urban education that
we find important in achieving our goals include:
 The recognition and valuing of commonalities and differences students manifest across
cultures, including language, gender, socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, and exceptionalities.
 A belief in the ability and potential of all learners in our urban environment and a
commitment to excellence and high expectations for all learners.
 A belief in the potential of the educational environment to empower learners to impact
the urban environment in just and socially responsible ways.
 The ability and motivation to analyze situations, set goals, plan and monitor actions, and
evaluate professional thinking
 The belief that educators can have a positive impact on children, schools, and the
community coupled with the commitment to take action on that belief.
 A belief and commitment to lifelong learning and professional growth, including content,
pedagogy, and the satisfaction of intellectual and professional curiosity
 A personal commitment to an ethic of care and empathy, and political advocacy, social
justice, and equity that is embodied in New Jersey City University’s Reflective Urban
Practitioner Model.
Knowledge Bases, including theories, research, the wisdom of practice, and
educational policies
Teacher quality makes a difference in student achievement. One study of 400,000 students in
3,000 schools identified teacher quality as the most important school-related factor influencing
student performance outcomes (Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain, 1998). Hanushek (1992) estimates
that the difference between having a good teacher and having an ineffective teacher can exceed
one grade-level equivalent in annual achievement growth. The single most important factor
affecting student achievement is teachers, and the effects of teachers on student achievement are
both additive and cumulative. Further, lower achieving students are most likely to benefit from
increases in teacher effectiveness (Sanders, 1998; Sanders and Rivers, 1996).
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 12 of 100
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework’s guiding questions and outcomes evolve from our shared vision of
two overarching goals for our teacher education programs at both the undergraduate and
graduate levels: (1) to prepare high quality teachers who can work effectively in urban
schools; (2) to graduate high quality teachers who will not only think about their learning
and teaching experiences within our program but will also act upon their reflections in
deliberate and positive ways throughout their professional lives. Both goals are grounded in a
rich research base that confirms the positive effect these have on student achievement and
teacher satisfaction. Additionally, the work of the College of Education is done in the context of
national, state, and local educational agencies, governing bodies, and professional organizations.
We prepare our candidates to meet standards set by those agencies as well as our high
expectations for excellence in teaching.
Preparation to Work in Urban Schools. According to a national staffing survey by the
National Center for Education Statistics, 54% of all teachers said they taught culturally diverse
students, but only 20% felt very well prepared to meet their needs (U.S. Department of
Education, 1999). The focus on the impact of cultural diversity is intensifying as the enrollment
of minority populations in U. S. schools grow.
Cultural differences affect children’s and adults’ ways of viewing the world. In the schools,
understanding and responding to these differences is crucial, not just to the education of cultural
minorities but to all students, whose personal and intellectual development will require an
appreciation for multiple points of view and the ability to live in a multicultural, multiracial, and
multinational world (Moforum, 2000).
Culturally responsive teachers develop students’ intellectual, social, emotional, and political
learning by “using cultural referents to impart knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (Ladson-Billings,
1992). Culturally responsive teachers use the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, and
performance styles of diverse students to make learning more appropriate and effective for them;
they teach to and through the strengths of these students (Gay, 2000).
Ladson-Billings (1994) studied instruction in elementary classrooms and observed that when
students were part of a more collective effort designed to encourage academic and cultural
excellence, expectations were clearly expressed, skills taught, and positive interpersonal relations
were exhibited. Students behaved like members of an extended family – assisting, supporting,
and encouraging each other. Students were held accountable as part of a larger group, and it was
everyone’s task to make certain that each individual member of the group was successful.
Culturally responsive classrooms specifically acknowledge the presence of culturally diverse
students and the need for these students to find relevant connections among themselves and with
the subject matter and the tasks teachers ask them to perform.
Brophy (1982) identified eight contributing factors to good urban teaching: (1) teacher
expectations, (2) student opportunity to learn, (3) classroom management, (4) curriculum pacing,
(5) active teaching, (6) teaching to mastery, (7) attention to grade-level differences, and (8) a
supportive learning environment. Others (Means and Knapp, 1991; Haberman, 1991), offer ways
to reshape curriculum and instruction in urban schools to broaden the scope of instruction
beyond basic skills. At New Jersey City University, we are committed to developing teachers
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 13 of 100
Conceptual Framework
who are willing and able to change the pedagogy of poverty by raising expectations and
challenging assumptions about urban schools and communities (see for example, Weiner, 1983).
As our Reflective Urban Practitioner Model Framework I Knowledge Foundation notes, our
philosophy is that program graduates need to be well-grounded in their “knowledge about
learners including the cognitive, physical, social and emotional development and needs of all
learners.” These knowledge domains are all informed by the urban context in which our
candidates live and work.
In addition to the realization of the need for culturally competent teaching, our candidates also
have significant opportunity to develop their understanding of diversity. A cohort of candidates
and faculty from diverse groups at NJCU informs our curriculum, pedagogy, and format in
culturally meaningful ways. This diversity assists candidates in addressing teaching and learning
from multiple perspectives and different life experiences. During their professional preparation
program, our candidates have multiple opportunities to interact with males and females with
diverse ethnic, racial, language, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds and histories and from
different regions of the country and world, as well as with adults and students with
exceptionalities. Further, our candidates do their preservice teaching in an urban environment.
Such experiences impact candidates’ teaching practices, and positively affect cultural attitudes,
cultural awareness, career expectations, and their sense of preparedness to teach culturally
different children (Fry & McKinney, 1997).
Our beliefs align with those of our state policymakers who recently revised The Professional
Standards for Teachers (N.J.A.C. 6A:9 – 3.3 and 3.4) that are used in the accreditation of
preparation programs, recommendations of candidates for certification and the approval of
professional development. Standard Three: Diverse Learners, calls particular attention to this
need. It requires that: “Teachers shall understand the practice of culturally responsive teaching.”
This Standard includes a call for teachers to “know and understand,”
(1) How a person’s world view is profoundly shaped by his or her life experiences, as
mediated by factors such as social class, gender, race, ethnicity, language, sexual
orientation, age, and special needs;
(2) The supports for and barriers to culturally responsive teaching in school
environments; and,
(3) The process of second language acquisition and strategies to support the learning of
students whose first language is not English.
In addition teachers should value and be committed to:
(4) Respect for individual and cultural differences, and appreciation of the basic worth of
each individual and cultural group; and
(5) The diversity of learning that takes place in the classroom, respect for the talents and
perspectives of each student and sensitivity to community and cultural norms.
In addition to the issues of diversity, the realities of the urban school environment, including the
bureaucratic regulations and paperwork, state curriculum influences, scheduling structures,
transportation challenges, family lives, underprepared students, and other issues of school
cultural influence the success and preparedness of urban teachers (Weiner, 1983; 1998) We
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 14 of 100
Conceptual Framework
believe candidates need the abilities, knowledge, and attitudes to overcome these barriers to
successful teaching in urban schools.
Preparation to Be Reflective Practitioners. By engaging our candidates early and often in
reflection on their practice, we are developing a culture of ongoing professional inquiry and
development. According to Dewey (1933), “reflective thinking” was a critical activity for
students to practice, as it would make students rational and skeptical, help them to question the
assertions of others and their own beliefs, and enable them to make decisions based on the best
evidence available. Others expanded Dewey’s model by including stages of reflection through
which teachers progressed (King, 1992). Van Manen (1977), calls for the need for a knowledge
base against which reflections could be analyzed (McIntyre et al, 1996), and asserts that teachers
need an understanding of social contexts through which experiences are viewed (Carter & Doyle,
1996). Argyris (1991) suggests that well-educated individuals misunderstand what learning is
and how to bring it about because of their failure to critically reflect on their own behavior and
because they become defensive about their failures, blaming them on external sources. The
process of interpreting and framing our teaching experiences and then reinterpreting and
reframing them is a central element of a reflective stance (Zeichner and Liston, 1996) and makes
for more effective teaching. Shön (1983, p. 68-69) explains,
When someone reflects-in-action, he [sic] becomes a researcher in the practice context.
He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique, but constructs
a new theory of the unique case. His inquiry is not limited to a deliberation about a means
which depend on a prior agreement about ends. He does not keep the means and ends
separate, but defines them interactively as he frames a problematic situation. He does not
separate thinking from doing, ratiocinating his way to a decision which he must later
convert to action. Because his experimenting is a kind of action, implementation is built
into his inquiry.
Brubacher, Case, and Reagan (1994) suggest that “(W)hile good teaching does indeed depend on
a strong experiential base, reflective practice can help speed the development of such an
experiential base in new teachers.”
The importance for reflection-in-action is also understood by our state policymakers by their
inclusion of it in The Professional Standards for Teachers (N.J.A.C. 6A:9 – 3.3 and 3.4). For
instance, Standard Four: Instructional Planning and Strategies, requires that those who are
eligible for certification will be able to use formal and informal methods of assessment,
information about students, pedagogical knowledge, and research as sources for active reflection,
evaluation and revision of practice. Standard Ten: Professional Development of this code
stipulates that “Teachers shall participate as active, responsible members of the professional
community, engaging in a wide range of reflective practices.”
Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Professional and State Standards
The Reflective Urban Practitioner Model contains the following 15 outcomes based on the
mission, goals, and philosophy described above.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 15 of 100
Conceptual Framework
Framework I. Knowledge Foundation
1. Literacy: Candidates being prepared to work in urban settings demonstrate competence
in the literacy skills required to present their subject matter to P-12 students and other
school personnel.
2. Development and Learning Theory: Candidates being prepared to work in urban
settings demonstrate knowledge of P-12 student development and learning theory in the
context of academic settings.
3. Legal and Ethical Issues: Candidates being prepared to work in urban settings
demonstrate knowledge of the complexity of the legal and ethical issues associated with
teaching and learning in p-12 classrooms.
4. Content Knowledge: Candidates being prepared to work in urban settings demonstrate
the content knowledge necessary to help all students learn.
5. Family and Community: Candidates being prepared to work in urban settings
demonstrate knowledge of the role that families and communities should play as valued
partners in the education process, and tacit cultural assumptions of schools that may not
be shared by families and communities that urban schools serve.
Framework II. Pedagogical Skills
6. Motivation and Behavior: Candidates will demonstrate a critical understanding of
individual and group motivation and behavior, contemporary learning theories, and the
use of technology to create learning environments that encourage positive social
interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.
7. Communication: Candidates will demonstrate the use of effective verbal, nonverbal, and
media communication techniques and technology to foster active inquiry, respect for
cultural difference, and collaboration in the classroom.
8. Plan Services and Instruction: Candidates will demonstrate the ability to plan services
and instruction based upon synthesis and evaluation of knowledge of the individual
learner, subject matter, the community, and the curriculum, particularly in urban
environments.
9. Instructional Strategies: Candidates will demonstrate a critical understanding of the
uses of a variety of instructional strategies and technologies to encourage students’
development of critical thinking, information literacy, technology, problem solving and
performance skills, and demonstrate the ability to adapt the curriculum to the unique
needs of the learner.
10. Assessment: Candidates will demonstrate the ability to assess different levels of
development and adapt practice accordingly based on a proficient and informed use of
research, reflection, and individual needs.
Framework III. Dispositions for Urban Education
11. Power of Students: Candidates demonstrate a belief in the ability and potential of all
learners in our urban environments to meet high expectations of academic achievement
and social development.
12. Power of Schools: Candidates demonstrate a belief that schooling and education function
as vehicles for economic, social, and political equality and liberation.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 16 of 100
Conceptual Framework
13. Power of Difference: Candidates demonstrate recognition and valuing of culture,
language, gender, socioeconomic status, age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation,
exceptionality, and other forms of difference as assets in teaching and learning.
14. Power of Lifelong Learning and Reflection: Candidates demonstrate that they value
lifelong learning and reflection and commit themselves to actively seek out opportunities
to grow intellectually and professionally. Candidates demonstrate a willingness to
examine and investigate personal assumptions and the ability to reflect upon and evaluate
the effects of their action and choices on others.
15. Power of Empathy and a commitment to the success of all children in schools:
Candidates will provide evidence that they have a personal commitment to an ethic of
caring and empathy, and a commitment to promoting academic and social success of all
learners.
A. Alignment of unit standards with national standards.
Table C.1. Alignment of the Reflective Urban Practitioner (RUP) Proficiencies with INTASC
Principles.
INTASC Principles
Reflective Urban Practitioner Proficiencies
Principle 1. Subject Knowledge. The teacher
understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry,
and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches
and can create learning experiences that make these
aspects of subject matter meaningful for students.
Principle 2. Student Learning. The teacher
understands how children and youth learn and
develop, and can provide learning opportunities that
support their intellectual, social and personal
development.
Principle 3. Diverse Learners. The teacher
understands how students differ in their approaches
to learning and creates instructional opportunities
that are adapted to learners from diverse cultural
backgrounds and with exceptionalities.
Principle 4. Multiple Instructional Strategies.
The teacher understands and uses a variety of
instructional strategies to encourage students'
development of critical thinking, problem solving,
and performance skills.
Principle 5. Learning and Motivation. The
teacher uses an understanding of individual and
NCATE Institutional Report
4. Content Knowledge: Candidates being prepared to work
in urban settings demonstrate the content knowledge
necessary to help all students learn.
2. Development and Learning Theory: Candidates being
prepared to work in urban settings demonstrate knowledge
of P – 12 student development and learning theory in the
context of academic settings.
11. Power of Students: Candidates demonstrate a belief in
the ability and potential of all learners in our urban
environments to meet high expectations of academic
achievement and social development.
13. Power of Difference: Candidates demonstrate
recognition and valuing of culture, language, gender,
socioeconomic status, age, race, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, exceptionality, and other forms of difference as
assets in teaching and learning.
15. Power of Empathy and a Commitment to the success
of all children in schools: Candidates will provide
evidence that they have a personal commitment to an ethic
of caring and empathy, and a commitment to promoting
academic and social success of all learners.
9. Instructional Strategies: Candidates will demonstrate a
critical understanding of the uses of a variety of
instructional strategies and technologies to encourage
students’ development of critical thinking, information
literacy, technology, problem-solving, and performance
skills, and demonstrate the ability to adapt the curriculum to
the unique needs of the learner.
6. Motivation and Learning Theory: Candidates will
demonstrate a critical understanding of individual and
Page 17 of 100
Conceptual Framework
group motivation and behavior to create a learning
environment that encourages positive social
interaction, active engagement in learning, and selfmotivation.
Principle 6. Communication. The teacher uses
knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and
media communication techniques to foster active
inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in
the classroom.
Principle 7. Planning. The teacher plans and
manages instruction based upon knowledge of
subject matter, students, the community, and
curriculum goals.
Principle 8. Assessment. The teacher understands
and uses formal and informal assessment strategies
to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual,
social and physical development of the learner.
Principle 9. Reflective Practice, Professional
Growth. The teacher is a reflective practitioner who
continually evaluates the effects of her/his choices
and actions on others (students, parents, and other
professionals in the learning community) and who
actively seeks out opportunities to grow
professionally.
Principle 10: School and Community
Engagement. The teacher communicates and
interacts with parents/guardians, families, school
colleagues, and the community to support students'
learning and well-being.
group motivation and behavior, contemporary learning
theories, and the use of technology to create learning
environments that encourage positive social interaction,
active engagement in learning, and self-motivation
1. Literacy: Candidates being prepared to work in urban
settings demonstrate competence in the literacy skills
required to present their subject matter to P – 12 students
and other school personnel.
7. Communication: Candidates will demonstrate the use of
effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication
techniques and technology to foster active inquiry, respect
for cultural difference, and collaboration in the classroom.
8. Plan Services and Instruction: Candidates will
demonstrate the ability to plan services and instruction
based upon synthesis and evaluation of knowledge of the
individual learner, subject matter, the community, and the
curriculum, particularly in urban environments.
10. Assessment: Candidates will demonstrate the ability to
assess different levels of development and adapt practice
accordingly based on a proficient and informed use of
research, reflection, and individual needs.
3. Legal and Ethical Issues: Candidates being prepared to
work in urban settings demonstrate knowledge of the
complexity of legal and ethical issues associated with
teaching and learning in P – 12 classrooms.
14. Power of Lifelong Learning and Reflection:
Candidates demonstrate that they value lifelong learning
and reflection and commit themselves to actively seek out
opportunities to grow intellectually and professionally.
Candidates demonstrate a willingness to examine and
investigate personal assumptions and the ability to reflect
upon and evaluate the effects of their action and choices on
others.
5. Family and Community: Candidates being prepared to
work in urban settings demonstrate knowledge of the role
that families and communities should play as valued
partners in the education process and tacit cultural
assumptions of schools that may not be shared by families
and communities that urban schools serve.
12. Power of Schools: Candidates demonstrate a belief that
schooling and education function as vehicles for economic,
social, and political equality and liberation
B. Alignment of unit standards with state standards
Table C.2. Alignment of Reflective Urban Practitioner (RUP) Proficiencies with NJ
Professional Standards for Teachers.
NJ Professional Standards for Teachers Reflective Urban Practitioner Proficiencies
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 18 of 100
Conceptual Framework
Standard One - Subject Matter Knowledge
Teachers shall understand the central concepts, tools
of inquiry, structures of the discipline, especially as
they relate to the New Jersey Core Curriculum
Content Standards (CCCS), and design
developmentally appropriate learning experiences
making the subject matter accessible and
meaningful to all students.
4. Content Knowledge: Candidates being prepared to work
in urban settings demonstrate the content knowledge
necessary to help all students learn.
Standard Two - Human Growth & Development
Teachers shall understand how children and
adolescents develop and learn in a variety of school,
family and community contexts and provide
opportunities that support their intellectual, social,
emotional and physical development.
Standard Three - Diverse Learners
Teachers shall understand the practice of culturally
responsive teaching.
2. Development and Learning Theory: Candidates being
prepared to work in urban settings demonstrate knowledge
of P – 12 student development and learning theory in the
context of academic settings.
Standard Four - Instructional Planning &
Strategies
Teachers shall understand instructional planning,
design long- and short-term plans based upon
knowledge of subject matter, students, community,
and curriculum goals, and shall employ a variety of
developmentally appropriate strategies in order to
promote critical thinking, problem solving and the
performance skills of all learners.
Standard Five - Assessment
Teachers shall understand and use multiple
assessment strategies and interpret results to
evaluate and promote student learning and to
modify instruction in order to foster the continuous
development of students.
Standard Six - Learning Environment
Teachers shall understand individual and group
motivation and behavior and shall create a
supportive, safe and respectful learning environment
that encourages positive social interaction, and
active engagement in learning and self-motivation.
Standard Seven - Special Needs
Teachers shall adapt and modify instruction to
accommodate the special learning needs of all
students.
NCATE Institutional Report
11. Power of Students: Candidates demonstrate a belief in
the ability and potential of all learners in our urban
environments to meet high expectations of academic
achievement and social development.
13. Power of Difference: Candidates demonstrate
recognition and valuing of culture, language, gender,
socioeconomic status, age, race, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, exceptionality, and other forms of difference as
assets in teaching and learning.
15. Power of Empathy and a Commitment to the success
of all children in schools: Candidates will provide
evidence that they have a personal commitment to an ethic
of caring and empathy, and a commitment to promoting
academic and social success of all learners.
9. Instructional Strategies: Candidates will demonstrate a
critical understanding of the uses of a variety of
instructional strategies and technologies to encourage
students’ development of critical thinking, information
literacy, technology, problem-solving, and performance
skills, and demonstrate the ability to adapt the curriculum to
the unique needs of the learner.
10. Assessment: Candidates will demonstrate the ability to
assess different levels of development and adapt practice
accordingly based on a proficient and informed use of
research, reflection, and individual needs.
6. Motivation and Learning Theory: Candidates will
demonstrate a critical understanding of individual and
group motivation and behavior, contemporary learning
theories, and the use of technology to create learning
environments that encourage positive social interaction,
active engagement in learning, and self-motivation
8. Plan Services and Instruction: Candidates will
demonstrate the ability to plan services and instruction
based upon synthesis and evaluation of knowledge of the
individual learner, subject matter, the community, and the
curriculum, particularly in urban environments.
Page 19 of 100
Conceptual Framework
Standard Eight - Communication
Teachers shall use knowledge of effective verbal,
nonverbal and written communication techniques
and the tools of information literacy to foster the use
of inquiry, collaboration and supportive
interactions.
Standard Nine - Collaboration & Partnerships
Teachers shall build relationships with parents,
guardians, families and agencies in the larger
community to support students’ learning and wellbeing.
Standard Ten - Professional Development
Teachers shall participate as active, responsible
members of the professional community, engaging
in a wide range of reflective practices, pursuing
opportunities to grow professionally and
establishing collegial relationships to enhance the
teaching and learning process.
1. Literacy: Candidates being prepared to work in urban
setting demonstrate competence in the literacy skills
required to present their subject matter to P – 12 students
and other school personnel.
7. Communication: Candidates will demonstrate the use of
effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication
techniques and technology to foster active inquiry, respect
for cultural difference, and collaboration in the classroom.
5. Family and Community: Candidates being prepared to
work in urban settings demonstrate knowledge of the role
that families and communities should play as valued
partners in the education process and tacit cultural
assumptions of schools that may not be shared by families
and communities that urban schools serve.
12. Power of Schools: Candidates demonstrate a belief that
schooling and education function as vehicles for economic,
social, and political equality and liberation
3. Legal and Ethical Issues: Candidates being prepared to
work in urban settings demonstrate knowledge of the
complexity of legal and ethical issues associated with
teaching and learning in P – 12 classrooms.
14. Power of Lifelong Learning and Reflection:
Candidates demonstrate that they value lifelong learning
and reflection and commit themselves to actively seek out
opportunities to grow intellectually and professionally.
Candidates demonstrate a willingness to examine and
investigate personal assumptions and the ability to reflect
upon and evaluate the effects of their action and choices on
others.
C. Alignment of programs with NJCU’s Reflective Urban Practitioner
Model proficiencies
Each program within the College of Education is aligned with the candidate proficiencies of the
Reflective Urban Practitioner Model, national SPA standards, and the NJ Professional Standards
for Teachers. All programs address the outcomes identified for the three frameworks in the
conceptual framework through their program level assessments and in their course objectives.
These alignment charts can be found in the exhibit room.
D. Assessment of Candidate Performance
During 2004, when all programs submitted SPA reviews, we began to focus more clearly on unit
evaluation. We created a Performance Evaluation based on a Reflective Urban Practitioner
Rubric measuring the 15 candidate proficiencies. This instrument was distributed to faculty,
candidates, principals, superintendents, practicing teachers, business people, and parents for a
validation study in which they were asked to rate how important each of our outcomes was for
effectiveness in teaching in an urban school. Results of this validation study can be found in the
exhibit room. This instrument was then piloted as a formal unit evaluation instrument during Fall
2004. Candidates, Cooperating Teachers, and University Supervisors rated candidate
performance on the 15 RUP outcomes. In addition the RUP outcomes were used by alumni to
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 20 of 100
Conceptual Framework
evaluate their preparation and by employers to evaluate the performance of our graduates. These
data can be found summarized in Standard I and in the exhibit room.
Evidence for the Conceptual Framework
Shared Vision
The vision of the Conceptual Framework has been described above. This can be considered a
shared vision since it was created with the input of various constituent groups and shared widely
with the public. During our faculty retreats in which we refined this conceptual framework, P-12
teachers and administrators joined us as well as teacher candidates, and support staff. We also
shared the framework for feedback and revision multiple times with our Teacher Education
Advisory Council that has principals, teachers, parents, the AFT union representatives, Arts &
Sciences faculty, undergraduate and graduate candidates, business community representatives,
and other NJCU administrators.
The Conceptual Framework is regularly shared with candidates and the public at every
opportunity. It is outlined in our COE handbook, our Field Experience guidelines, and our
website. It is reviewed at our COE Convocation, at the orientations to field experiences, during
faculty retreats, and with President’s Cabinet members. It is a common practice for major COE
meetings to begin with an overview of the conceptual framework as a reminder of our vision. All
faculty have a CD-ROM of a PowerPoint summary of the Conceptual Framework.
Coherence
The Reflective Urban Practitioner Model frames the system that education faculty at NJCU
utilize to ensure coherence among curriculum, instruction, field experiences, clinical practice,
and assessment across each candidate’s program by standardizing the 15 RUP competencies. The
competencies and assessments in all programs are aligned to the three frameworks: Knowledge
Foundation, Pedagogical Skills, and Dispositions. These competencies are also the basis for our
field experience evaluations. This can be seen in the SPA reports and Program Level assessments
in the Exhibit Room.
Professional Commitments and Dispositions
The Reflective Urban Practitioner Model clearly articulates the unit’s professional commitments
to knowledge, teaching competence, and P -12 student learning. It outlines the dispositions that
faculty in the College of Education value in teachers and other school personnel. As seen in our
university mission of providing access to quality education, our faculty are committed to
ensuring the academic success of all learners and believe in the power of students. NJCU
provides access to many candidates who are or will be the first in their families to obtain a
college degree.
The third framework of the Reflective Urban Practitioner Model identifies NJCU’s Dispositions
for Urban Education. We believe that our decisions and actions have long-term social, political,
economic, psychological, and ethical implications. Through careful reflection, our actions and
decisions have the potential to improve the quality of life for learners, the urban community, and
society as a whole. Our conceptual framework clearly outlines the dispositional competencies
and the values we find important in achieving our goals including:
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 21 of 100
Conceptual Framework







The recognition and valuing of commonalities and differences students manifest across
cultures, including language, gender, socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, and exceptionalities.
A belief in the ability and potential of all learners in our urban environments and the
commitment to excellence and high expectations for all learners.
A belief in the potential of the educational environment to empower learners to impact
the urban environment in just and socially responsible ways.
The ability and motivation to analyze situations, set goals, plan and monitor actions, and
evaluate professional thinking.
The belief that educators can have a positive impact on children, schools, and the
community coupled with the commitment to take action on that belief.
A belief in and commitment to lifelong learning and professional growth, including
content, pedagogy, and the satisfaction of intellectual and professional curiosity.
A personal commitment to an ethic of care and empathy; and political advocacy, social
justice, and equity that is embodied in New Jersey City University’s Reflective Urban
Practitioner Model.
Commitment to Diversity
The Reflective Urban Practitioner Model illustrates New Jersey City University’s commitment
to preparing candidates and other school personnel to support learning for all students.
Additionally, it provides a conceptual understanding of how knowledge, dispositions, and skills
related to diversity are integrated across the curriculum, instruction, field experiences, clinical
practice, assessments, and evaluations. Because of the importance of diversity, these outcomes
are found in all three frameworks. They are:
• Outcome 2: Development and Learning Theory. Candidates being prepared to work
in urban settings demonstrate knowledge of P-12 student development and learning
theory in the context of academic settings.
• Outcome 5: Family and Community. Candidates being prepared to work in urban
settings demonstrate knowledge of the role that families and communities should play as
valued partners in the education process and tacit cultural assumptions of schools that
may not be shared by families and communities that urban schools serve.
• Outcome 7: Communication. Candidates will demonstrate the use of effective verbal,
nonverbal, and media communication techniques and technology to foster active inquiry,
respect for cultural difference, and collaboration in the classroom.
• Outcome 9: Instructional Strategies. Candidates will demonstrate a critical
understanding of the uses of a variety of instructional strategies and technologies to
encourage students’ development of critical thinking, information literacy, technology,
problem solving, and performance skills, and demonstrate the ability to adapt the
curriculum to the unique needs of each learner.
• Outcome 12: Power of Schools. Candidates demonstrate a belief that schooling and
education function as vehicles for economic, social, and political equality and liberation.
• Outcome 13: Power of Difference. Candidates demonstrate recognition and valuing of
culture, language, gender, socioeconomic status, age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation,
exceptionality, and other forms of difference as assets in teaching and learning.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 22 of 100
Conceptual Framework
• Outcome 14: Power of Lifelong Learning and Reflection. Candidates demonstrate
that they value lifelong learning and reflection and commit themselves to actively seek
out opportunities to grow intellectually and professionally. Candidates demonstrate a
willingness to examine and investigate personal assumptions and the ability to reflect
upon and evaluate the effects of their action and choices on others.
• Outcome 15: Power of Empathy and a commitment to the success of all children in
schools. Candidates will provide evidence that they have a personal commitment to an
ethic of caring and empathy, and a commitment to promoting academic and social
success of all learners.
Commitment to Technology
The Reflective Urban Practitioner Model illustrates the College of Education’s commitment to
prepare candidates who are able to use educational technology to help all students learn. Three of
the outcomes identified for Framework II Pedagogical Skills specifically address the unit’s
expectations of candidates regarding technology. They are:
• Outcome 6: Motivation and Learning Theory. Candidates will demonstrate a critical
understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior, contemporary learning
theories, and the use of technology to create learning environments that encourage
positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.
• Outcome 7: Communication. Candidates will demonstrate the use of effective verbal,
nonverbal, and media communication techniques and technology to foster active inquiry,
respect for cultural difference, and collaboration in the classroom.
• Outcome 9: Instructional Strategies. Candidates will demonstrate a critical
understanding of the uses of a variety of instructional strategies and technologies to
encourage candidates’ development of critical thinking, information literacy, technology,
problem solving, and performance skills, and demonstrate the ability to adapt the
curriculum to the unique needs of each learner.
References
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 88109.
Brophy, J. (1982). Successful teaching strategies for the inner-city child. Phi Delta Kappan, 63,
627-630.
Brubacher, J.W., Case, C.W. & Reagan, T.G. (1994). Becoming a reflective educator: How to
build a culture of inquiry in the schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carter, K. and Doyle, W. (1996). Personal narrative and life history in learning to teach. In J.
Sikula, T. J. Buttery and E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher
Education, (2nd ed., pp. 120-142). New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. New York: D.C. Heath and Company.
Fry, P.G. & McKinney, L.J. (1997). A qualitative study of preservice teachers' early field
experiences in an urban, culturally-different school. Urban Education, 32 (2), 184-201.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4),
290-294.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 23 of 100
Conceptual Framework
Hanushek, E.A. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of Political
Economy, 100(1), 84-117.
King, K.S., & Kitchener, P.M. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Ladson-Billings, B. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A culturally
relevant approach to literacy teaching. Theory Into Practice, 31(4), 312-320.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African-American
children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). What we can learn from multicultural research. Educational
Leadership, 51(8), 22-26.
McIntyre, J., Byrd, D., & Foxx, S. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula,
T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 171193). New York: Macmillan.
Means, B., & Knapp, M.S. (1991). Introduction: Rethinking teaching for disadvantaged students.
In B. Means, C. Chelemer, & M.S. Knapp (Eds.), Teaching advanced skills to at-risk
students: Views from research and practice, (pp. 1-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Missouri Legislative Forum. (2000). Building knowledge and community. Retrieved August 12,
2004 from www.moforum.org/2000/building/student/.
New Jersey Department of Education. (2004). New Jersey Professional Standards for Teachers
and School Leaders. Retrieved August 18, 2004 from:
www.state.nj.us/njded/profdev/profstand/standards.pdf.
Rivkin, S. G.; E.A. Hanushek; & J.F. Kain (2000). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 6691 (revised).
Sanders, W.L. (1998).Value-added assessment. The School Administrator, 55(11) 24-27.
Sanders, W.L. & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future
student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added
Research and Assessment Center.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London:
Temple Smith.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and
learning in the professions. New York: Basic Books.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1999).
Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school
teachers. Washington, DC: Author.
Van Manen, M. (1977, Spring). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical.
Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205–228.
Van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness.
Albany, New York: State University of New York (SUNY) Press.
Weiner, L. (1993). Preparing Teachers for Urban Schools: Lessons from 30 Years of School
Reform. New York: Teachers College Press
Weiner, L. (1999). Urban Teaching: The Essentials. New York: Teachers College Press.
Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 24 of 100
Conceptual Framework
III. Evidence of Standards
Standard I. Candidate Knowledge, Skills and
Dispositions
Element 1: Content Knowledge for Teachers (Initial
and Continuing Preparation of Teachers)
The Reflective Urban Practitioner Model includes five outcomes
relating to the knowledge framework. One of these relates to
Content Knowledge and the other four to Pedagogical Content
Knowledge. The COE Assessment system provides data on the
content knowledge for both initial and advanced teacher
candidates. This data is collected by departments and reviewed by
the COE Curriculum Committee and academic departments so
that changes in the program can be made for improvement. Data is collected at 4 transition
points:
Phase I: Exploratory (Admission)
Phase II: Candidacy (Midpoint)
Phase III: Program Completion (Exit from program)
Phase IV: Professional Practice (Post-graduate)
In the Institutional Report, most of the data presented are from only Fall 2004 because of space
limitations. Data from previous semesters, trend data, and interpretive analysis can be found in
the exhibit room.
Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers – Undergraduate and
Graduate
Phase I: Exploratory. At this stage, undergraduate content knowledge is measured by SAT
score and cumulative GPA. All undergraduate candidates must also complete at least 30 credits
of All University Requirements and have chosen an arts & science co-major. For Graduate initial
and advanced candidates, admission is considered holistically; however the following are goals
for candidates: a 2.75 undergraduate GPA and a major in their content area, a passing score on
the appropriate Praxis II test, and a Miller Analogy Test score in at least the 25th percentile or a
GRE combined score of 900.
Table 1.1.1. SAT Scores of Teacher Candidates compared to University averages
Mean Score of combined quantitative and verbal scores
Program
2002
2003
2004
Early Childhood
953
882
859
Elementary
968
904
891
Secondary
906
953
954
Special Ed
873
872
828
University Average
866
868
871
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 25 of 100
Standard I
Table 1.1.2. Cumulative GPA of Initial Teacher Candidates at Exploratory Phase (4.0 scale)
Program
Fa 2003
Sp 2004
Su 2004 Fa 2004 Sp 2005
Early Childhood
3.06
3.04
2.97
3.03
3.19
Elementary and Secondary
3.05
3.14
3.24
3.06
3.02
Special Ed
3.01
3.21
3.03
3.06
3.02
Table 1.1.3. Graduate Level Initial and Continuing Preparation Candidates’ Millers Analogy
Scores at Phase I
Candidate Mean Scores (35 equals 25th percentile)
Program
AY 2001
AY 2002
AY 2003
AY 2004
Early Childhood P-3
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed.
University average
36
44
40
34
35
35
40
n/a
35
35
30
40
73
35
35
32
39
73
36
33
Table 1.1.4. Graduate Level Initial and Continuing Teacher Candidates’ GRE Scores at Phase
I (Mean Score of quantitative and verbal combined scores)
Program
AY 2001
AY 2002
AY 2003
AY 2004
Early Childhood P-3
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed.
University average
796
760
n/a
861
880
799
740
850
783
877
797
980
1160
952
897
803
1013
1025
960
885
Phase II: Candidacy. For undergraduate candidates, progress in content knowledge is measured
during the first sequence of education courses through a Diagnostic Praxis test in general content
knowledge and cumulative GPA. In addition to this diagnostic test, the COE writing exam was
begun in response to low (77%) Praxis II pass rates. Currently, all undergraduate candidates take
this exam. Recent pass rates are 49% in Fall 2003 and 39% in Spring 2004. Detailed feedback on
test subscores is provided to candidates for help in planning their general studies courses, writing
courses, and possible Praxis preparation courses or workshops. Graduate candidates for initial
and continuing teacher programs are screened to have the necessary content knowledge at
admission.
Table 1.1.5. Cumulative GPA of Initial Candidates in Junior Field Placement (4.0 scale)
Program
Fall 2003
Sp 2004
Fall 2004 Sp 2005
Early Childhood
Elementary and Secondary
Special Ed
2.88
3.34
3.32
3.1
3.33
3.33
3.59
3.25
3.3
2.89
3.42
3.31
All undergraduate teacher candidates must pass the College of Education Writing Assessment
before being admitted to the midpoint field experience. This test is based on the NJ writing
assessment used in P-12 schools so that it serves as an assessment of general writing ability, and
the ability to understand the writing required in their teaching discipline. Candidates take this
exam anytime in the first two years, usually after they have completed the two required English
courses for the general studies program.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 26 of 100
Standard I
Table 1.1.6. Content Knowledge: Initial Teacher Candidate Pass Rates on the College of
Education Writing Assessment (Number and percentage passing with a score of 4 or higher)
Program
Art Ed.
Early Childhood Ed.
Early Childhood Dual
Elementary Ed
Health Ed.
Music Ed.
English
Math
Social Studies
Science
Spanish
Secondary Unspecified
Special Ed.
Undecided/cert. only
Total
Fall 2003
-------18 (38%)
-------12 (55%)
5 (71%)
2 (50%)
3 (38%)
1 (50%)
1 (0%)
1 (50%)
--------1 (0%)
20 (53%)
7 (25%)
69 (45%)
Spring 2004
1 (33%)
19 (41%)
--------14 (45%)
2 (66%)
3 (75%)
1 (0%)
1 (50%)
6 (60%)
1 (100%)
1 (33%)
4 (100%)
12 (46%)
1 (33%)
63 (47%)
Fall 2004
3 (100%)
27 (52%)
11 (46%)
12 (43%)
1 (100%)
1 (50%)
3 (38%)
2 (33%)
2 (50%)
--------1 (0%)
1 (100%)
22 (54%)
1 (100%)
86 (50%)
Phase III: Program Completion Point. Content knowledge of initial undergraduate & graduate
teacher candidates in Phase III is measured by evaluations of cooperating teachers & university
supervisors using a detailed rubric based on INTASC standards and also by principals,
supervisors, and self evaluations of candidates using the RUP Performance Evaluation based on
the conceptual framework. We also measure content knowledge by cumulative GPA which
includes all coursework for the Arts & Sciences Co-Major (required of all candidates). Because
previous data from cooperating teachers and from Praxis II scores showed that content
knowledge was a weakness for our students, we now require a passing Praxis II score for
Elementary & Secondary Education candidates prior to beginning the Internship. This provides
the assurance that all students have the content knowledge necessary for positively affecting P12 students learning during the internship. Based on passing rate data, the Math and English
departments have developed one-credit courses in Praxis II preparation and there is a 3-credit
Literacy Education course to help elementary candidates. We also offer a Praxis II preparation
course through our continuing education department. As a result of these efforts, we have seen a
dramatic increase in Praxis II performance.
All undergraduate candidates complete a full major in an Arts & Science content area consisting
of at least 36 credits. They also complete a 64-credit general studies program giving them both
breadth and depth in many content areas. The equivalent to this is required at admission of all
graduate initial and continuing teacher candidates.
Table 1.1.7. Cumulative GPA of Initial Undergrduate Teacher Candidates at Phase III
Program Completion Transition Point
Program
Early Childhood
Elementary and Secondary
NCATE Institutional Report
Fall 2003
2.93
3.25
Spring 2004
3.30
n/a
Page 27 of 100
Fall 2004
3.37
3.73
Spring 2005
3.23
3.37
Standard I
Special Ed
3.02
3.14
3.28
3.54
Table 1.1.8. Content Knowledge Outcomes of Initial (Undergraduate and Graduate)
Candidates Measured by Cooperating Teachers at Program completion Point During
Internship for Fall 2004 using CTPP forms (Number & % of candidates at each level)
B. Subject Area
Competency
1. Demonstrate
adequate
knowledge of
subject matter
being taught.
2. Has a good
general
knowledge
background.
Outstanding
Satisfactory
Weak
Early Childhood
10 (50%)
10 (50%)
0
Elementary
7 (47%)
8 (53%)
0
Secondary
Special Ed.
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed.
6 (67%)
19 (70%)
10 (50%)
7 (47%)
6 (67%)
19 (70%)
3 (33%)
8 (30%)
10 (50%)
8 (53%)
3 (33%)
8 (30%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 1.1.9. Content Knowledge Outcomes of Initial (Undergraduate and Graduate)
Candidates Measured by University Supervisors at Program completion Point During
Internship for Fall 2004 using CTPP forms (Number and % of candidates at each level)
B. Subject Area Competency Program
Excellent
Good
Needs
Improvement
Demonstrates
Comprehensive knowledge
of subject matter
Communicates content
knowledge effectively
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
12 (44%)
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
12 (44%)
0
0
0
17 (55%)
0
0
0
17 (55%)
1 (5%)
0
0
0
1 (5%)
0
0
0
Table 1.1.10. Content Knowledge Outcomes of Initial (Undergraduate & Graduate) using
RUP Performance evaluation at Program completion Point During Internship for Fall 2004.
(Number and % of candidates at each level)
Content Knowledge
Person Completing
Evaluation
Self-Evaluation by Candidates
Cooperating Teachers’
University Supervisor
Principal
Literacy
Self Evaluation by Candidates
Cooperating Teachers
University Supervisors
Principal
NCATE Institutional Report
Outstanding
Acceptable
Needs Improvement
39 (84%)
45 (75%)
17 (68%)
6 (60%)
8 (17%)
11 (18%)
8 (32%)
4 (40%)
0
4 (7%)
0
0
Acceptable
10 (21%)
12 (20%)
9 (36%)
5 (50%)
Needs Improve.
0
2 (3%)
0
0
Outstanding
37 (79%)
45 (76%)
16 (64%)
5 (50%)
Page 28 of 100
Standard I
Table 1.1.11. Data From Title II Reports Showing Number Taking Exam And % Of Initial
(Undergraduate & Graduate) Candidates Passing The NJ Cut- Off Score. (Title II data does
not include percentages for secondary areas because of small numbers. NJ changed the required
test from General Knowledge to Elementary Ed Content Knowledge in 2001).
19992000200120022003Type of Assessment
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Art: Content Knowledge
Biology: Content Knowledge, Part2
Chemistry: Content Knowledge
Earth Science: Content Knowledge
Elementary Education: Content Knowledge
English Lang., Lit. & Comp.: Content Knowledge
General Knowledge Test
General Science: Content Know. 1
General Science: Content Know. 2
Mathematics: Content Knowledge
Music: Content Knowledge
Physics: Content Knowledge
Social Studies: Content Knowledge
Spanish: Content Knowledge
2
---1
---1
4
66 (77%)
1
---3
6
1
6
----
6
------1
40 (95%)
5
14 (86%)
1
---3
7
---3
4
1
---------34 (94%)
---------------5
----------
1
---------24 (100%)
5
---1
1
---5
---4
2
6
29 (100%)
4
4
3
8
Phase IV: Professional Practice. Content Knowledge of undergraduate and graduate teacher
candidates is measured at Phase IV: Professional Practice through surveys of alumni within five
years, and surveys of principals and superintendents.
Table 1.1.12. Content Knowledge Of NJCU Alumni Aggregated From Self Evaluation Surveys
& Employer Surveys Fall 2004 (Number and % of responses at each level)
“prepared to understand my subject area content knowledge in education”
Alumni responses
P-3
K-8
Secondary
Special Ed
Employer responses
Strongly
agree
72 (72%)
Moderately
agree
22 (22%)
Moderately
disagree
3 (3%)
Strongly
disagree
1 (1%)
7 (88%)
23 (88%)
10 (71%)
16 (80%)
13 (54%)
1 (12%)
3 (12%)
4 (29%)
2 (10%)
10 (42%)
------------1 (4%)
----------------
N/A
2 (2%)
---------2 (10%)
----
Element 2: Content Knowledge for Other Professional School Personnel
Programs for other professional school personnel include graduate level programs in Educational
Leadership, School Psychology, School Guidance, Reading Specialist, and Educational
Technology. Content knowledge for these candidates is developed through coursework in their
respective content areas: Educational Leadership, 42 credits; School Psychology, 74 credits;
School Guidance, 42 credits; Reading Specialist, 36 credits; and Educational Technology, 36
credits. Coursework is aligned with state and national standards and grounded in the knowledge
base of appropriate professional associations.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 29 of 100
Standard I
Phase I: Exploratory. All programs for other professional school personnel require two letters
of recommendations and a personal essay to show the potential of candidates for acquiring the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to complete the program. Candidates are reviewed
holistically with the goal of scores in the 25th percentile or higher for the Miller Analogy Test or
a combined 900 on the GRE.
Phase II: Candidacy. Mastery of the continued progress in obtaining the content knowledge of
the discipline is monitored using multiple performance-based assessments aligned with standards
and the conceptual framework throughout the program and through successful completion of a
capstone assessment at the conclusion of the program of study. Assessment of content
knowledge occurs throughout program coursework. Rubrics and scoring guides for assignments
used as major assessments before program completion, and at key transition points have been
developed. An important point in our Graduate Programs for Other Professional School
Personnel is the Candidacy Point. Each program has defined the Candidacy Point specific to its
program. For unit evaluation, we look at the percentages of candidates performing at target levels
across these programs.
Table 1.2.1. Number and % of Other School Personnel Candidates Scoring at Target level on
Candidacy Assessments for Content Knowledge (Number and % of candidates at each level)
Program Assessment
Reading Specialist
Portfolio Presentations
Educational Leadership
Reframing Organizational Leadership Case
Study, Leadership Vision Game Plan,
Contemporary Leadership Vision, Principal
Study, Data-Driven Improvement Plan,
School-Based Budget Exercise
Educational Technology
School Psychology
Externship Evaluation
School Guidance
Reflective Journal Assignment, Micro
Counseling Interview
Fall 2003
Semester
FA 04
SU/SP04
FA 03
FA 04
SP 04
FA 03
Total
17
37
15
52 (68%)
28 (68%)
61 (69%)
FA 04
SU 04
FA 03
FA 04
SP 04
FA 03
FA 04
SP 04
FA 03
Course Not Offered
32
27 (82%)
Course Not Offered
15
13 (87%)
Course Not Offered
19
17 (89%)
17
6 (35%)
14
4 (29%)
18
15 (83%)
Target
7(41%)
4 (26%)
5 (33%)
21 (28%)
12 (29%)
20 (23%)
Acceptable
10 (59%)
10 (66%)
10 (67%)
3 (4%)
1 (3%)
7 (8%)
Unacceptable
0
2 (13%)
1 (7%)
0
0
0
5 (16%)
0
2 (13%)
0
2 (11%)
11 (65%)
10 (71%)
3 (17%)
0
0
0
0
Phase III: Program completion Point. At the program completion point, candidates
demonstrate a thorough understanding of the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of
their professional fields. To successfully complete the program of study, candidates must
maintain a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or better and must pass the comprehensive exam or complete
a thesis in their content area. Educational Leadership candidates must pass the Praxis II in Ed
Leadership to be licensed as principals. Successful completion of this exit assessment is used as
the unit evaluation of content knowledge, as well as the RUP Performance Evaluation.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 30 of 100
Standard I
Table 1.2.2. Number And Percentage Of Other School Personnel Candidates Reaching Target
Level On Phase III Program Completion Assessments In Content Knowledge (Number and %
of candidates at each level)
Program Assessment
Reading Specialist
Portfolio Presentations
Educational Leadership
Reframing Organizational Leadership Case
Study, Leadership Vision Game Plan,
Contemporary Leadership Vision, Principal
Study, Data-Driven Improvement Plan,
School-Based Budget Exercise
Educational Technology
School Psychology
Externship Evaluation
Praxis II School Psych
School Guidance
Reflective Journal Assignment, Micro
Counseling Interview
Fall 2003
Semester
FA 04
SU/SP04
FA 03
FA 04
Total
12
15
17
28 (58%)
Target
10 (83%)
9 (60%)
12 (71%)
17 (35%)
Acceptable
2 (17%)
6 (40%)
4 (23%)
3 (7%)
Unacceptable
0
0
1 (6%)
0
SP 04
FA 03
36 (63%)
39 (52%)
19 (33%)
27 (36%)
2 (4%)
9 (12%)
0
0
FA 04
SU 04
FA 03
FA 04
SP 04
FA 03
02-04
FA 04
SP 04
FA 03
26
26 (100%)
59
59 (100%)
60
60 (100%)
7
7 (100%)
Course Not Offered
9
9 (100%)
14
6 (43%)
17
15 (88%)
14
12 (86%)
18
15 (83%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 (57%)
0
0
0
2 (12%)
2 (14%)
3 (17%)
Table 1.2.3. Content Knowledge Responses From Alumni Surveys Of Other School Personnel
At Phase IV: Professional Practice (Number and % of responses at each level)
Well-Prepared in Content
Knowledge
Alumni responses
Employer responses
Strongly
agree
10 (83%)
Moderately
agree
----
Moderately
disagree
----
13 (54%)
10 (42%)
1 (4%)
Strongly
disagree
-------
N/A
2 (17%)
----
Element 3: Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates (Initial
and Continuing Preparation of Teachers)
Initial Undergraduate and Graduate. We begin to evaluate the pedagogical content knowledge
of our initial candidates at Phase II when they begin professional education coursework. We
continue to evaluate our candidates’ performance at exit from the program and as post-graduates
through alumni and employer surveys. At the Candidacy transition point, pedagogical content
knowledge is measured at the program level through course – embedded assessments. Unit level
evaluation of initial candidates is done through the University Supervisor’s evaluation of the
Junior Field Experience using the CTPP forms. Only Fall 2004 data is presented here. Previous
semesters’ data, trend analyses, and interpretations are available in the exhibit room.
Continuing Preparation of Teachers – Advanced Programs. The continuing teacher
preparation programs have developed midpoint assessments that are course embedded and
aggregated across each program to ensure the adequate progress of candidates. For unit
assessment, program level data is aggregated according to the percentage of candidates who meet
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 31 of 100
Standard I
target, acceptable, and unacceptable levels of performance. Data on content knowledge from
these assessments can be found in the exhibit room.
Table 1.3.1. University Supervisors’ Evaluation Of Candidates’ Pedagogical Content
Knowledge During Junior Field Experience (Number and % of candidates at each level)
B. Subject Area Competency
b. Speaks clearly and in wellmodulated tones that facilitate
teaching and learning
c. Phrases remarks in teaching
and student interaction to elicit
student response, expansion
and thinking
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Outstanding
25 (86%)
8 (50%)
3 (75%)
20 (91%)
25 (86%)
6 (38%)
3 (75%)
20 (91%)
Satisfactory
4 (14%)
8 (50%)
1 (25%)
2 (9%)
4 (14%)
10 (62%)
1 (25%)
2 (9%)
Weak
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Phase III: Program completion. Pedagogical Content Knowledge of initial candidates is
measured at Phase III with three instruments: CTPP forms for Cooperating Teachers, CTPP
forms for University Supervisors and the newly piloted RUP Performance Evaluation (based on
the conceptual framework) that was completed by Cooperating Teachers, University Supervisors,
Candidates, and Principals. For continuing candidates, the RUP Performance Evaluation is being
used in Spring 2005 for candidate self-assessment and in Fall 2005 it will be incorporated into
the field experience components of those programs. These data can be found in the exhibit room.
Table 1.3.2. Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Initial Candidates Measured by Cooperating
Teachers at Program Completion Point During Internship for Fall 2004 using CTPP forms
(Number and % of candidates at each level)
B. Subject Area Competency
3. Provides access to
appropriate resource materials
so that children will be
encouraged
4. Organize subject matter in
forms that facilitate learning
5. Relates subject matter to
children’s lives, other areas of
curriculum and current events
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Outstanding
10 (50%)
7 (44%)
6 (67%)
21 (68%)
10 (50%)
7 (44%)
6 (67%)
21 (68%)
10 (50%)
7 (44%)
6 (67%)
21 (68%)
Satisfactory
10 (50%)
8 (53%)
3 (33%)
6 (22%)
10 (50%)
8 (53%)
3 (33%)
6 (22%)
10 (50%)
8 (53%)
3 (33%)
6 (22%)
Weak
0
1 (3%)
0
3 (10%)
0
1 (3%)
0
3 (10%)
0
1 (3%)
0
3 (10%)
Table 1.3.3. Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Initial Candidates Measured by University
Supervisors at Program completion Point During Internship for Fall 2004 using CTPP forms
(Number and % of candidates at each level)
B. Subject Area Competency
Plans lessons that integrate NJ
Core Curriculum Content
Standards.
Demonstrates ability to plan
NCATE Institutional Report
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Outstanding
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
10 (32%)
19 (95%)
Page 32 of 100
Satisfactory
0
0
0
13 (42%)
0
Weak
1 (5%)
0
0
5 (16%)
1 (5%)
Standard I
lessons that have depth and are
meaningful.
Utilizes various assessment
tools to inform instruction and
curriculum design.
Demonstrates an
understanding of appropriate
outcomes.
Creates appropriate materials
for a range of learning
styles/needs.
Selects appropriate
technologies and utilizes them
effectively.
Demonstrates long-range (unit,
theme) planning, where
appropriate.
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
14 (93%)
9 (100%)
10 (32%)
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
10 (32%)
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
10 (32%)
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
10 (32%)
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
10 (32%)
19 (95%)
14 (93%)
9 (100%)
10 (32%)
1 (7%)
0
13 (42%)
0
0
0
13 (42%)
0
0
0
13 (42%)
0
0
0
13 (42%)
0
0
0
5 (16%)
1 (5%)
0
0
5 (16%)
1 (5%)
0
0
5 (16%)
1 (5%)
0
0
5 (16%)
1 (5%)
0
13 (42%)
0
1 (7%)
0
13 (42%)
0
5 (16%)
1 (5%)
0
0
5 (16%)
Table 1.3.4. Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Initial Candidates using Reflective Urban
Practitioner Rubric at Program completion Point. (Number and % of candidates at each level)
6. Communication.
Outstanding
38 (81%)
Self Evaluation
47 (80%)
Cooperating Teachers
16 (64%)
University Supervisors
3 (30%)
Principals
8. Planning Services & Instruction
Outstanding
37 (79%)
Self Evaluation
37 (64%)
Cooperating Teachers
16 (64%)
University Supervisors
4 (40%)
Principals
9. Instructional Strategies
Outstanding
36 (77%)
Self-Evaluation
42 (71%)
Cooperating Teachers
17 (68%)
University Supervisors
2 (20%)
Principals
Acceptable
9 (19%)
9 (15%)
9 (36%)
7 (70%)
Needs Improve.
0
3 (5%)
0
0
Acceptable
10 (21%)
19 (31%)
9 (36%)
6 (60%)
Needs Improve.
0
3 (5%)
0
0
Acceptable
11 (23%)
10 (17%)
8 (32%)
8 (80%)
Needs Improve.
0
7 (12%)
0
0
Phase IV: Professional Practice. Pedagogical content knowledge of initial and continuing
candidates is measured in Phase IV by alumni and employer surveys administered by the CTPP
annually. In Fall 2004 we began using an instrument based on the competencies of the
conceptual framework. Alumni surveyed had graduated from either Initial or Continuing
Preparation Programs within the previous 5 years from NJCU.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 33 of 100
Standard I
Table 1.3.5. Evaluation by Alumni of Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Their Preparation as
Initial and Continuing Candidates using RUP Alumni Survey, Fall 2004 (Number and % of
responses at each level)
“After receiving my degree
Strongly Mod.
Moderately Strongly N/A
from NJCU, I was”
agree
agree
disagree
disagree
Able to communicate instructional techniques, and provide individualized services and instruction.
Early Childhood
4 (50%)
4 (50%)
-----------Elementary
18 (67%)
7 (26%)
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
---Secondary
8 (57%)
6 (43%)
---------Special Education
8 (67%)
6 (33%)
---------Able to use a variety of instructional strategies to promote critical thinking and problem solving
abilities in students.
Early Childhood
4 (50%)
4 (50%)
---------Elementary
15 (56%)
10 (37%)
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
Secondary
9 (64%)
4 (29%)
1 (7%)
------Special Education
12 (60%)
5 (25%)
2 (10%)
1 (5%)
---Possessed the literacy skills required to present my subject matter.
Early Childhood
6 (75%)
2 (25%)
---------Elementary
22 (79%)
4 (14%)
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
---Secondary
10 (71%)
3 (21%)
---------Special Education
16 (65%)
6 (30%)
----------
Table 1.3.6. Evaluation by Employers of Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Their Teachers
Who Graduated from Initial and Continuing Programs. (Number and % of responses at each
level)
Strongly
Moderately Moderately
Strongly
Question
NJCU graduates are able to communicate
instructional techniques, and provide
individualized services and instruction.
NJCU graduates are able to use a variety of
instructional strategies to promote critical
thinking and problem solving abilities in
students
NJCU graduates possess the literacy skills
required to present their subject matter
agree
8 (33%)
agree
13 (54%)
disagree
3 (13%)
disagree
-----
8 (33%)
11 (46%)
5 (21%)
-----
11 (46%)
11 (46%)
2 (8%)
-----
Element 4: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher
Candidates (Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers)
The evaluation of professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills for initial candidates begins
in Phase II: Candidacy. For unit evaluation, candidates at both the undergraduate and graduate
levels are evaluated by Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors using the CTPP forms.
RUP Performance Evaluation is used for Initial Candidates as a self evaluation and by University
Supervisors, Cooperating Teachers, and Principals. The RUP Performance Evaluation is used by
Continuing Preparation Candidates as a self evaluation and will be used as part of the field
experience components beginning Fall 2005. Data for the RUP Performance Evaluation for
Continuing Preparation of Teachers can be found in the exhibit room.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 34 of 100
Standard I
Table 1.4.1. Cooperating Teacher ratings of initial candidates’ professional and pedagogical
knowledge and skills during Junior Field Experience. (Number and % of candidates at each
level)
Proficiency
Uses appropriate speech
Speaks clearly in well
modulated tones
Prepares neat, legible, and well
organized materials
Prepares materials which
conform to accepted standards
of written English
Program
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Outstanding
19 (66%)
12 (75%)
4 (100%)
21 (95%)
19 (66%)
12 (75%)
4 (100%)
21 (95%)
19 (66%)
12 (75%)
4 (100%)
21 (95%)
20 (69%)
11 (69%)
4 (100%)
21 (95%)
Satisfactory
10 (34%)
4 (25%)
0
1 (5%)
10 (34%)
4 (25%)
0
1 (5%)
10 (34%)
4 (25%)
0
1 (5%)
9 (31%)
5 (31%)
0
1 (5%)
Weak
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 1.4.2. University Supervisor Ratings Of Initial Candidates’ Professional And
Pedagogical Knowledge And Skills During Junior Field Experience (Number and % of
candidates at each level)
Oral: Use appropriate speech
Written: Prepares neat, legible
and well organized materials
Written: Use correct spelling,
punctuation and syntax
Written: Regularly writes unit
and subject lesson plans (if
applicable)
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Outstanding
25 (86%)
11 (69%)
3 (75%)
21 (95%)
15 (52%)
6 (38%)
3 (75%)
17 (77%)
17 (59%)
5 (31%)
3 (75%)
18 (95%)
15 (52%)
6 (38%)
3 (75%)
17 (77%)
Satisfactory
4 (14%)
5 (31%)
1 (25%)
1 (5%)
11 (38%)
10 (62%)
1 (25%)
5 (23%)
8 (27%)
11 (69%)
1 (25%)
1 (5%)
11 (38%)
10 (62%)
1 (25%)
5 (23%)
Weak
0
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
4 (14%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
Phase III: Program Completion Transition Point. During the Internship, initial candidates
(undergraduate and graduate) are evaluated by Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors
using the CTPP forms and the RUP Performance evaluation. Candidates also complete a selfevaluation using the RUP Performance evaluation. The professional knowledge and skills for
continuing teacher candidates are measured through: 1) course assignments in the field such as
practicum experiences, action research, and field experience courses, and 2) the RUP
Performance Evaluation. Data from course-embedded assessments and RUP Performance
Evaluations are aggregated for program level assessment. At the midpoint and exit point,
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 35 of 100
Standard I
program level data are aggregated for unit level assessment to determine the percentage of
candidates performing at target, acceptable, and unacceptable levels. These data can be found in
the exhibit room.
Table 1.4.3. Cooperating Teacher Ratings Of Initial Candidates’ Professional And
Pedagogical Knowledge And Skills Using CTPP Forms At Program Completion. (Number and
% of candidates at each level)
Sets clear goals and objectives
in planning effective lessons.
Demonstrates flexibility and is
able to make revisions where
indicated.
Motivates students in
experimental and creative ways
in an appropriate classroom
environment.
Develops long-range unit plans
which can be organized into
effective sequences.
Provides for individual learning
styles, abilities and interests.
Provides for student
involvement in goal-setting and
planning.
Uses questioning techniques
which encourage problemsolving and comprehension
rather than rote memorization.
Provides for positive feedback
and reinforcement of learning
by giving sufficient guided and
independent practice where
appropriate.
Makes use of enrichment
resources available in the
school and the neighborhood.
Holds the attention of students.
Moves from one learning task
to another in a clear direct
style.
NCATE Institutional Report
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Outstanding
7 (35%)
9 (60%)
3 (33%)
19 (70%)
7 (35%)
9 (60%)
3 (33%)
19 (70%)
7 (35%)
9 (60%)
3 (33%)
19 (70%)
7 (35%)
9 (60%)
3 (33%)
19 (70%)
7 (35%)
9 (60%)
3 (33%)
19 (70%)
7 (35%)
9 (60%)
3 (33%)
19 (70%)
7 (35%)
9 (60%)
3 (33%)
19 (70%)
7 (35%)
9 (60%)
3 (33%)
19 (70%)
Satisfactory
13 (65%)
6 (40%)
6 (67%)
8 (20%)
13 (65%)
6 (40%)
6 (67%)
8 (20%)
13 (65%)
6 (40%)
6 (67%)
8 (20%)
13 (65%)
6 (40%)
6 (67%)
8 (20%)
13 (65%)
6 (40%)
6 (67%)
8 (20%)
13 (65%)
6 (40%)
6 (67%)
8 (20%)
13 (65%)
6 (40%)
6 (67%)
8 (20%)
13 (65%)
6 (40%)
6 (67%)
8 (20%)
Weak
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
7 (35%)
9 (60%)
3 (33%)
19 (70%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
21 (68%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
13 (65%)
6 (40%)
6 (67%)
8 (20%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
6 (22%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
Page 36 of 100
Standard I
Gives directions clearly and
precisely.
Establishes consistent
classroom routines and
provides reinforcement for
positive attitudes and behavior.
Uses tact and behavior
techniques which will minimize
occasions of inappropriate
behavior.
Is aware of what is happening
in all parts of the classroom
and moves about to help where
needed.
Speaks to children in a
courteous manner and deals
fairly with all students.
Fosters positive attitudes in
regard to differences pertaining
to sex, ethnic identity, or
social/economic status.
Maintains attendance and other
records carefully.
Uses time effectively.
Maintains a relaxed friendly
classroom atmosphere.
Continuously and accurately
evaluates the progress of all
children.
Uses a variety of evaluative
procedures in order to allow for
individual differences.
Views test results diagnostically
for evaluating teaching success
and as a standard for
evaluating pupil’s progress.
Understands the purposes and
limitations of standardized
tests.
NCATE Institutional Report
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
21 (68%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
21 (68%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
21 (68%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
21 (68%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
21 (68%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
21 (68%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
21 (68%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
21 (68%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
21 (68%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
21 (68%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
19 (70%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
19 (70%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
19 (70%)
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
19 (70%)
Page 37 of 100
6 (22%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
6 (22%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
6 (22%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
6 (22%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
6 (22%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
6 (22%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
6 (22%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
6 (22%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
6 (22%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
6 (22%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
8 (20%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
8 (20%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
8 (20%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
8 (20%)
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
Standard I
Utilizes methods of encouraging
pupils to evaluate their own
progress.
Demonstrates knowledge of
fundamental skills as well as
good written and oral
communication ability in
Standard English.
Speaks clearly and distinctly.
Is able to project his/her voice
so as to be heard in all parts of
the classroom.
Knows how to listen patiently
and can comprehend and
accurately interpret what is
heard.
Organizes ideas logically.
Utilizes nonverbal
communication in effective
manner.
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
13 (65%)
11 (73%)
6 (67%)
19 (70%)
14 (70%)
11 (73%)
8 (89%)
21 (68%)
7 (35%)
4 (27%)
3 (33%)
8 (20%)
6 (30%)
4 (27%)
1 (11%)
6 (22%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
14 (70%)
11 (73%)
8 (89%)
21 (68%)
14 (70%)
11 (73%)
8 (89%)
21 (68%)
14 (70%)
11 (73%)
8 (89%)
21 (68%)
14 (70%)
11 (73%)
8 (89%)
21 (68%)
14 (70%)
11 (73%)
8 (89%)
21 (68%)
6 (30%)
4 (27%)
1 (11%)
6 (22%)
6 (30%)
4 (27%)
1 (11%)
6 (22%)
6 (30%)
4 (27%)
1 (11%)
6 (22%)
6 (30%)
4 (27%)
1 (11%)
6 (22%)
6 (30%)
4 (27%)
1 (11%)
6 (22%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
3 (10%)
Table 1.4.4. University Supervisor Ratings Of Initial Candidates’ Professional And
Pedagogical Knowledge And Skills Using CTPP Forms During Internship, Fall 2004.
(Number and % of candidates at each level)
Outcome
Demonstrates a knowledge of
how children learn and
develop.
Provides opportunities that
support intellectual, social and
personal development.
Understands how students
differ in their approaches to
learning.
Understands the needs of
students from multicultural
backgrounds.
Understands the needs of
ESL/LEP students.
NCATE Institutional Report
Program
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Outstanding
19 (95%)
14 (93%)
9 (100%)
12 (45%)
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
12 (45%)
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
12 (45%)
19 (95%)
13 (100%)
7 (78%)
12 (45%)
19 (95%)
11 (85%)
Page 38 of 100
Satisfactory
1 (5%)
1 (7%)
0
17 (55%)
1 (5%)
0
0
17 (55%)
1 (5%)
0
0
17 (55%)
1 (5%)
0
0
17 (55%)
1 (5%)
2 (15%)
Weak
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 (22%)
0
0
0
Standard I
Understands the needs of
special students.
Understands the needs of
students in an urban
environment.
Creates instructional
opportunities adapted to
diverse learners.
Plans lessons for multi-level,
multicultural, and diverse
inclusive classrooms.
Plans lessons that hold
student’s interest.
Communicates directions
effectively.
Understands classroom climate
and dynamics.
Creates lessons that stimulate
critical thinking.
Uses a variety of question types
and questioning techniques.
Demonstrates an ability to
diversity instructional
techniques.
Demonstrates an ability to shift
instructional strategies.
Shows evidence of ongoing
student assessment throughout
the lesson.
Demonstrates effective
speaking and writing
(grammar/spelling) abilities.
NCATE Institutional Report
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
7 (78%)
12 (45%)
19 (95%)
11 (85%)
7 (78%)
12 (45%)
19 (95%)
11 (85%)
9 (100%)
12 (45%)
19 (95%)
11 (85%)
9 (100%)
12 (45%)
19 (95%)
14 (100%)
9 (100%)
13 (54%)
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
13 (54%)
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
16 (52%)
19 (95%)
14 (93%)
9 (100%)
17 (55%)
19 (95%)
14 (100%)
9 (100%)
13 (54%)
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
8 (89%)
10 (36%)
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
13 (54%)
19 (95%)
14 (93%)
9 (100%)
13 (54%)
19 (95%)
14 (100%)
9 (100%)
10 (36%)
19 (95%)
14 (100%)
9 (100%)
Page 39 of 100
0
17 (55%)
1 (5%)
2 (15%)
0
17 (55%)
1 (5%)
2 (15%)
0
17 (55%)
1 (5%)
2 (15%)
0
17 (55%)
1 (5%)
0
0
10 (42%)
1 (5%)
0
0
10 (42%)
1 (5%)
0
0
15 (48%)
1 (5%)
1 (7%)
0
11 (35%)
1 (5%)
0
0
10 (42%)
1 (5%)
0
1 (11%)
18 (64%)
1 (5%)
0
0
10 (42%)
1 (5%)
1 (7%)
0
10 (42%)
1 (5%)
0
0
13 (46%)
1 (5%)
0
0
2 (22%)
0
0
0
2 (22%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 (4%)
0
0
0
1 (4%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 (10%)
0
0
0
1 (4%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 (4%)
0
0
0
1 (4%)
0
0
0
5 (18%)
0
0
0
Standard I
Uses verbal and non-verbal
cues effectively.
Fosters active inquiry,
collaboration, and supportive
interaction.
Uses media effectively to
communicate lesson ideas.
Demonstrates ability to
motivate students.
Establishes physical
environment conductive to
learning.
Provides clear directions and
guidance throughout lesson.
Provides opportunities for
students to raise questions.
Asks appropriate guiding and
schema activating questions.
Demonstrates ability to
multitask.
Demonstrate effective behavior
management techniques.
Manages materials and
technology effectively.
Demonstrates ability to
transition from activity to
activity/lesson to lesson.
Demonstrates understanding of
assessment based on learning
styles and special needs.
NCATE Institutional Report
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
16 (52)
19 (95%)
14 (93%)
9 (100%)
16 (52)
19 (95%)
14 (100%)
9 (100%)
16 (52)
19 (95%)
14 (93%)
9 (100%)
16 (52)
18 (90%)
14 (93%)
9 (100%)
13 (45%)
18 (90%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
13 (45%)
18 (90%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
13 (45%)
18 (90%)
14 (100%)
9 (100%)
13 (45%)
18 (90%)
14 (100%)
9 (100%)
13 (45%)
18 (90%)
14 (93%)
8 (100%)
13 (45%)
16 (84%)
14 (93%)
9 (100%)
13 (45%)
14 (88%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
13 (45%)
18 (90%)
14 (93%)
8 (89%)
13 (45%)
10 (59%)
13 (87%)
9 (100%)
10 (36%)
Page 40 of 100
15 (48%)
1 (5%)
1 (7%)
0
15 (48%)
1 (5%)
0
0
15 (48%)
1 (5%)
1 (7%)
0
15 (48%)
2 (10%)
1 (7%)
0
10 (34%)
2 (10%)
0
0
10 (34%)
2 (10%)
0
0
10 (34%)
2 (10%)
0
0
10 (34%)
2 (10%)
0
0
10 (34%)
2 (10%)
1 (7%)
0
10 (34%)
2 (11%)
1 (7%)
0
10 (34%)
2 (12%)
0
0
10 (34%)
2 (10%)
1 (7%)
1 (11%)
10 (34%)
7 (41%)
2 (13%)
0
13 (46%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6 (21%)
0
0
0
6 (21%)
0
0
0
6 (21%)
0
0
0
6 (21%)
0
0
0
6 (21%)
0
0
0
6 (21%)
1 (5%)
0
0
6 (21%)
0
0
0
6 (21%)
0
0
0
6 (21%)
0
0
0
5 (18%)
Standard I
Provides evidence of assessment
linked to curriculum and
instruction.
Utilizes a variety of assessment
tools.
Evaluates student performance
throughout lesson.
Creates assessment tools that
measure lesson objectives.
Demonstrates ability to
communicate effectively with
parents and professionals.
Provides evidence of school and
community involvement, where
appropriate.
Demonstrate ability to utilize
information from parents and
other professionals to modify
instruction.
Demonstrates knowledge of
resources within the school and
community.
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
17 (89%)
12 (80%)
9 (100%)
10 (36%)
13 (76%)
14 (93%)
9 (100%)
10 (36%)
18 (95%)
14 (93%)
9 (100%)
10 (36%)
11 (79%)
14 (93%)
9 (100%)
10 (36%)
13 (76%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
17 (55%)
14 (88%)
13 (87%)
9 (100%)
17 (55%)
13 (72%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
17 (55%)
14 (88%)
13 (87%)
9 (100%)
17 (55%)
2 (11%)
3 (20%)
0
13 (46%)
4 (24%)
1 (7%)
0
13 (46%)
1 (5%)
1 (7%)
0
13 (46%)
3 (21%)
1 (7%)
0
13 (46%)
4 (24%)
0
0
13 (42%)
2 (21%)
2 (13%)
0
13 (42%)
5 (28%)
0
0
13 (42%)
2 (12%)
2 (13%)
0
13 (42%)
0
0
0
5 (18%)
0
0
0
5 (18%)
0
0
0
5 (18%)
0
0
0
5 (18%)
0
0
0
1 (3%)
0
0
0
1 (3%)
0
0
0
1 (3%)
0
0
0
1 (3%)
Table 1.4.5. Cooperating Teacher & Supervisor Evaluations of Initial Candidates’
Professional Knowledge during Internship Fall 2004 using the RUP Performance Evaluation
(Initial Programs Aggregated. Number and % of candidates at each level)
Development and Learning Theory.
Outstanding
35 (75%)
Self-Evaluation
43 (73%)
Cooperating Teachers
16 (64%)
University Supervisors
4 (40%)
Principals
Legal and Ethical Issues.
Outstanding
31 (67%)
Self-Evaluation
40 (68%)
Cooperating Teachers
15 (60%)
University Supervisors
2 (20%)
Principals
Family and Community.
Outstanding
36 (77%)
Self-Evaluation
45 (76%)
Cooperating Teachers
NCATE Institutional Report
Acceptable
10 (21%)
12 (20%)
9 (36%)
5 (50%)
Needs Improve.
2 (5%)
4 (7%)
0
1 (10%)
Acceptable
15 (32%)
16 (27%)
10 (40%)
7 (70%)
Needs Improve.
1 (2%)
3 (5%)
0
1 (10%)
Acceptable
9 (19%)
10 (17%)
Needs Improve.
2 (5%)
4 (7%)
Page 41 of 100
Standard I
16 (64%)
9 (36%)
0
University Supervisors
6 (60%)
4 (40%)
0
Principals
Critical Understanding of Individual and Group Motivation and Behavior
Outstanding
Acceptable
Needs Improve.
38 (81%)
9 (19%)
0
Self-Evaluation
47 (80%)
9 (15%)
3 (5%)
Cooperating Teachers
16 (64%)
9 (36%)
0
University Supervisors
7 (70%)
3 (30%)
0
Principals
Effective Verbal, Nonverbal, and Media Communication Techniques
Outstanding
Acceptable
Needs Improve.
36 (77%)
11 (23%)
0
Self-Evaluation
44 (75%)
12 (20%)
3 (5%)
Cooperating Teachers
18 (72%)
7 (28%)
0
University Supervisors
7 (70%)
3 (30%)
0
Principals
Ability to Plan Services and Instruction Based Planning
Outstanding
Acceptable
Needs Improve.
37 (79%)
10 (21%)
0
Self-Evaluation
37 (64%)
19 (31%)
3 (5%)
Cooperating Teachers
16 (64%)
9 (36%)
0
University Supervisors
6 (60%)
4 (40%)
0
Principals
Critical Understanding of the Uses of a Variety of Instructional Strategies and Technologies.
Outstanding
Acceptable
Needs Improve.
36 (77%)
11 (23%)
0
Self-Evaluation
42 (71%)
10 (17%)
7 (12%)
Cooperating Teachers
17 (68%)
8 (32%)
0
University Supervisors
8 (80%)
2 (20%)
0
Principals
Phase IV: Professional Practice. Initial and Continuing Preparation Candidates’ professional
and pedagogical knowledge and skills are evaluated using the RUP Alumni Survey. Surveys are
distributed to Alumni at alumni meetings and mailed to recent graduates. Responses of alumni
who graduated fewer than 5 years ago are included in the unit analysis. Employer surveys based
on the RUP model are mailed to principals in Partnership Districts, distributed at Principal
Meetings in Jersey City, distributed at the Hudson County Superintendents Roundtable meeting,
and given to principals in our Professional Development Schools.
Table 1.4.6. Self-Ratings of Initial and Continuing Teacher Candidates’ Preparation in
Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge by Recent Alumni. (Number and % of responses at
each level)
Well-Prepared in the
Strongly
Following Competencies
agree
Legal and ethical issues
Early Childhood
5 (63%)
Elementary
9 (33%)
Secondary
8 (57%)
Special Education
10 (50%)
Lifelong learning & Reflection
Early Childhood
7 (88%)
Elementary
18 (67%)
Secondary
8 (57%)
Special Education
12 (60%)
Motivation and behavior
NCATE Institutional Report
Mod.
agree
Mod. Disagree
Strongly
disagree
N/A
3 (38%)
14 (52%)
5 (36%)
8 (40%)
---1 (4%)
--------
---------------
---3 (11%)
1 (7%)
2 (10%)
1 (12%)
8 (30%)
6 (53%)
7 (35%)
---------1 (5%)
-------------
---1 (4%)
-------
Page 42 of 100
Standard I
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Education
6 (75%)
17 (63%)
8 (57%)
11 (55%)
2 (24%)
8 (30%)
5 (36%)
7 (35%)
---1 (4%)
---1 (5%)
------------
---1 (4%)
1 (7%)
1 (5%)
Table 1.4.7. Employer Surveys of the Performance of Teachers Currently in Professional
Practice Who Were Prepared in Initial and Continuing Preparation Candidates. (Number and
% of responses at each level.)
Well-Prepared in the
following areas:
Legal and ethical issues
Lifelong learning & Reflection
Motivation and behavior
Family & Community
Strongly
agree
Mod. agree
Mod.
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
N/A
8 (33%)
6 (25%)
9 (38%)
11 (46%)
14 (58%)
11 (46%)
12 (50%)
11 (46%)
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
----
----
----
3 (13%)
2 (8%)
-------
-------
Element 5: Professional Knowledge and Skills for Other School
School Personnel
Candidates for other professional school personnel in Educational Leadership, School
Psychology, School Guidance, Reading Specialist, and Educational Technology have an in-depth
understanding of the professional knowledge expected in their fields. They know their students,
families, and communities, use current research to inform their practices, use technology in their
practices, and support student learning through their professional services. They collect and
analyze data related to their work, reflect on their practice, and use research and technology to
support and improve student learning.
Pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills for these candidates are developed through
coursework in their respective content areas and practicum and internship experiences which
allow candidates to put theory into practice. Course-embedded assessments are aligned with the
Reflective Urban Practitioner Model, state standards, and the national SPA standards. All
programs include clinical field experiences, practica, internships, or other types of practical
experiences in schools.
Phase I: Exploratory. All programs for other professional school personnel require significant
professional experience (usually school teaching experience) at admission. Throughout the
programs, this experience is used as a building block for further development of the professional
and pedagogical skills necessary for these new professional roles.
Phase II: Candidacy. Mastery of the continued progress in obtaining professional and
pedagogical knowledge and skills is monitored using multiple performance-based assessments
aligned with standards throughout the program and through successful completion of a capstone
assessment at the conclusion of the program of study. Each program has defined the professional
and pedagogical knowledge and skills at the Candidacy Point specific to its program. For unit
evaluation, we look at the percentages of candidates who are performing at target levels across
these programs at the Candidacy Point.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 43 of 100
Standard I
Table 1.5.1. Number of Other School Personnel Candidates Scoring at Target level on
Candidacy Assessments for Professional Knowledge and Skills at Phase II. (Number and % of
candidates at each level)
Program Assessment
Reading Specialist
Portfolio Presentations
Educational Leadership
Reframing Organizational Leadership Case
Study, Leadership Vision Game Plan,
Contemporary Leadership Vision, Principal
Study, Data-Driven Improvement Plan,
School-Based Budget Exercise
Educational Technology
School Psychology
Praxis II School Psych
School Guidance
Fall 2003
Semester
FA 04
SU/SP04
FA 03
FA 04
Total
17
37
15
76
Target
7 (41%)
9 (24%)
5 (33%)
52 (68%)
Acceptable
10 (59%)
25 (68%)
10 (67%)
21 (28%)
Unacceptable
SP 04
FA 03
41
88
28 (68%)
61 (69%)
12 (29%)
20 (23%)
1 (3%)
7 (8%)
FA 04
SU 04
FA 03
FA 04
SP 04
FA 03
semester
02-04
FA 04
SP 04
FA 03
26
59
60
7
---9
Total
14
61
52
64
26 (100%)
59 (100%)
60 (100%)
7 (100%)
---9 (100%)
Passes
6 (43%)
48 (79%)
40 (77%)
56 (87%)
----------0
---0
Failed
8 (57%)
13 (21%)
12 (23%)
8 (13%)
---------0
---0
3 (8%)
3 (4%)
0
0
0
Phase III: Program Completion Point. At the program completion point, candidates
demonstrate in-depth professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. To successfully
complete the program of study, candidates must maintain a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or better and
must pass the comprehensive exam or complete a thesis in their content area. Educational
Leadership candidates must pass the Praxis II in Ed Leadership to be licensed as principals. Pass
rates on the Comprehensive Exam, on the Praxis II and completion rates of theses are used as
unit evaluations of content knowledge as well as the RUP Performance Evaluation.
Table 1.5.2 Number And Percentage Of Other School Personnel Candidates Reaching Target
Level On Phase III Exit Assessments In Professional Knowledge And Skills (Number and % of
candidates at each level)
Program Assessment
Reading Specialist
Portfolio Presentations
Educational Leadership
Reframing Organizational Leadership Case
Study, Leadership Vision Game Plan,
Contemporary Leadership Vision, Principal
Study, Data-Driven Improvement Plan,
School-Based Budget Exercise
Educational Technology
NCATE Institutional Report
Fall 2003
Semester
FA 04
SU/SP04
FA 03
FA 04
Total
17
37
15
76
Target
7 (41%)
9 (24%)
5 (33%)
52 (68%)
Acceptable
10 (59%)
25 (68%)
10 (67%)
21 (28%)
Unacceptable
0
3 (8%)
0
3 (4%)
SP 04
FA 03
41
88
28 (68%)
61 (69%)
12 (29%)
20 (23%)
1 (3%)
7 (8%)
FA 04
SU 04
FA 03
26
59
60
26 (100%)
59 (100%)
60 (100%)
----------
----------
Page 44 of 100
Standard I
School Psychology
FA 04
SP 04
FA 03
semester
02-04
FA 04
SP 04
FA 03
Externship Evaluation
Praxis II School Psych
School Guidance
Reflective Journal Assignment, Micro
Counseling Interview
9
---7
Total
14
36
30
24
9 (100%)
---7 (100%)
9 (25%)
8 (27%)
6 (25%)
---------Passes
6 (43%)
21 (58%)
19 (63%)
14 (58%)
---------Failed
8 (57%)
6 (17%)
3 (10%)
4 (17%)
Phase IV: Professional Practice. Professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills are
measured in Phase IV through RUP surveys of alumni (within 5 years) and employers which are
based on the outcomes from the conceptual framework.
Table 1.5.4. Evaluation Of Other School Personnel Program Preparation In Professional
Knowledge And Skills From Alumni Surveys, Fall 2004.
Well-Prepared in the Following
Areas:
legal and ethical issues
Motivation and behavior
Development and learning theory
Strongly
agree
7 (58%)
9 (75%)
10 (100%)
Mod. agree
Mod. Disagree
Strongly
disagree
N/A
4 (33%)
3 (25%)
----
----------
----------
1 (8%)
-------
Table 1.5.5. Evaluation Of Other School Personnel Program Preparation In Professional
Knowledge And Skills From Employer Surveys, Fall 2004.
Well-Prepared in the Following
Areas:
Legal and ethical issues
Motivation and behavior
Development and learning theory
Family and community
Strongly
agree
Mod. agree
Mod. Disagree
Strongly
disagree
N/A
8 (33%)
9 (38%)
9 (38%)
11 (46%)
14 (58%)
12 (50%)
10 (42%)
11 (46%)
1 (4%)
3 (13%)
4 (17%)
2 (8%)
1 (4%)
-------------
----------
Element 6: Dispositions for All Candidates
The development and assessment of dispositions is an important part of the programs for all
candidates at NJCU, as seen in the Dispositions Framework of the Conceptual Framework. As an
institution dedicated to providing access to a wide range of candidates, we believe that
dispositions are learned and developed as an important part of the curriculum of the professional
educational program. Rather than measure dispositions at admission as a way of restricting
access to teacher education, we measure dispositions at Phase II, III, and IV, to ensure that our
program has an effect on the outcomes of our candidates.
Initial Candidates Undergraduate and Graduate
During the midpoint transition point, dispositions are measured at the unit level through
University Supervisors and Cooperating Teacher evaluations for initial teacher candidates.
Advanced candidates are evaluated on dispositions through program level assessments aligned
with SPA standards and will be evaluated with the RUP Performance Evaluation starting in
Spring 2005. This semester we have created a student affairs committee that has been charged
with deepening the evaluation of candidate dispositions to the unit level, specifically to develop a
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 45 of 100
Standard I
system in which candidates can recognize when their own dispositions may need to be adjusted
and are able to develop plans to do so.
Table 1.6.1 Ratings of Initial Candidates’ Dispositions by Cooperating Teachers during Jr.
Field Experience using CTPP forms, Fall 2004. (Number and % of candidates at each level)
Friendly and courteous
Poise and maturity
Positive interpersonal
relationships with students
Accepts and respects each
student as a worthwhile
individual
Shows courtesy to students
Performs according to the
ethical standards of the
teaching profession.
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Outstanding
21 (72%)
11 (69%)
4 (100%)
22 (100%)
21 (72%)
12 (75%)
4 (100%)
22 (100%)
21 (72%)
11 (69%)
4 (100%)
22 (100%)
24 (83%)
15 (94%)
4 (100%)
22 (100%)
24 (83%)
15 (94%)
4 (100%)
22 (100%)
24 (83%)
12 (75%)
4 (100%)
22 (100%)
Satisfactory
8 (28%)
5 (31%)
0
0
8 (28%)
4 (25%)
0
0
8 (28%)
5 (31%)
0
0
5 (17%)
1 (6%)
0
0
5 (17%)
1 (6%)
0
0
5 (17%)
4 (25%)
0
0
Weak
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 1.6.2. Ratings of Initial Candidates’ Dispositions by University Supervisors during Jr.
Field Experience using CTPP forms, Fall 2004. (Number and % of candidates at each level)
Friendliness and courtesy
Poise, maturity and emotional
stability
Positive assertiveness
Positive interpersonal
relationships with students
Accepts and respects each student
NCATE Institutional Report
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Outstanding
26 (90%)
13 (81%)
3 (75%)
21 (95%)
22 (76%)
12 (75%)
3 (75%)
19 (86%)
23 (79%)
13 (81%)
3 (75%)
19 (86%)
26 (90%)
13 (81%)
3 (75%)
19 (86%)
26 (90%)
Page 46 of 100
Satisfactory
1 (3%)
3 (19%)
1 (25%)
1 (5%)
7 (24%)
4 (25%)
1 (25%)
3 (14%)
6 (21%)
3 (19%)
1 (25%)
3 (14%)
1 (3%)
3 (19%)
1 (25%)
3 (14%)
1 (3%)
Weak
2 (7%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 (7%)
0
0
0
2 (7%)
Standard I
as a worthwhile individual.
Shows courtesy to students.
Performs according to the ethical
standards of the teaching
profession
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
12 (75%)
4 (100%)
19 (86%)
26 (90%)
13 (81%)
4 (100%)
18 (82%)
22 (76%)
6 (40%)
3 (75%)
21 (95%)
4 (25%)
0
3 (14%)
1 (3%)
3 (19%)
0
4 (18%)
7 (24%)
9 (60%)
1 (25%)
1 (5%)
0
0
0
2 (7%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Phase III: Program completion. Evaluation of initial candidates’ dispositions during Phase III
is completed by Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors using the CTPP forms and the
RUP Performance Evaluation.
Table 1.6.3 Ratings Of Initial Candidate Dispositions By Cooperating Teachers Using CTPP
Forms During The Internship, Fall 2004. (Number and % of candidates at each level)
Outcome
Is dependable, conscientious and
can be relied upon to fulfill
professional obligations.
Maintains good relationships with
colleagues, administrators, pupils
and parents/guardians
Shows tact, courtesy and sensitivity
toward the feelings of others.
Respects the need for
confidentiality.
Demonstrates knowledge of legal
requirements in the field of
education.
Utilizes available support services
where needed (librarian, nurse,
child-study team, paraprofessionals
Analyzes feedback from pupils,
colleagues and administrators for
purposes of professional
improvement.
Conforms to college and school
district requirements for dress and
grooming.
Is self-directed and shows
NCATE Institutional Report
Program
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Page 47 of 100
Outstanding
20 (100%)
12 (80%)
9 (100%)
21 (78%)
20 (100%)
12 (80%)
9 (100%)
22 (81%)
20 (100%)
12 (80%)
9 (100%)
21 (78%)
20 (100%)
12 (80%)
9 (100%)
19 (70%)
20 (100%)
12 (80%)
9 (100%)
21 (78%)
20 (100%)
12 (80%)
9 (100%)
21 (78%)
20 (100%)
12 (80%)
9 (100%)
22 (81%)
20 (100%)
12 (80%)
9 (100%)
21 (78%)
20 (100%)
Satisfactory
0
3 (20%)
0
3 (11%)
0
3 (20%)
0
5 (19%)
0
3 (20%)
0
3 (11%)
0
3 (20%)
0
8 (30%)
0
3 (20%)
0
3 (11%)
0
3 (20%)
0
3 (11%)
0
3 (20%)
0
5 (19%)
0
3 (20%)
0
3 (11%)
0
Weak
0
0
0
3 (11%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 (11%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 (11%)
0
0
0
3 (11%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 (11%)
0
Standard I
initiatives.
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
12 (80%)
9 (100%)
21 (78%)
3 (20%)
0
3 (11%)
0
0
3 (11%)
Table 1.6.4. Ratings Of Initial Candidates’ Dispositions By University Supervisor Using CTPP
Forms During Internship, Fall 2004. (Number and % of candidates at each level)
Outcome
Demonstrates an ability to
substantively reflect on one’s own
performance.
Presents evidence of reflective
thought before, during, and after
lesson.
Shows evidence of reflection on
decisions made and actions taken
during lesson.
Demonstrates an understanding of
how practices affect the learning
environment.
Maintains attendance and
punctuality routinely.
Maintains a professional
appearance and demeanor.
Use appropriate language in the
classroom.
Maintains a professional and
respectful relationship with
cooperating teacher.
Follows university and school
policies and procedures.
Provides evidence of professional
involvement, where appropriate.
NCATE Institutional Report
Program
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Early Childhood
Elementary
Secondary
Special Ed
Page 48 of 100
Outstanding
18 (90%)
15 (100%)
7 (88%)
13 (45%)
17 (85%)
15 (100%)
9 (100%)
13 (45%)
18 (90%)
15 (100%)
7 (88%)
13 (45%)
17 (85%)
15 (100%)
7 (88%)
13 (45%)
20 (100%)
15 (100%)
7 (88%)
16 (52%)
20 (100%)
15 (100%)
7 (88%)
16 (52%)
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
7 (88%)
16 (52%)
20 (100%)
15 (100%)
7 (88%)
20 (65%)
19 (95%)
15 (100%)
7 (88%)
12 (39%)
14 (100%)
15 (100%)
7 (88%)
16 (52%)
Satisfactory
2 (10%)
0
1 (12%)
10 (34%)
3 (15%)
0
0
10 (34%)
2 (10%)
0
1 (12%)
10 (34%)
3 (15%)
0
1 (12%)
10 (34%)
0
0
1 (12%)
15 (48%)
0
0
1 (12%)
15 (48%)
1 (5%)
0
1 (12%)
15 (48%)
0
0
1 (12%)
11 (35%)
1 (5%)
0
1 (12%)
18 (58%)
0
0
1 (12%)
14 (45%)
Weak
0
0
0
6 (21%)
0
0
0
6 (21%)
0
0
0
6 (21%)
0
0
0
6 (21%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 (3%)
0
0
0
1 (3%)
Standard I
Table 1.6.5 Ratings Of Initial Candidate Dispositions By Cooperating Teachers And
University Supervisors During Internship, Fall 2004. (Number and % of candidates at each
level)
Outstanding
Acceptable
Needs Improve.
Power of Students
39 (83%)
8 (17%)
0
Self-Evaluation
48
(81%)
11
(19%)
0
Cooperating Teachers
19
(76%)
6
(24%)
0
University Supervisors
7
(70%)
2
(20%)
1 (10%)
Principals
Power of Schools
35 (74%)
9 (19%)
3 (7%)
Self-Evaluation
44
(75%)
13
(22%)
2 (3%)
Cooperating Teachers
19
(76%)
6
(24%)
0
University Supervisors
4
(40%))
6
(60%)
0
Principals
Power of Difference
41 (87%)
5 (11%)
1 (2%)
Self-Evaluation
50
(84%)
8
(14%)
1 (2%)
Cooperating Teachers
14
(56%)
11
(44%)
0
University Supervisors
5
(50%)
5
(50%)
0
Principals
Power of Lifelong Learning and Reflection
43 (91%)
3 (7%)
1 (2%)
Self-Evaluation
40
(68%)
18
(30%)
1 (2%)
Cooperating Teachers
19
(76%)
6
(24%)
0
University Supervisors
4
(40%)
5
(50%)
1 (10%)
Principals
Power of Reflection
43 (92%)
4 (8%)
0
Self-Evaluation
42
(71%)
14
(24%)
3 (5%)
Cooperating Teachers
20
(80%)
5
(20%)
0
University Supervisors
6
(60%)
3
(30%)
1 (10%)
Principals
Power of empathy and a Commitment to the Success of All Children in Schools.
43 (91%)
3 (7%)
1 (2%)
Self-Evaluation
47
(80%)
11
(18%)
1 (2%)
Cooperating Teachers
22
(88%)
3
(12%)
0
University Supervisors
7
(70%)
2
(20%)
1 (10%)
Principals
Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teacher Candidates
Professional dispositions of both initial and continuing candidates are evaluated at Phase III with
the RUP Performance Evaluation and during Phase IV through Alumni and Employer surveys
administered by the Center for Teacher Preparation and Partnerships annually. These instruments
are based on the Reflective Urban Practitioner outcomes. Complete data are available in Exhibit
Room.
Table 1.6.6. Ratings by Employers of Teachers’ Preparation in Dispositions as Initial and
Continuing Teacher Candidates, Fall 2004.
Well-Prepared in the
Following Areas:
Power of Empathy
Power of Students
Power of Diversity
Power of Reflection
NCATE Institutional Report
Strongly
agree
Mod.
agree
Mod. Disagree
Strongly
disagree
N/A
6 (35%)
12 (52%)
14 (67%)
6 (35%)
11 (65%)
11 (48%)
7 (33%)
11 (65%)
-------------
-------------
------
------
-------------------
Page 49 of 100
Standard I
Table 1.6.7 Alumni Self-Rating Of Their Preparation in Dispositions As Initial Candidates’
(Number and % of responses at each level)
“After receiving my degree
Strongly
Mod. agree Mod. DisStrongly
Not appl.
from NJCU, I …”
agree
agree
disagree
Had a commitment to an ethic of caring and empathy.
Early Childhood
7 (88%)
1 (13%)
---------------Elementary
23 (85%)
4 (15%)
---------------Secondary
10 (71%)
4 (29%)
---------------Special Education
16 (80%)
4 (20%)
---------------Held a belief in the ability and potential of all urban learners.
Early Childhood
7 (88%)
1 (13%)
---------------Elementary
23(85%)
3 (11%)
----------1 (4%)
Secondary
10 (71%)
4 (29%)
---------------Special Education
16 (80%)
2 (10%)
----------2 (10%)
Recognized and valued diversity and believed in education as a vehicle for social justice.
Early Childhood
7 (88%)
1 (13%)
---------------Elementary
22 (81%)
4 (15%)
1 (4%)
----------Secondary
10 (71%)
3 (21%)
1 (1%)
----------Special Education
14 (70%)
5 (25%)
1 (5%)
----------Effectively evaluated my own teaching and was able to seek out opportunities to grow professionally.
Early Childhood
7 (88%)
1 (13%)
---------------Elementary
18 (67%)
8 (30%)
----------1 (4%)
Secondary
8 (57%)
6 (43%)
---------------Special Education
12 (60%)
7 (35%)
1 (5%)
-----------
Table 1.6.8 . Preparation in Dispositions as Continuing Teacher Candidates Measured by
Alumni During Phase IV: Professional Practice. (Number and % of responses at each level).
Well-Prepared in the
Following Areas:
Strongly
agree
Mod.
agree
Power of Empathy
Power of Students
Power of Diversity
Power of Reflection
79 (79%)
75 (75%)
75 (75%)
65 (65%)
19 (19%)
18 (18%)
20 (20%)
25 (25%)
Mod.
Disagree
-----1 (1%)
1 (1%)
3 (3%)
Strongly
disagree
N/A
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
2 (2%)
1 (1%)
5 (5%)
3 (3%)
5 (5%)
Dispositions for Other Professional School Personnel
Table 1.6.9. Unit Level Aggregation of Program Level Data for Dispositions of Candidates in
Other Professional School Personnel Programs. (percentage of candidates achieving
performance levels)
Program Assessment
Reading Specialist
Portfolio Presentations
Educational Leadership
Reframing Organizational Leadership Case
Study, Leadership Vision Game Plan,
Contemporary Leadership Vision, Principal
Study, Data-Driven Improvement Plan,
School-Based Budget Exercise
NCATE Institutional Report
Fall 2003
Semester
FA 04
SU/SP04
FA 03
FA 04
SP 04
FA 03
Total
17
37
15
------17
Page 50 of 100
Target
7 (41%)
9 (24%)
5 (33%)
------12 (71%)
Acceptable
10 (59%)
25 (68%)
10 (67%)
------4 (24%)
Unacceptable
---3 (8%)
---------1 (5%)
Standard I
Educational Technology
Thesis and Research Paper
FA 04
SU 04
FA 03
FA 04
SP 04
FA 03
FA 04
SP 04
FA 03
School Psychology
Externship Evaluation
School Guidance
Reflective Journal Assignment, Micro
Counseling Interview
26
59
60
9
---7
36
30
24
26 (100%)
59 (100%)
60 (100%)
9 (100%)
---7 (100%)
9 (25%)
8 (27%)
6 (25%)
-------------------21 (58%)
19 (63%)
14 (58%)
------------------6 (17%)
3 (10%)
4 (17%)
Table 1.6.10. Evaluation of other school personnel program preparation in dispositions from
Employer surveys, Fall 2004.
Power of Empathy
Power of Students
Power of Diversity
Power of Reflection
Strongly
agree
11 (100%)
10 (100%)
9 (75%)
11 (92%)
Mod. agree
Mod. Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Not appl.
--------2 (17%)
1 (8%)
-----------------
-----------------
--------1 (8%)
-----
Element 7: Student Learning for Teacher Candidates (Initial and
Continuing Preparation of Teachers)
After a thorough review of the data from our assessment system, the COE Council recognized
the need to better address the assessment of student learning for teacher candidates. The
following timeline was developed to strengthen the COE Assessment System:
1. Identify Current Best Practices (FA 2004- SP 2005). We have spent a year examining
three ways in which we currently measure the impact of our candidates on P-12 student
learning: 1) masters theses, 2) research projects during research courses, and 3) portfolios
during field experiences and clinical practice.
2. Pilot Assessments. Next we examined the rubrics used to measure candidate performance
during those courses in which they are interacting with P-12 learners. During Spring
2005, we have identified those courses in which it is effective to measure the impact of P12 learning and we have revised the rubrics to reflect this emphasis. We will pilot these
revised rubrics in Fall 2005 and begin aggregating data on student learning across our
programs. We will also continue to learn more from other institutions to improve our
evaluations, considering such evaluations as the teacher work sampling system.
3. Systematize Feedback. The next step (Spring 2006) will be to systematize the
documentation at the unit level of candidate’s impact on P-12 learning and make program
improvements based on data.
In the meantime, we are measuring the impact of initial candidates on P-12 learning using one of
the outcomes from our RUP Performance Evaluation that has been completed by Candidates,
Cooperating Teachers, University Supervisors, and Principals to give us a rich picture of the
various perspectives of different evaluators. For continuing preparation candidates, we are
conducting a self-evaluation using the RUP Performance Evaluation and will incorporate this
evaluation by instructors and supervisors into the field experience components of the program in
fall 2005. Data from Spring 2005 for continuing candidates can be found in the exhibit room.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 51 of 100
Standard I
1.7.1 Rating of Initial Candidates’ Impact on P-12 Learning using RUP Performance
evaluation during Internship, Fall 2004.
Ability to Assess Different Levels of Development and Adapt Practice. Candidates will demonstrate the
ability to assess different levels of development and adapt practice accordingly based on a proficient and
informed use of research, reflection, and individual needs.
Outstanding
Acceptable
Needs Improve.
36 (76%)
10 (21%)
1 (2%)
Self-Evaluation
36 (61%)
16 (27%)
7 (12%)
Cooperating Teachers
18 (72%)
7 (28 %)
0
University Supervisors
3 (30%)
6 (60%)
1 (10%)
Principals
Element 8: Student Learning for Other Professional School Personnel
The programs for other professional school personnel are evaluating the impact of candidate
performance on student learning through course assignments. These data can be found in the
exhibit room. All programs have revised their assessments for Fall 2005 to better systematize the
measurement of candidates’ impact on P-12 learning as follows:
• Educational Technology: The program revised the rubric for Practicum/ Thesis to reflect
documentation of P-12 student learning as part of their action research project.
• Reading Specialist: The rubric for the Practicum course is being revised so that candidates will
present documentation of a remediation plan for working with a student and evidence of the P-12
learning resulting from that plan.
• Educational Leadership: As part of Internship, candidates will need to document the effect
they have had on P-12 learning.
• School Psychology: The current assignments which show student learning include an applied
behavior analysis, functional assessment and positive behavioral support, and consultation to
document effects on student learning. These data will be aggregated for program level review.
• School Guidance: Currently the candidates document student learning through a reflective
journal assignment. For Sp 05 candidates will document during the Internship how they can
measure effects on student learning and will complete a case study, intervention plan, and
interviews.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 52 of 100
Standard I
Standard II. Program Assessment
and Unit Capacity
P-12 Student
learning
Element 1. Assessment System
The COE Assessment System was first approved in May 2000. At that
time, each program in the COE developed a set of assessments aligned
with the SPA standards for its discipline. The plan included multiple
measures at four transitions points with a chart that delineated
responsibility and a timeline for each assessment. At that time, the
COE created an Assessment Committee to keep the Assessment
System timeline moving and to coordinate efforts of the departments.
The Assessment Committee next moved on to developing a unit level
assessment system which coordinated the various SPA assessments.
While this was effective for initial candidates, it was more difficult to
coordinate these assessments for advanced candidates. In fall 2004, in
addition to aggregating data from the SPA assessments, we developed
a College of Education RUP Performance Evaluation based on the 15
outcomes of the Conceptual Framework, for all candidates: Initial,
Continuing and Other Professional School Personnel.
Unit
Assessment
Program Level Assessment
The COE Assessment System, based on the
Reflective Urban Practitioner model, provides
an integrated process for collecting, analyzing,
and reflecting on data relevant to our three
Foundations: Knowledge, Skills, and
Dispositions, and incorporating candidate
proficiencies outlined in our state and
specialized professional association
standards. The accompanying figure shows the
integrated way in which the Conceptual
Framework is the basis for P-12 student
learning, candidate assessments, program-level
assessments and unit level assessments. The
flame represents P-12 Student Learning, the
head of the statue is unit assessment, the body represents program-level
assessment, and the entire statue is supported at its base by the
conceptual framework.
Conceptual
Framework
The instrument was distributed widely for a validation study in Spring 2004.
It was shared at faculty retreats (which included the participation of secretaries, students, and P12 colleagues), with department chairs, with the Teacher Education Advisory Council (P-12
teachers, administrators, parents, union representatives, business, arts & sciences faculty), and
the Jersey City business community. The results of this study are available in the exhibit room.
During Fall 2004, this instrument was piloted with various candidate groups to determine the
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 53 of 100
Standard II
best procedures for unit evaluation. In Spring 2005 we extended the RUP Performance
Evaluation to advanced candidates and other school personnel.
Table 2.1 COE Assessment System Development Timeline
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
COE Assessment System Development Timeline
COE Assessment Plan submitted for approval to VP for Academic Affairs
Assessment Committee formed and charged with coordinating Assessment System
Program level assessments developed and piloted
Program level data began to be reviewed for program improvement; additional
assessments developed; rubrics revised as needed
SPA Reports completed; All Programs have fully designed Assessment Systems; data
reviewed by departments for program improvement
Program level assessments fully operational; Unit level assessments developed; Unit level
data reviewed for program improvement. RUP instrument used for unit level data.
The current assessment system is organized around the 6 NCATE standards and is
operationalized through the governance structure of the College of Education. The following
charts describe the comprehensive and integrated set of evaluation measures that are used to
monitor candidate performance and manage and improve operations and programs. These charts
describe the multiple candidate assessments made at our four key transition points:
Phase I: Exploratory (Admission assessment)
Phase II: Candidacy (Midpoint assessment)
Phase III: Program completion (Exit from program assessment)
Phase IV: Professional Practice (Post-graduate assessment)
Eliminating Bias, Establishing fairness, accuracy, and consistency. The COE Assessment
System has employed the following strategies to ensure that as much as possible, our
assessments eliminate bias, and are fair, accurate, and consistent:
• Blind review. For high stakes assessments, such as our COE Writing Assessment,
evaluators do not know the identity of the student whose paper they are reading.
• Multiple evaluators. For many program level assessments we use multiple evaluators
and check for the consistency of their ratings.
• Training sessions. We have liaisons for adjunct faculty coordinate the program
assessments. We coordinate assessments by more than one professor through faculty meetings
and individual sessions. For the COE Writing Assessment, we hold training sessions regularly
for all evaluators and re-norm the assessment each time the prompt is changed.
• Data Checks. We look for outliers or unusual patterns in data to determine any
problems with scoring or with training evaluators. We also disaggregate data, if possible, by
ethnicity, gender, or class section to look for possible bias problems.
•Clear Criteria for Assessments. Rubrics have been created for all assessments which
clearly delineate performance at difference benchmarks.
• Transparency. Students know ahead of time what standards are being used. Rubrics
are distributed and published.
• Grievance Process. We have a well-defined, published grievance process for students
to appeal an assessment decision that allows for multiple checks into the fairness and accuracy of
our procedures. We also keep records of all grievances and aggregate this data to look for
failures in the assessment system related to fairness, bias, consistency, and accuracy.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 54 of 100
Standard II
Table 2.1.1. Initial Undergraduate Unit Assessments
Special Education, Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Secondary
Education (Math, English, Science, Social Studies, Spanish, Health, Music, Art)
Phase
Unit Assessment
Benchmark
Office Responsible
I
II
III
IV
GPA
General Studies
Co-Major
GPA
Junior Field Experience
Coe Writing Assessment
Coop Teacher Evaluation CTPP Forms
Univ. Supervisor Evaluation CTPP
Forms
RUP Performance Evaluation: Coop
Teachers And Univ. Supervisors
GPA
Co-Major
Praxis II
Coop Teacher Evaluation CTPP Forms
Univ. Supervisor Evaluation CTPP
Forms
RUP Performance Evaluation: Coop
Teachers, Univ. Supervisors, Interns
RUP Performance Evaluation For
Alumni
RUP Performance Evaluation For
Employers
Graduate Survey
2.75
30 credits
Declaration
2.75
P or B- or better grade
4 or better on rubric
Pass
Pass
CTPP/ Advisement
Advisement
Advisement
CTPP
Faculty Advisor
Dean
CTPP
CTPP
Target
CTPP
2.75
Completion
NJ Passing Score
Pass
Pass
Graduation Clearance
Graduation Clearance
CTPP
CTPP
CTPP
Target
Dean
Target
CTPP
Target
CTPP
Strongly Agree
Institution Research
Table 2.1.2. Additional Initial Undergraduate Program-Level Assessments
Phase
Program
Assessment
II
SPEC
ECE
III
Elementary
Secondary
SPEC
ECE
Elementary
Secondary
Midpoint Portfolio Assessment
Philosophy Of Education Paper
Philosophy Of Education Paper
Child Study Assignment
Lesson Plan Development And Peer Teaching
Lesson Plan Development And Peer Teaching
Capstone Portfolio Assessment (Spec)
Integrated Thematic Unit Assignment
Professional Portfolio Assignment
Student Work Samples Rubric
Professional Portfolio Assignment
Table 2.1.3. Initial Graduate Unit Assessment
Special Education, Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Secondary
Education (Math, English, Social Studies, Science, Spanish, Music, Health),
ESL/Bilingual
Phase
Unit Assessment
Benchmark
Office Responsible
I
GPA
MAT or
GRE
NCATE Institutional Report
2.75
25th percentile
900 combined score
Page 55 of 100
CTPP/ Advisement
Grad Studies
Grad Studies
Standard II
II
III
IV
Letters of Recommendation
Essay
Coop Teacher Evaluation CTPP Forms
Univ. Supervisor Evaluation CTPP Forms
RUP Performance evaluation: Coop
Teachers and Univ. Supervisors
GPA
Praxis II
Coop Teacher Evaluation CTPP Forms
Univ. Supervisor Evaluation CTPP Forms
RUP Performance evaluation: Coop
Teachers, Univ. Supervisors, Interns
RUP Performance evaluation for Alumni
RUP Performance evaluation for Employers
Pass
Pass
Target
Department Chair
Department Chair
CTPP
CTPP
CTPP
2.75
NJ Passing Score
Pass
Pass
Target
Graduation Clearance
CTPP
CTPP
CTPP
CTPP
Target
Target
CTPP
CTPP
Table 2.1.4. Additional Initial Graduate Program Level Assessments
Phase
Program
Assessment
I
II
SPEC
ECE
Elementary
Secondary
ESL/Bilingual
SPEC
ECE
Elementary
Secondary
ESL/BILINGUAL
III
IV
SPEC
ECE
Elementary
Secondary
ESL/BILINGUAL
SPEC
ECE
Elementary
Secondary
ESL/BILINGUAL
Essay
Philosophy of Education Paper
Praxis II Passing Score
Praxis Ii Passing Score
Language Proficiency Instrument (LPI) Score Of 3
Philosophy Of Special Education, Midpoint Portfolio, IEP Development
Learning Centers Assignment (ECE 644); Resource File Assignment
(ECE 634)
Lesson Plan Development And Peer Teaching
Lesson Plan Development And Peer Teaching
MCC 617 (Web-Based) Field Experience Rubrics & Course Grades
MCC 627 Assignment: Culture Module
Capstone Portfolio; Lesson Planning; Transition Planning
Exit Survey; Teacher Beliefs; Growth And Development Survey;
Analysis Of Classroom Management Strategies (ECE 500)
Classroom Management Portfolio
Classroom Management Portfolio
Exit Portfolio
Survey
Participation At Early Childhood Spring Conference
Survey
Survey
Participation at following conferences (ESL, Bilingual, ECE):
Imagination in Language Learning, Annual Statewide Conference on
Bilingual/ESL exceptional Learners; Annual Conference of
NJTESOL/NJBE, Early Childhood Spring Conference)
Table 2.1.5. Other Professional School Personnel Unit Assessments
(Educational Leadership, Reading Specialist, School Psychology, School Guidance,
Educational Technology) and Advanced Programs Unit Assessments (Urban
Studies, Early Childhood Education, Elementary Reading, School Health Education, Music
Education, ESL/Bilingual Education)
Phase
Unit Assessment
Benchmark
Office Responsible
I
GPA
NCATE Institutional Report
2.75
Page 56 of 100
CTPP/ Advisement
Standard II
MAT or
GRE
Letters of Recommendation
II
III
IV
Essay
Phase II Coursework
RUP Performance evaluation
GPA
RUP Performance evaluation
Completion of Phase III Coursework
Comprehensive Exam or Thesis Completion
Successful Completion of Internship,
Practicum or Field Experience
RUP Performance evaluation for Alumni
RUP Performance evaluation for Employers
25th percentile
900 combined score
Positive
recommendation
Positive dispositions
B- or better
Target
2.75
Target
B- or better
Target
Grade of B- or better
Grad Studies
Grad Studies
Department Chair
Target
Target
CTPP
CTPP
Department Chair
Faculty Advisor
CTPP
Graduation Clearance
CTPP
Graduation Clearance
Graduation Clearance
Graduation Clearance
Table 2.1.6. Additional Other Professional School Personnel Program
Assessments (Educational Technology, Reading Specialist, Educational Leadership,
School Psychology, School Guidance)
Phase
Program
Assessment
I
II
EDTC
Reading Specialist
Ed Leadership
School Psychology
School Guidance
EDTC
Reading Specialist
Ed Leadership
School Psychology
School Guidance
III
EDTC
Reading Specialist
Ed Leadership
School Psychology
School Guidance
IV
EDTC
Reading Specialist
Ed Leadership
School Psychology
School Guidance
NCATE Institutional Report
Essay, interview
Essay, interview
Essay
Writing sample, individual interview
Essay
Portfolio
Professional Organization Membership
Faculty Interview
Classroom Observation
Leadership Vision Game Plan
Contemporary Leadership Visioning Project Reframing Case Study
Assessment Confidence Inventory
Technology Assessment
Research Proposal
Psychological report; comprehensive assessment report; practicum
Role playing; critique of professional journals; comprehensive
written final exam; journal response
One-year research/practicum
Comprehensive Exam
Practicum Assessments: Literacy Profile
Students Work Samples Student Diagnostic Reports Reflective Logs
Passing Score on Praxis II, Internship
Externship; exit interview
Internship; reflective journal assignment; micro counseling interview
and written evaluation
Membership in professional organizations; conferences
Survey
Survey (to be implemented in Fall 2005)
Post-grad interview
Self-evaluation
Page 57 of 100
Standard II
Table 2.1.7. Additional Continuing Program-Level Assessments
Urban Studies, Early Childhood Education, Elementary Reading, Music Education, School
Health Education, ESL/Bilingual Education
Phase
Program
Assessment
II
Urban Studies
ECE
Elem Reading
Health
III
Music
ESL/Bilingual
Urban Studies
ECE
Elem Reading
Health
Music
ESL/Bilingual
IV
Urban Studies
ECE
Elem Reading
Health
Music
ESL/Bilingual
Field Project; Applying research on an issue of curriculum; Case
study; CREDE Curriculum Project
Learning Centers Assignment; Resource File Assignment
Portfolio presentations
Literature review/reflection/analysis and visual presentation
Lesson plan development and presentation
Curriculum development; Reflective Analysis of Leadership
Culture Module
Small-scale project of teacher-research; Independently conducted
teacher-research project
Teacher beliefs, growth and development survey
Comprehensive Exam; Portfolios
Proposal to thesis/project; Thesis or Project
Research proposal; Thesis
Language Proficiency Interview (LPI) score in English 4, score in
other foreign languages 4
Survey
Participation at early Childhood Spring Conference
Alumni Survey
Alumni Survey; Invite to the Annual Breast Cancer walk
Professional Development Activities; Attendance on NJ Music
Educators Association; Annual Conference; Membership in the
National Association for Music Education
Participation at following conferences (ESL, Bilingual, ECE):
Imagination in Language Learning, Annual Statewide Conference
on Bilingual/ESL exceptional Learners; Annual Conference of
NJTESOL/NJBE, Early Childhood Spring Conference)
Table 2.1.8. Unit Capacity Measures
Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
Outcome
Assessment Tool
Assessment Procedures
Candidate performance :
Supervisor’s Reports
Formative web-based reports filed every other
Knowledge, Skills, Dispositions
week; summative reports each semester
Candidate performance: Knowledge, Cooperating Teacher
Web or paper reports completed mid and end of
Skills, Dispositions
Reports
semester
Candidate performance: Knowledge, RUP Performance
Rubric based on Conceptual Framework
Skills, Dispositions
evaluation
outcomes completed by University Supervisor,
Cooperating Teacher, and School Principal each
semester
Candidate performance: Knowledge, RUP Performance
Rubric based on Conceptual Framework
Skills, Dispositions
Evaluation
outcomes completed by student at end of
internship
Candidate performance: Knowledge, RUP Employer Surveys Administered annually in fall by CTPP office
Skills, Dispositions
Effectiveness of preparation and
RUP Alumni Surveys
Administered annually in fall by CTPP office
clinical experiences
Provision of appropriate clinical
Criteria for Selecting
Checklist of criteria administered to all student
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 58 of 100
Standard II
learning experiences; qualified
school-based faculty
Candidate performance; appropriate
placements; design of field
placements
• Learning Community
• Accountability and Quality
Assurance
• Collaboration
• Diversity and Equity
• Appropriate learning experiences
• Collaborative work with P-12
practitioners
• Contribution to development of
quality graduates
• Institutionalization
Outcome
Diversity of faculty in COE
Diversity of teacher candidates &
graduate students
Diversity of students in field
placement sites
Characteristics of field placement
communities, & Partnership
Districts
Candidates knowledge, skills and
dispositions necessary to help all
students learn
Standard IV, elements a, b, c, and d
Sites Questionnaire &
Cooperating Teacher
Survey
TEAC minutes
teaching sites annually, cooperating teacher
survey completed each semester through CTPP
Professional
Development Schools
evaluation Rubric
Professors-In-Residence evaluate PDS sites
annually with NCATE PDS rubrics
Annual Report of
Partnership Programs
Chart developed annually by CTPP and Dean’s
Office
Diversity
Assessment Tool
Faculty Surveys
Student DemographicsPeople Soft
School & Community
Demographics – School
Report Card Analysis
TEAC meets every other month, minutes kept
by CTPP and shared with Council
Assessment Procedures
Web based or paper surveys completed annually
in fall
Data collected automatically by PeopleSoft,
analysis done each semester by Dean’s Office
Chart completed by CTPP office annually from
school report card information
Web-based evaluation forms are aggregated
each semester and sent to Field Experience
Committee
Diversity Committee
Annual report completed by Diversity
Annual Report
Committee including curriculum audit
Diversity of NJCU student body and University Fact Book
Fact book produced by Office of Internal
faculty
Research
Trend analysis of NJCU student
Student Affairs Annual Annual report produced in Fall by Division of
body & COE majors
Report
Student Affairs
Faculty Qualifications, Performance, Development
Outcome
Assessment Tool
Assessment Procedures
P-12 Teaching Experience
Faculty Surveys
Survey instrument distributed at faculty retreats.
Collaboration
Analyzed by Faculty Committee
Instructional Strategies
Professional Development
Qualifications
SPA /Prof Affiliations
Faculty performance in teaching,
Reappointment
Faculty submit electronic portfolios to personnel
scholarship, service
Evaluations
committee, then Dean, VP
Diversity of faculty
Faculty Demographics
University Fact Book
Percentage of load taught by full
Faculty Load Analysis
Completed each semester by Dean’s Office
time and adjunct faculty
Professional Development needs;
5-year faculty review
Vice President for Academic Affairs
faculty performance
COE faculty scholarship activity
SBR grants
VPAA office maintains records of SBR funding
Amount of institutional funds
Professional
Dean’s Budget for travel and other pd
NCATE Institutional Report
Student Teaching
Evaluation Forms
Page 59 of 100
Standard II
available for prof dev
Outcome
Sufficient resources for unit
operations, compared to other units
External funding of COE initiatives
Numbers and types of student
problems
Areas for improvement of the COE
governance structure
Areas for improvement of the CF
Development Funds
opportunities
• Mini grants
Unit Governance and Resources
Assessment Tool
Assessment Procedures
Budget Comparisons
VP administration & finance
Chart of Grant-Funded
Programs
Analysis of Student
Grievances
Feedback on
Governance Structure
Feedback on Conceptual
Framework
Adequacy of library services and
resources for the COE
Reports from Ed
Services Librarian
Adequacy of university technology
resources and faculty proficiency
University Technology
Survey, ITS Report
Dean’s office keeps chart of programs for
annual report
Dean’s office compiles and aggregates records
of student grievances
Revisions of structure distributed to all faculty
for feedback
Yearly feedback and reaffirmation of conceptual
framework at faculty retreats, Council meetings,
and faculty meetings
• Review of Resources, library holdings by
Standards and Programs
• Review of data of Information Literacy
Sessions
Distributed through the Electronic Learning Lab
to NJCU faculty, Report compiled by ITS
Director
Element 2. Data Collection Analysis and Evaluation
The responsibility for unit level data collection, analysis and reflection for each standard is found
in one of the standing committees of our governance structure. (See Standard VI for more details
on committee structures and responsibilities)
Table 2.2.1. Alignment of COE Assessment System Committees with NCATE Standards.
COE Assessment System Alignment with NCATE Standards
Candidate Performance:
COE Curriculum Committee Standard I: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions.
COE Assessment Committee Standard II: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
Unit Capacity:
COE Field Experience
Standard III: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
Committee
COE Diversity Committee
Standard IV: Diversity
COE Faculty Committee
Standard V: Faculty Qualification, Performance, and
Development
COE Council
Standard VI: Unit Governance and Resources
The following flowchart shows the three levels of assessment in our system: Candidate,
Program, and Unit. It also shows the feedback loop for collecting, analyzing, and using data for
program improvement. Our goal (seen on the right side of the flowchart) is that unit level policy,
program & structural changes based on data analysis improve the program level work; program
level changes in curriculum and assessment based on data improve candidate performance; and
candidate performance based on data improves the achievement of P-12 students.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 60 of 100
Standard II
Flowchart of COE Assessment System
Data Sources
Who Collects
Data
Unit Level
Assessments
(RUP
Performance
evaluation, etc.)
• Dean’s Office
• CTPP
• Institutional
Research
• Admissions
Program Level
Assessments:
Aggregated data
from candidate
performance
Academic
Department
Faculty
Candidate Level
Assessments:
field
observations,
portfolios, etc.
Candidates
NCATE Institutional Report
Who Uses Data
For What
Purpose?
• Curriculum Com.
• Assessment Com.
• Field Ex Committee
• Diversity Comm.
• Faculty Committee
• Student Affairs
Com.
COE Council
Improvement in
unit policies,
programs &
structures
Academic
Departments
COE Council,
Departments,
Faculty
Course Instructors &
Candidates
Candidates
Who Analyzes &
Reviews Data
Page 61 of 100
Standard II
Improvement in
curriculum and
assessment of
professional ed
programs
Improvement in
Candidates’
knowledge,
skills, &
dispositions,
which results in
P-12 student
learning
Use of Information Technologies: To facilitate the collection, aggregation and
dissemination of assessment data, we have developed a number of information
technology initiatives in the past five years.
• COGNOS is a web based database that refines the information available from
our administrative computing system (PeopleSoft). This program gives us demographic
and enrollment information about undergraduate and graduate students.
• Student Teaching Assessment Program allows cooperating teachers and
university supervisors to input evaluation data on web-based forms which can be
aggregated and exported for further analysis and reporting.
• People Soft is our administrative computing system to track all student records,
enrollment data, advisement, and budgets. This has a student and faculty portal to
individualize content to various groups.
• LiveText was chosen as the COE standard software for student portfolios. Some
departments have recently begun using LiveText (see Educational Technology & Early
Childhood Education) and most plan to begin converting their assessment system to
LiveText within the next year.
• Faculty electronic portfolios are required for reappointment of all non-tenured
faculty to encourage faculty to model best practices in self-evaluation.
Element 3. Use of Data for Program Improvement
The COE has centralized the use of data for program improvement through its College
Governance Structure. Because this structure was based on the six NCATE standards, it
provides a clear way of assigning responsibility for different types of data. We are still in
the early stages of using unit data for program improvement; however, we have been
using program-level data for program improvement for a few years. This was particularly
true in the process of writing SPA reports and rejoinders which began two years ago and
resulted in many program improvements.
The primary accountability system we have for the use of data for program improvement
is through the annual report on goals and objectives which each department and the
Dean’ office completes. These can be found in the exhibit room. Examples of use of data
for program improvement are found below.
Table 2.3.1 Examples of Use of Data for Program Improvement
Issue
Data
Analysis
Low passing score
on Praxis II for
School
Psychology
In 2002, 3 of 4
students passed the
exam, in 2005 3 of 5
students passed the
exam, in 2004 none of
the 5 students who took
the exam passed.
(Table 1.2.2.)
Weakness in School Law
and Ethical Consideration
sections. PSY 626 Seminar
in professional ethics and
practices for psychologists
and EDLD 601 School
Law are offered also to
counseling and educational
leadership students, and
may be lacking in
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 62 of 100
Program Changes &
Outcomes (if available)
Modifications to the PSY
626 syllabus for 2005 and a
request to include special
education law as a
component of EDLD 601. A
school psychology specific
text in ethics and school law
will be added to PSY 627
Role and Function of the
School Psychologist.
Standard II
specificity
Department chairs use
holistic admission
procedures in which a
variety of other criteria are
used to decide on potential
of candidates
Graduate
Admission
assessments, GRE
and MAT
Low and uneven scores
across programs. No
evidence of connection
between scores and
success in program
(Table 1.1.3, 1.1.4)
Difference in
Ratings of
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge of
Initial Candidates
Ratings of
“Outstanding” on the
RUP Performance
Instrument range from
64% to 81% for SelfEvaluation,
Cooperating Teachers,
& Univ Supervisors.
Ratings by principals
range from 20% to 40%
Ratings by Cooperating
Teachers are
consistently lower than
University Supervisors
for all categories (see
Standard I, (Table
1.4.3. and 1.4.4.).
Special Ed candidates
rated lower than others
Percentage of load
taught by adjuncts in
2003: Ed Leadership
(64%), Special Ed
(69%), & Ed Tech
(42%), Early Childhood
(44%) (Table 6.3.2.)
Summary of new
faculty reviews shows
weaknesses in areas of
scholarship, especially
in journal articles and
books
Principals are rating our
initial candidates’
performance during the
Internship lower than the
Univ supervisors,
cooperating teachers or
candidates’ self-evaluation.
Why the discrepancy?
PDS ratings by
Professors-InResidence show an
average of 36% at
beginning level, 46% at
developing level, and
18% at standard (Table
4.2.1)
We are making progress in
our PDS development, but
still have many areas to
grow especially in the
“learning community” &
“diversity and equity” PDS
standards
Ratings of
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills, and
Dispositions
High Adjunct
Teaching Load
Weakness in NonTenured Faculty
Review for
Reappointment
Status of
Professional
Development
Schools
NCATE Institutional Report
Cooperating teachers and U
Supervisors are using
different evaluation forms,
may have different sense of
what is “outstanding” or
“acceptable” or different
standards, or may see
different levels of
performance
Adjunct rate is high due to
State budget crisis that lead
to a state early retirement
package, a hiring freeze,
and concurrent, substantial
growth in graduate
programs
New faculty members are
making scholarly
presentations but not
publishing their work,
possibly from work load
issues, or need of
mentoring and support
Page 63 of 100
Discussions with Graduate
Studies office about the
admission policies,
especially regarding the
usefulness of the GRE and
MAT, new policy being
formulated
Focus groups planned with
principals to determine: 1)
what does “outstanding”
look like to them? 2) what
improvements would they
like to see?
Planned: 1) hold training
sessions for reliability
checks 2) use only 1 form
with clearer rubrics with
more observational criteria
3) final evaluation of
candidate done jointly to
share information
7 new faculty lines added in
2004, 7 new lines being
hired for FA 05. Total
adjunct load rate for Fall 05
is projected at 31%, a drop
of 11%
College of Ed Writer’s
Group formed in 2003,
College of Ed Research
Group formed fall 2004, 3day Faculty Research
Workshop offered in
summer 04, Dean meets with
new faculty during year for
support.
Held meetings with all
Professors In Residence and
principals of PDS schools,
regular meetings of PIRs,
sent 7 people to PDS
national PDS conference.
Will reevaluate next spring.
Standard II
Standard III. Field Experiences and
Clinical Practice
Field experiences and/or clinical practices are
integrated into all programs offered by the
professional unit. NJCU’s conceptual framework and
professional standards are fully integrated into the
clinical component. The unit believes field
experiences and clinical practices are the most
meaningful ways for candidates to demonstrate
appropriate dispositions, apply content and pedagogical knowledge and practice professional
skills to enhance student learning. All candidates are assessed in multiple experiences and are
expected to demonstrate knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to help students learn in
diverse settings.
Element 1: Collaboration Between Unit and School Partners
The College of Education has a proud history of partnerships with the urban community and P12 schools and community colleges. This commitment is represented through the number of
innovative and recognized initiatives which have documented impact. New partnerships with
urban schools have been developed since the 2000 NCATE visit with a large number of faculty
within the university involved in the schools and throughout the larger community. Collaboration
between the unit and its school partners is most evident in the design, implementation and
evaluation of field experiences and clinical practice. This collaboration is accomplished through
these formal structures:
 The Field Experience Committee, which includes the chairpersons within the College of
Education departments, the Director and Assistant Director of the Center for Teacher
Preparation and Partnerships, an alumnus, a current teacher, and the College of Education
Assistant Dean.
 The College of Education Advisory Committee, made up of district administrators and
school faculty from our partnership districts, NJCU Arts and Science faculty, College of
Education administrators, faculty and alumni, an education student, partnership district
teacher, representatives from the New Jersey Education Association, the County
superintendent, a parent, and a prominent member in the business community. We hold
dinner meetings bi-monthly.
 The Professor-in-Residence Committee composed of College of Education faculty who
serve as Professors-in-Residence in local schools meets once per semester.
 Art Educators Roundtable attended by district art teachers who are hosting Field
Experience or Student Teachers, Art Education Department faculty, university
supervisors of art majors, art education alumni, and the director and assistant director of
CTPP. Discussion takes place once per semester.
 Music Education workshops, presented by music specialists in public schools, chaired by
NJCU Music Education coordinator Janice Van Alen, sponsored by the Central New
Jersey Alumnae Chapter of Sigma Alpha Iota.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 64 of 100
Standard III
These meetings are used to share data about the performance of our candidates and graduates and
to receive feedback from the schools. As a result of these meetings, field experiences have been
designed, revised, and strengthened. For example, as a result of feedback from our partners
schools, field experiences has been improved: We have changed the day of the week of the
Junior Field Placements for Math students, for English candidates, we now do split placements
that include two school sites. We have included Saturday placements for Early Childhood
candidates. We are currently moving toward changing the grading system of the field experience
from a Pass-Fail grade to letter grades so that more feedback is given employers and there is
more accountability. Based on the data from CTPP forms that Internship students were weak in
their first few weeks, we have changed the Junior Field experience (taken the previous semester)
from an observational experience to more of an interactive teaching experience in which
candidates begin to design and implement lessons. As a result of feedback on the ELCC program
review, we have also substantially changed the Internship for Educational Leadership, defining a
greater role for the faculty supervisor, incorporating more accountability, and an emphasis on
candidate’s impact on P-12 student learning.
Element 2: Design, Implementation and Evaluation of Field Experiences
Our teacher preparation program provides our candidates with diverse and comprehensive
experiences. We have, in collaboration with our school partners and Arts & Sciences faculty,
redesigned our assessment forms to reflect our conceptual framework as well as aligning them
with regional, state and national standards. Since the last NCATE visit we have implemented a
system of assistance and remediation for candidates at risk of not meeting or maintaining all
competencies/standards. We have also created partnership districts and 9 Professional
Development Schools. Professors-In-Residence evaluated our progress in these PDS schools in
Fall 2004 using the NCATE PDS Standards as seen in the following table:
Table 3.2.1. Evaluation of Progress of Professional Development Schools by Professors-InResidence using NCATE PDS Standards, Fall 2004.
Standard I: Learning Community
Element
Criteria used to construct levels
Support Multiple Learners
Work and Practice are Inquiry-Based and Focused on
Learning
Develop a Common Shared Professional Vision of
Teaching and Learning Grounded in Research and
Practitioner Knowledge
Serve as Instrument of Change
Extended Learning Community
Averages
Standard II: Accountability and Quality Assurance
Criteria used to construct levels
Develop Professional Accountability
Assure Public Accountability
Set PDS Participation Criteria
Develop Assessments, Collect Information, and Use
Results
Engage with the PDS Context
NCATE Institutional Report
Beginning
5 (38%)
4 (31%)
3 (23%)
Developing
7 (54%)
7 (54%)
9 (69%)
At Standard
1 (8%)
2 (15%)
1 (8%)
Leading
0
0
0
3 (23%)
6 (46%)
4 (31%)
0
3 (23%)
7 (54%)
32%
8 (62%)
6 (46%)
55%
2 (15%)
0
13%
0
0
0
2 (15%)
6 (46%)
6 (46%)
7 (54%)
6 (46%)
8 (62%)
6 (46%)
5 (38%)
2 (15%)
5 (38%)
3 (23%)
1 (8%)
2 (15%)
4 (31%)
2 (15%)
0
0
0
0
0
6 (46%)
3 (23%)
4 (31%)
0
Page 65 of 100
Standard III
Averages
42%
Standard III: Collaboration – Developmental Guidelines
Criteria used to construct levels
3 (23%)
Engage in Joint Work
5 (38%)
37%
21%
0
8 (62%)
7 (54%)
2 (15%)
1 (8%)
0
0
Design Roles and Structures to Enhance
4 (31%)
Collaboration and Develop Parity
Systematically Recognize and Celebrate Joint Work
2 (15%)
and Contributions of each Partner
Averages
27%
Standard IV: Diversity and Equity – Developmental Guidelines
Criteria used to construct levels
3 (23%)
Ensure Equitable Opportunities to Learn
5 (38%)
Evaluate Policies and Practices to Support Equitable
7 (54%)
Learning Outcomes
6 (46%)
3 (23%)
0
7 (54%)
4 (31%)
0
54%
19%
0
8 (62%)
6 (46%)
5 (38%)
2 (15%)
2 (15%)
1 (8%)
0
0
0
Recruit and Support Diverse Participants
7 (54%)
4 (31%)
Averages
42%
44%
Standard V: Structures, Resources, and Roles – Developmental Guidelines
Criteria used to construct levels
3 (23%)
8 (62%)
Establish Governance and Support Structures
6 (46%)
7 (54%)
Ensure Progress Towards Goals
6 (46%)
5 (38%)
Create PDS Roles
5 (38%)
5 (38%)
Resources
5 (38%)
4 (31%)
Use Effective Communication
3 (23%)
5 (38%)
Averages
36%
44%
Totals (Means of percentages)
36%
46%
2 (15%)
13%
0
0
2 (15%)
0
0
0
0
0
1 (8%)
0
0
2 (15%)
3 (23%)
4 (31%)
4 (31%)
23%
18%
Initial candidates receive feedback from the classroom teachers and university supervisors by
means of performance assessment forms. Field Experience students are visited twice per
semester and Interns are visited every other week. Since the last NCATE visit, we have
established a comprehensive website where all assessment forms are on line with the capability
of electronic submission directly to the support staff at the CTPP. We have established both a
student’s site report as well as a university supervisor’s site report to improve the quality of the
placement sites.
Table 3.2.2 Description of Initial Field Experiences and Clinical Practice at NJCU
Program
Early
Childhood P-3
Undergraduate
&
Graduate Initial
Elementary
Undergraduate
Field Experience (Observation and
Practicum)
# of times evaluated by university supervisor
and cooperating teacher
Classroom observation one full day per week
experience in an early childhood setting (ECE
331)
• University supervisor evaluation
• Cooperating teacher evaluation
Classroom observation one full day per week
experience in an elementary setting (EDU 331)
• University supervisor evaluation
• Cooperating teacher evaluation
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 66 of 100
Clinical Experience (Student teaching
and Internship)
# of times evaluated by university
supervisor and cooperating teacher
Full-semester internship (15 weeks fulltime student teaching) in early childhood
settings (2 different placements: pre-K/K
level and grades 1/2/3) (ECE 1480 or ECE
650)
7 observation/evaluations by university
supervisor, mid and end of semester
evaluations by Cooperating teacher
15 weeks full-time student teaching in an
elementary setting. (EDU 480)
•7 observation/evaluations by university
supervisor, mid and end of semester
Standard III
Elementary &
Secondary
Graduate
evaluations by Cooperating teacher
Initial: 4 classroom observation visits. Reports evaluated by university professor. Classroom
observations tied to methodology coursework. Reports evaluated by university professor.
(EDU 650) 7 observation/evaluations by university supervisor, mid and end of semester
evaluations by Cooperating teacher
Secondary
Undergraduate
(English, Social
Studies,
Science, Math,
Spanish)
Art Education
Classroom observation one full day per week
experience in a secondary setting
• University supervisor evaluation
• Cooperating teacher evaluation
Music
Education
Classroom observation one full day per week
experience in a music education setting (EDU
331)
• University supervisor evaluation
• Cooperating teacher evaluation
Classroom observation one full day per week
experience in a health education or school nurse
setting (EDU 331)
• University supervisor evaluation
• Cooperating teacher evaluation
• Philosophy Assessment requires visit to A.H.
Moore School and an inclusive classroom
setting (SPEC 250, 409) (SPEC 508, 605, 669,
627) • Assessment for Effective Intervention
Requires Tutoring (SPEC 315) (SPEC 606)
• Junior Field Practicum Performance
Assessment Requires Observation and Two
Teaching Experiences; • University supervisor
evaluation, Cooperating teacher evaluation
• Observe two ESL classes and write
observation reports (MCC 612)
• observation of a bilingual or ESL class (MCC
605), • 25 hours of observation of ESL/bilingual
classes (MCC 617) • University supervisor
evaluation • Cooperating teacher evaluation
Health
Education and
School Nurse
Special
Education
Undergraduate
& Graduate
Bilingual/ESL
Classroom observation one full day per week
experience in an art ed setting (EDU 331)
• University supervisor evaluation
• Cooperating teacher evaluation
15 weeks full-time student teaching in a
secondary setting.
• 7 observation/evaluations by university
supervisor
• mid and end of semester evaluations by
Cooperating teacher
15 weeks full-time student teaching in an
art education setting. (ART 469)
• 7 observation/evaluations by university
supervisor, mid and end of semester
evaluations by Cooperating teacher
15 weeks full-time student teaching in
music education setting. (MDT 452)
• 7 observation/evaluations by university
supervisor, mid and end of semester
evaluations by Cooperating teacher
15 weeks full-time student teaching in a
health education setting. (HLTH 411)
• 7 observation/evaluations by university
supervisor, mid and end of semester
evaluations by Cooperating teacher
Senior Field Practicum Performance
Assessment Requires Continuous Teaching
Experiences (SPEC 409, 414) (SPEC 627,
628)
• 7 observation/evaluations by university
supervisor
• mid and end of semester evaluations by
Cooperating teacher
Full-semester internship (15 weeks fulltime student teaching) in ESL/bilingual
class (MCC 660-661)
• 7 observation/evaluations by university
supervisor, • mid and end of semester
evaluations by Cooperating teacher
Programs for Continuing Teacher and Other Professional School Personnel Candidates include
various opportunities for clinical practice and field experiences. The following charts detail the
experiences in each program.
Table 3.2.3. Practicum or Field Experiences in Advanced Programs for Continuing
Preparation of Teachers
Program
Bilingual/ESL
Urban
Field Experience or Practicum
• Observe two ESL classes and write observation reports (MCC 612)
• observation of a bilingual or ESL class (MCC 605)
• 25 hours of observation of ESL/bilingual classes (MCC 617)
EDU 616 Innovations in Teaching in the Urban Setting I. Reframing problem behaviors –
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 67 of 100
Standard III
Education
Music Ed
Early
Childhood Ed
School Health
Ed
Elementary
Reading
work with specific children; EDU 618 Innovations in Teaching in the Urban Setting II. The
underachievers project – devise intervention strategies for specific children. EDU 630
Teacher Research – data analysis of candidates’ classrooms. EDU 631 Teacher Research
Strategy – interventions based on data analysis from EDI 630.
MDT 602 Curriculum Development in Music Education. Through participation of musical
experiences in grades K-12, this course offers a study of music curriculum construction,
development of goals and objectives, and consideration of various approached and
strategies for the development f concepts and skills.
ECE 633 Seminar & Practicum in ECE. Course combines field experiences in various
types of ece programs with a seminar approach relating theory and research to practice.
Socio-economic survey of program/agency/school where candidate is employed
HLTH 609 Supervised Field Training residency. Directed, supervised field experience in
school setting. Written reports & projects and regular meetings with faculty supervisor
required.
LTED 643 Practicum in Reading. Provides opportunity to apply techniques and materials
to the teaching of reading to children with literacy problems one-to-one in a combined
classroom & laboratory setting with close supervision.
Table 3.2.4. Clinical Experiences in Programs for Other Professional School Personnel
Program
Educational
Leadership
School
Psychology
School
Counseling
Reading
Specialist
Field Experiences & Clinical Experiences
Effective Spring 2005 a one week (10 – 12 hour) field experience is embedded in all required
educational leadership courses except EDLD 668 Research in Urban Education,
Administration and Supervision. These field experiences are evaluated by the faculty teaching
the course in which the experience is embedded.
EDLD 690 Internship for Urban School Personnel I: Candidates spend 10 – 12 hours per
week in the field during this full-semester capstone internship experience. Candidates
develop an internship plan in conjunction with the university supervisor and a school-building
mentor-sponsor.
PSYC 627 45 hours shadowing a school psychologist (field experience), evaluated by field
supervisor and university faculty; PSYC 616 20 hours applied behavior analysis in schools
(field experience) evaluated by university faculty; PSYC 704 20 hours assessment of
cognitive function (field experience) evaluated by university faculty; PSYC 706 20 hours
assessment of personality function (field experience) evaluated by university faculty; PSYC
715 45 hours academic and behavioral consultation (field experience) evaluated by university
faculty
PSYC 715 20 hours program evaluation (field experience) evaluated by university faculty
PSYC 705 , 60 hours comprehensive psychological assessment, functional behavioral
assessment (field experience) evaluated by field supervisor and university faculty
Concurrent field experiences, up to 100 hours evaluated by university faculty
PSYC 708 300 hours part-time externship in schools supervised by a certified school
psychologist and university faculty; PSYC 710 280 hours, full-time summer externship in
clinical early intervention setting supervised by a certified school psychologist or a licensed
psychologist and university faculty; PSYC 709 620 hours, full-time externship in school K-12
setting supervised by a certified school psychologist and university faculty
Experiences include: planning, placement and follow-up; counseling on many different levels;
career and educational counseling; self-assessment; program assessment; and professional
development. (PSYC 694 and PSYC 695) Candidate’s self-evaluation, Field supervisor
evaluation, University supervisor evaluation
Each intern participates in two experiences: NJCU Reading Clinic (each intern works with
individual student); in a public school setting, each intern provides instruction to a student.
Reading Clinic: 16 hours; School: 30 hours
We share our conceptual framework and expectations for cooperating teachers and other school
based faculty partners. In Fall 2004 we asked principals to share with us the criteria they use to
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 68 of 100
Standard III
select cooperating teachers using a rubric based on our RUP conceptual framework. Each
semester we collect extensive data through a cooperating teacher survey (available in exhibit
room). These data have been used to create staff development for NJCU and district faculty,
including workshops on critical thinking and mentoring techniques.
Table 3.2.5. Criteria for Selecting Cooperating Teachers As Rated By Principals In
Partnership Districts.
KNOWLEDGE FOUNDATION
3: Essential
Literacy required to present their subject matter
Development and learning theory
Legal and ethical issues
Subject area content
Family & Community
PEDAGOGICAL SKILLS
Understanding motivation, behavior, learning theories, and
the use of technology
Communication techniques
Planning individualized services and instruction
Using a variety of instructional strategies
Assessing development and adapting practice
DISPOSITIONS FOR URBAN EDUCATION
A belief in the ability and potential of all urban learners
A belief in education as a vehicle for social justice
A recognition and valuing of diversity
A commitment to lifelong learning and reflection
A commitment to an ethic of caring and empathy
1: Important
6 (66%)
4 (44%)
3 (37%)
7 (77%)
3 (33%)
2: Very
Important
2 (22%)
3 (33%)
2 (25%)
1 (11%)
4 (44%)
7 (77%)
0
2 (22%)
6 (66%)
4 (44%)
7 (70%)
5 (63%)
2 (22%0
4 (44%)
2 (20%)
2 (25%)
1 (11%)
1 (11%)
1 (10%)
1 (12%)
8 (88%)
5 (55%)
7 (77%)
6 (66%)
7 (77%)
0
3 (33%)
0
1 (11%)
1 (11%)
1 (11%)
1 (11%)
2 (22%)
2 (22%)
1 (11%)
1 (11%)
2 (22%)
3 (37%)
1 (11%)
2 (22%)
Element 3: Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of
Knowledge, Skills and Disposition to Help All Students Learn
As can be seen by the Assessment System in Standard II, and the data on candidate performance
in Standard I, entry and exit criteria exist for all candidates in clinical practice. Candidates in
continuing preparation programs are assessed at the course level in field experience courses such
as practica and through action research projects in classrooms. The SPA reports and program
reviews (exhibit room, Standard I) show how assessments used in clinical practice are linked to
candidates’ competencies delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. Multiple
assessment strategies are used to evaluate candidates’ performance and effect on student
learning, most typically portfolio assessments. The RUP Performance Evaluation is used by
candidates, cooperating teachers, university supervisors and principals for unit level assessment
of candidate performance of field experiences. Our field experiences and clinical practice
provide time for reflection and feedback from peers through concurrent seminars and courses
held during field experiences and Internships. As can be seen in our documentation in Standard
IV, all candidates participate in field experiences that include students with exceptionalities and
students from diverse ethnic, racial, gender, and socioeconomic groups. Data on candidate
performance for all field experiences can be found in the exhibit room in Standard I.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 69 of 100
Standard III
Standard IV: Diversity
New Jersey City University and the College of Education have a
long-standing commitment to diversity. Diversity is at the heart
of New Jersey City University’s mission statement and is an
essential element of the university’s Reflective Urban
Practitioner Model.
The institution is most proud of its diverse administration,
faculty, and student body. (At the leadership level, eight of
fourteen cabinet members are people of color; eight are women.)
The College of Education is equally proud of its efforts and
accomplishments in this area: diversity is reflected in the unit’s
conceptual framework, institutional standards and outcomes,
assessments, candidates, faculty, staff, curriculum, and field
experiences.
During its last NCATE review, the College of Education at New
Jersey City University was recognized for its diversity and
emphasis on multicultural education. Since then, the College of
Education has continued its efforts in multiculturalism/diversity
to ensure that teacher candidates apply professional and
pedagogical knowledge and skills to become competent to work with all students, parents, and
colleagues. Multicultural and diversity issues are reflected in the beliefs that are at the
foundation of the College of Education’s conceptual framework as well as in curricula and
academic programming
Element 1: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and
Experiences
New Jersey City University has historically emphasized the importance of diversity in informing
pedagogy. Course curricula have included numerous opportunities for candidates to recognize
cultural diversity in the classroom and to plan lessons that build upon the rich backgrounds of
students.
Table 4.1.1. Sample of Diversity Experiences in Required Courses for Initial Candidates
Course
ECE 210 Young Children’s
Behavior, Learning And
Development
EDU 250 Education Challenge
LTED 270 Emerging Literacy
SPEC 414 Teaching Seminar in
Special Ed
ART 202 Philosophies of Art
EDU 361 Elementary Social
Studies Methods
NCATE Institutional Report
Experiences/Assessments
Child observation in urban setting and reflection on observation for
future implications to meet the needs of all children
Community Study. Intensive sociological study of diverse communities.
Study of the impact of family literacy on urban children’s literacy
development, including English language learners
Philosophy paper addressing the influence of language and culture on
perceptions
Study of world aesthetic theories
Learning Log: Preparing children to live in a global and culturally
diverse world.
Page 70 of 100
Standard IV
SPEC 506 Multicultural
Education in Special Education
ECE 634 Family, child and
community relationships
EDU 684 Integrating
Curriculum and Instruction:
Including Diverse Populations
MCC 627 Historical and
Cultural Backgrounds of LEP
Students
HLTH 415 Family Living and
Sex Education
Junior field experiences both at
undergraduate and graduate
level
Internship at undergraduate and
graduate level
Study of ethnic and socioeconomic issues in urban education.
Development of a family resource file that will address an area of family,
child, and community relationships with particular attention to working
with families with diverse needs
Familiarize candidates with characteristics of diverse environments,
including special needs students – design a student-centered,
multidimensional learning environment. Assessment to modify and adapt
lessons plans for culturally diverse and/or ESL/BILINGUAL students.
Sociological and cultural study of language minority students. Cultural
module: Presentation on different cultures that candidates serve in their
classrooms.
Group research paper focusing on developing countries: AIDS
Education, gender bias, etc.
Plan and implement lesson plans in a diverse classroom setting.
Plan and implement lesson plans and assessments in a diverse classroom
setting in various grade levels.
Table 4.1.2. Sample of Diversity Experiences in Required Courses for Continuing Teacher
Candidates
COURSES WHERE TAUGHT
ECE 632 Advanced Early
Childhood Curriculum And
Programs
EDU 692 Urban Curriculum
LTED 603 Solving Reading
Problems of the Urban Learner
MDT 604 Research in Music
Education
HLTH 629 Health Education
Theory and Practice
MCC 650 Research in Urban
Education – ESL/Bilingual
HOW ASSESSED
Development and implementation of an assessment system that will
address appropriate assessment of all children.
Devise a curriculum program aligned to and evaluated according to the
CREDE (Center for Research and Excellence & Diversity in Education)
Standards.
Diagnosis, treatment, methods, and materials for remedial and bilingual
situations, interrelationships between cultural, social, and psychological
processes related to the language arts.
Candidates develop an understanding of how research fits into advanced
training into urban music education and into professional life in general
Candidates translate general principles of health education and learning
theory to their own community setting.
Action research paper with candidates from diverse settings on topic
relevant to multicultural/bilingual education.
Table 4.1.3. Sample of Diversity Standards in Required Courses for Other Professional School
Personnel Candidates
Courses
EDTC 621 Using the Internet in
Education
EDLD 668 Research in Urban
Education, Supervision, and
Administration
PSYC 629 Multicultural
Counseling (School Psychology)
PSYC 625/6280 Group Processes
and Processes of Group
Counseling (School Guidance)
LTED 643 Practicum in Reading
NCATE Institutional Report
Experiences/Assessments
Design a professional development workshop to help teachers to utilize
technology to expand students’ knowledge of different cultures using
primary and secondary sources.
Quantitative research proposal based upon a current local educational
issue affecting their urban school district.
Monthly reflection paper on cultural immersion activity; Research paper
proposal on one visible ethnic minority group.
Explore the role that social and cultural factors play in group counseling,
including a grasp of issues pertaining to group counseling in a
multicultural context
Hands-on diagnostic evaluation of an urban child preparing diagnostic
Page 71 of 100
Standard IV
portfolio from that data which includes study of ethnic, language, and
cultural background influences.
A recent study (2003) conducted by Basanti D. Chakraborty, Assistant Professor in NJCU’s
Department of Early Childhood Education, investigated the role of liberal arts education in
developing multicultural awareness among the prospective teacher candidates at NJCU. Her
research, presented at AERA in April 2003, found that of 201 students surveyed, 93% reported
exposure to issues of multiculturalism and diversity in their class discussions and activities.
Among those activities reported by survey respondents:
 investigations of stereotypes in many education classes
 explorations of “white prejudice” in various general studies and education classes
 role-playing focused on intercultural issues and doing conflict resolution in cross-cultural
situations
 writing research papers on issues of diversity in general studies and education classes
 comparing and contrasting families from different cultures
 observing and interviewing families from other cultures and writing reports about the
experience
 visiting self-contained and inclusion classrooms to observe special needs children
 writing reflection papers on anti–bias curriculum
 discussing gay and lesbian issues in the k-12 classroom
 reading books that discuss gay and lesbian parents and situations (e.g., Heather Has Two
Mommies, Daddy’s Roommate, Losing Uncle Tim)
 watching documentaries on issues of diversity and writing reflection papers
 developing lesson plans incorporating teaching about multiculturalism
 planning or attending multicultural festivities (e.g., Chinese New Year party)
 developing outreach programs and lesson plans aimed at building relationships with parents of
diverse backgrounds
 reading books related to current issues in diversity and multiculturalism in education and in
society
 reading and discussing controversial books (e.g., Nappy Hair, People, Stars in the Darkness)
 preparing annotated bibliographies on multicultural children’s literature in literacy education
classes
 creating lesson plans that are sensitive to the linguistic backgrounds of students
 interviewing peers of different backgrounds
Unit faculty members have also developed rubrics to accompany assignments. Additionally, the
Diversity Committee has been developing a rubric to assess student dispositions. The newly
formed Student Affairs Committee had been charged with developing a plan for assessing
dispositions and will also be given this rubric to consider.
Table 4.1.4. Candidate Proficiency Rubric (in Development) for Working with Students from
Diverse Backgrounds
Unacceptable
Candidate is unaware of the
university’s definition of
cultural diversity.
NCATE Institutional Report
Acceptable
Candidate is aware of the
university’s definition of cultural
diversity.
Page 72 of 100
Target
Candidate accepts the university’s
definition of cultural diversity.
Standard IV
Candidate does not have a
definition of diversity that
actually represents true
diversity.
Candidate does not have
knowledge of diverse cultural
backgrounds.
Candidate does not understand
how students’ learning is
influenced by culture, language,
community, and family.
Candidate does not understand
how students from diverse
cultural backgrounds construct
knowledge.
Candidate views students from
diverse cultural backgrounds
from a “deficit paradigm.”
Candidate does not set high
expectations for students from
diverse backgrounds.
Candidate has a definition of
diversity that recognizes learners
from diverse backgrounds.
Candidate has a definition of
diversity that values the strengths of
learners from diverse backgrounds.
Candidate has knowledge of
diverse cultural backgrounds.
Candidate has experience with and
exposure to students of diverse
cultural backgrounds.
Candidate plans lessons that are
mindful of how students’ learning is
influenced by culture, language,
community and family.
Candidate plans lessons which
activate and build upon the
knowledge base of students from
diverse cultural backgrounds.
Candidate involves students from
diverse cultural backgrounds in
learning experiences that build upon
their strengths.
Candidate sets high expectations for
students from diverse backgrounds
and supports them in reaching those
expectations.
Candidate actively encourages and
invites the participation of students
from diverse cultural backgrounds.
Candidate understands how
students’ learning is influenced
by culture, language,
community, and family.
Candidate understands how
students from diverse cultural
backgrounds construct
knowledge.
Candidate views students from
diverse cultural backgrounds
from a paradigm that supports
learning.
Candidate sets high expectations
for students from diverse
backgrounds.
Candidate does not value the
participation of families of
students from diverse cultural
backgrounds.
Candidate does not understand
the processes of second
language acquisition for
students whose first language is
not English.
Candidate is not sensitive to
cultural and community norms.
Candidate values the
participation of families of
students from diverse cultural
backgrounds.
Candidate understands the
processes of second language
acquisition for students whose
first language is not English.
Candidate does not demonstrate
respect for the diversity of
learners.
Candidate does not foster a
learning environment that is
anti-discriminatory.
Candidate demonstrates respect
for the diversity of learners.
Candidate is sensitive to cultural
and community norms.
Candidate fosters a learning
environment that is antidiscriminatory.
Candidate plans instruction that uses
strategies to support second
language acquisition for students
whose first language is not English.
Candidate plans lessons that are
sensitive to cultural and community
norms.
Candidate builds a community of
diverse learners who respect one
another.
Candidate plans lessons that foster a
learning environment that promotes
tolerance and acceptance.
Element 2: Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty
Analysis of the racial and ethnic diversity of the unit faculty shows that we are more diverse than
the NJCU faculty as a whole but we do not have the same diversity in our student body. Based
on this data, the Unit is making a more serious effort to specifically recruit qualified Hispanic
faculty, including establishing a diversity committee to make recommendations to search
committees and work closely with the Affirmative Action office to ensure that searches have
adequate candidate pools. We are also actively and aggressively seeking qualified adjuncts from
diverse backgrounds.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 73 of 100
Standard IV
Table 4.2.1. Racial/Ethnic Background, and Gender of Professional Ed Faculty as of Fall
2004
Nonresident alien (international)
Black, Non-Hispanic
Asian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
Total Men
Nonresident alien (international)
Black, Non-Hispanic
Asian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
Total Women
Men
Education Unit
Full-time
Part-time
(Not Adjunct)
0
0
3 (18%)
0
0
1 (100%)
1 (6%)
0
13 (76%)
0
17
1
Women
Education Unit
0
0
11 (27%)
0
2 (5%)
0
4 (10%)
0
23 (58%)
2 (100%)
40
2
0
3 (6%)
1 (3%)
3 (6%)
40 (85%)
47
NJCU
University
Overall
0
17 (11%)
6 (5%)
6 (5%)
111 (79%)
140
0
10 (20%)
0
5 (11%)
34 (69%)
49
NJCU
0
18 (19%)
5 (5%)
8 (8%)
66 (68%)
97
Adjunct
Figure 4.2.2. Racial/Ethnic Background of Full-time and Adjunct Unit Faculty
Professional Ed Unit Full-time Faculty
Professional Ed Unit Part-time/Adjunct Faculty
13%
25%
2%
Black, non-Hispanic
4%
62%
9%
8%
Black, non-Hispanic
Asian or Pacific Islander
Asian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic
Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
77%
Element 3: Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates
A long-time strength of New Jersey City University’s Professional Education Unit is its
culturally diverse candidate population. These candidates, most from urban communities rich
with diversity, have demonstrated their ability to work with students of varying backgrounds and
abilities. NJCU continues to reach out to students from diverse backgrounds: the Union City
Summer Scholars Program (for high school students considering a career in education),
University Academy Charter School (the charter high school affiliated with NJCU), Upward
Bound, Opportunity Scholarship Program, Proyecto Access, and Project Mentor (for students
with learning disabilities). Additionally, faculty and student representatives make frequent visits
to local high schools and work with Guidance Counselors to recruit diverse students for postsecondary studies at NJCU.
Once on campus, there are many opportunities for students to become involved in the
experiencing the diversity of the university. There are student representatives to NJCU’s Board
of Trustees and students of diverse backgrounds serve in elected positions in the SGO, the
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 74 of 100
Standard IV
Student Government Organization. Students may also participate in various student
interest/activity groups. Some of those groups include: the Lee Hagan Africana Studies Center
(offering programs focused on the African experience), African Students Association, Black
Freedom Society, Caribbean Students Association, Haitian Student Association, International
Student Association, and GLBTFA (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Friends
Association).
Table 4.3.1. Racial/Ethnic Background and Gender of all NJCU Students (*Less than 1%)
NJCU Undergraduate Enrollment
Full-time
52
328
5
184
469
615
25
1678
NJCU Undergraduate Enrollment
Women
Full-time
Nonresident alien (international)
33
Black, non-Hispanic
484
American Indian or Alaskan Native
4
Asian or Pacific Islander
237
Hispanic
894
White, non-Hispanic
737
Race/ethnicity unknown
32
Total Women
2421
NJCU Graduate Enrollment
Men
Full-time
Nonresident alien (international)
0
Black, non-Hispanic
4
American Indian or Alaskan Native
0
Asian or Pacific Islander
2
Hispanic
6
White, non-Hispanic
13
Race/ethnicity unknown
2
Total Men
27
NJCU Graduate Enrollment
Women
Full-time
Nonresident alien (international)
0
Black, non-Hispanic
14
American Indian or Alaskan Native
0
Asian or Pacific Islander
4
Hispanic
16
White, non-Hispanic
32
Race/ethnicity unknown
14
Total Women
80
Men
Nonresident alien (international)
Black, non-Hispanic
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
Race/ethnicity unknown
Total Men
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 75 of 100
Part-time
13
132
0
86
197
322
13
763
Totals
2.7%
18.8%
*
11%
27%
38%
1.6%
100%
Part-time
17
325
1
86
417
453
28
1327
Totals
1.3%
21.6%
*
8.6%
35%
31.8%
1.6%
100%
Part-time
2
64
1
20
90
503
95
775
Totals
*
8.4%
*
2.7%
12%
64.3%
12%
100%
Part-time
3
190
2
69
346
1175
248
2033
Totals
*
9.7%
*
3.5%
17.1%
57.1%
12.4%
100%
Standard IV
Table 4.3.2. Racial/Ethnic Background and Gender of Education Candidates (*Less than 1%)
Men
NJCU COE Undergraduate Program Enrollment
Full-time
Part-time
Nonresident alien (international)
0
0
Black, non-Hispanic
54
21
American Indian or Alaskan Native
0
0
Asian or Pacific Islander
10
5
Hispanic
66
16
White, non-Hispanic
106
38
Race/ethnicity unknown
5
0
Total Men
241
80
NJCU COE Undergraduate Program Enrollment
Women
Full-time
Part-time
Nonresident alien (international)
0
0
Black, non-Hispanic
103
51
American Indian or Alaskan Native
1
0
Asian or Pacific Islander
44
6
Hispanic
201
64
White, non-Hispanic
228
89
Race/ethnicity unknown
7
5
Total Women
584
215
NJCU COE Graduate Program Enrollment
Men
Full-time
Part-time
Nonresident alien (international)
0
0
Black, non-Hispanic
5
51
American Indian or Alaskan Native
0
0
Asian or Pacific Islander
1
8
Hispanic
7
65
White, non-Hispanic
15
438
Race/ethnicity unknown
2
58
Total Men
30
620
NJCU COE Graduate Program Enrollment
Women
Full-time
Part-time
Nonresident alien (international)
0
0
Black, non-Hispanic
17
155
American Indian or Alaskan Native
0
0
Asian or Pacific Islander
4
61
Hispanic
25
324
White, non-Hispanic
40
1002
Race/ethnicity unknown
17
198
Total Women
103
1740
Total
Percentages
0
23.4%
0
4.6%
25.5%
44.9%
1.6%
100%
Totals
0
19.3%
*
6.3%
33.2%
39.7%
1.5%
100%
Totals
0
8.5%
0
1.3%
11.1%
70%
9.1%
100%
Totals
0
9.3%
0
3.5%
18.9%
56.5%
11.8%
100%
Element 4: Experiences Working with Diverse Students in P-12 Schools
New Jersey City University is nestled in Hudson County, New Jersey, less than one mile from
New York City. According to 2000 U.S. Census Bureau data, more than 600,000 people live in
the county. While Whites still embody the largest population group at over 300,000, over 2/3 of
that group identify themselves as of Hispanic background. Blacks comprise 13.5% of the
population, totaling over 80,000. Asians of Indian and Filipino descent together make up over
seven percent of the population. Other Asian groups bring the total Asian presence in Hudson
County to 9.4%, or 57,000 people. American Indian, Native Hawaiian, persons of mixed
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 76 of 100
Standard IV
heritage, and other ethnic groups contribute more than 15% additional to the total population. For
the past several years, the Unit has established “partnership relationships” with many of the
school districts within Hudson County and within the surrounding communities bordering
Hudson County. Candidates do their internships in the partnership school districts, most of which
are located in urban, multicultural settings. The following chart shows the ethnic and socioeconomic background of the students in our partnership districts.
Table 4.4.1. Ethnic and Socio-economic background of students in partnership districts
District
Bayonne
Harrison
Jersey City
Secaucus
Union City
West New York
Hoboken
North Arlington
Newark
# of
Schools
13
3
47
4
13
8
6
5
80
Enrollment
8,636
1,824
31,511
1,915
10,393
6,390
2,297
1,549
41,873
Student Ethnicity
White
61%
40%
9%
63%
4%
4%
15%
84%
9%
Hisp.
27%
53%
39%
19%
94%
94%
66%
11%
31%
Black
8%
1%
37%
1%
1%
1%
16%
1%
60%
Asian
4%
6%
13%
17%
1%
2%
2%
4%
1%
Relative
Wealth
Indicator
Abbott
68%
73%
30%
90%
21%
47%
32%
92%
24%
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Ind.
1%
Standard V. Faculty Qualifications, Performance and Development
Element 1. Qualified Faculty
Unit faculty members are qualified and model best practice in teaching,
scholarship, and service. They are responsible for teaching, clinical
supervision, academic advisement, service, and research/scholarship. In
Fall 2004, the unit consisted of 45 full-time tenure track faculty
members in the College of Education; including three full-time faculty
members in Arts and Sciences with dual assignment to teacher
education, 12 faculty outside the COE who teach education methods
courses, 2 Teachers-In-Residence, and 96 adjunct faculty teaching
professional education courses. There are no positions at NJCU for nontenure track faculty, however we do hire faculty on a one-year
temporary basis. Five of the current faculty members are temporary as we conduct searches for
permanent replacements this spring. Data for Standard V includes all unit faculty members with
adjunct data reported separately.
The tenure track full-time faculty members have diverse professional backgrounds comprising
pre-school through 12th grade experiences as educators and administrators, including former
positions as aides, teachers, principals, directors, school counselors, school psychologists, and
superintendents. Unit faculty have relevant preparation and experience in their assigned areas of
teaching, including terminal degrees (89.6% have doctorates, and this percentage will increase
by the end of the semester to 93.8%), relevant licenses and/or certifications and previous
experience in P-12 settings. The percentage of Unit faculty with doctoral degrees is higher than
that of the university as a whole.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 77 of 100
Standard IV
Table 5.1.1. P-12 Certifications Held by Unit Faculty
Certification Numbers
At least 1
At least 2
At least 3
At least 4
5 or more
Full-time Faculty
36
26
19
8
9
Part-time Faculty
52
47
33
20
12
Table 5.1.2. Previous Experience as a Teacher in P-12 Settings
Years of Experience
1-5
6-10
11-15
15+
Full-time Faculty
17
11
4
7
Part-time Faculty
11
15
6
19
Table 5.1.3 Previous Experience as a P-12 Teacher in URBAN Settings
Years of Experience
1-5
6-10
11-15
15+
Full-time Faculty
14
11
4
8
Part-time Faculty
12
19
4
10
Table 5.1.4. Previous Experience in P-12 Settings in Other Professional School Personnel
Roles
Years of Experience
1-5
6-10
11-15
15+
Full-time Faculty
10
1
0
9
Part-time Faculty
10
4
6
18
Table 5.1.5. Degree Status, Full-time Faculty as of May 2005
NJCU
College of Education
Doctorate
194 (80.5%)
45 (93.8%)
Masters
47 (19.5%)
3 (6.2%)
Total
241 (100%)
48 (100%)
The Unit has placed 11 faculty members as Professors-in-Residence in our 9 Professional
Development Schools. The College of Education hires adjunct instructors and adjunct clinical
supervisors with extensive expertise in the education field. Many adjunct instructors are current
public school educators and administrators while adjunct clinical supervisors are usually retired
public school educators and administrators. All adjunct instructors and clinical supervisors hold
at least masters degrees with 31% percent having earned doctorates.
The Unit has been successful in recruiting and retaining faculty members representative of the
diversity among people in society and has representation of women, ethnic and linguistic
minorities, religions, and people with physical disabilities, and differing sexual preferences. (See
Standard 4)
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 78 of 100
Standard V
Element 2. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching
The College of Education hires faculty with demonstrable expertise as educators, educational
administrators, or educational specialists; with terminal degrees; and with the potential to teach
effectively. Research is also a critical component of the COE and its curriculum. Research data
are current and are used by faculty and candidates in course lectures and in group and individual
class presentations. Faculty attend and present at local, state, national, and international
conferences, workshops, and seminars. Teaching effectiveness is assessed through course
evaluations and surveys of program graduates completed by candidates.
Table 5.2.1 Practices Incorporated into Teaching as Reported in COE Faculty Survey Fall
2004
Full-time Faculty Practices
(% of faculty who responded in
each category)
Often
Occasionally
Seldom
No
Response
N
36
45
%
64.3
80.4
N
3
6
%
2.4
4.8
N
0
1
%
0.0
0.8
N
17
4
%
13.6
3.2
37
66.1
12
9.6
4
3.2
3
2.4
27
48.2
18
14.4
7
5.6
4
3.2
22
39.3
20
16.0
9
7.2
5
4.0
31
55.4
17
13.6
4
3.2
4
3.2
40
71.4
11
8.8
1
0.8
4
3.2
43
76.8
9
7.2
0
0.0
4
3.2
46
82.1
5
4.0
2
1.6
3
2.4
35
62.5
15
12.0
3
2.4
3
2.4
Disposition discussions and
assessments as integral to course
37
66.1
15
12.0
0
0.0
4
3.2
NJCU College of Education
Conceptual Framework
26
46.4
21
16.8
5
4.0
4
3.2
Performance Assessment
Multiple Assessment Measures
Modifications to reflect urban and
multicultural issues
Modification of lesson plans to
reflect special needs issues
Incorporation of linguistic elements
as integral to course
Incorporation of technology as
integral to course
Strategies for visual or auditory
learning
Use of performance assessments to
modify lessons in the course
Incorporation of urban experiences
as integral to course
Family & community experiences as
integral to course
Table 5.2.2. Instructional Strategies Reported by COE Faculty
Strategy (% of faculty
responding in each category)
Cooperative Learning
Small Group Work
Technology
Lecture
Discussion
NCATE Institutional Report
Often
N
41
52
32
26
51
%
73.2
92.9
57.1
46.4
91.1
Page 79 of 100
Occasionally
N
%
3
5.4
1
1.8
17
30.4
19
33.9
3
5.4
Seldom
N
%
0
0.0
1
1.8
3
5.4
9
16.1
0
0.0
Standard V
Visiting Presenters /Experts
Audo-visual Elements
7
33
12.5
58.9
22
16
39.3
28.6
23
5
41.1
8.9
Faculty demonstration of competence with technology is described later in this standard. They
infuse knowledge and skills in the classroom by using “smart classrooms” with advanced
technology to facilitate candidate’s learning. A significant proportion of classes are taught online (13.4%).
Element 3. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship
Faculty demonstrate strong scholarship in three areas: (1) publications, (2) conference
presentations, and (3) grantsmanship as they relate to teaching, learning, their field of
specialization, and the conceptual framework. During the past five years, collectively, faculty
contributed to the profession by producing publications (including books, book chapters, peerreviewed journal articles, and journal editorships); making numerous conference presentations at
state, regional, national, and international conferences and receiving federal, state, and private
grants. Detailed information is available in the Exhibit Room.
Table 5.3.1.Conference Presentations As Summarized from Faculty Survey of Fall 2004
Type of Presentation
Number of Presentations
Regional
State
National
International
36
31
35
21
Percent of Total Faculty
Making Such
Presentations
64.3%
55.4%
62.5%
37.5%
An analysis of the aggregated data for non-tenured faculty reappointment reviews showed a
relative weakness in scholarly publications compared to the strengths in teaching and service.
Although faculty members were making research presentations at conferences, they were not yet
publishing their work. As a result, the unit has developed a COE Writers Group, a Faculty
Research Group, and provided a 3-day Faculty Research Workshop in Summer of 2004. The
Deans and department chairs meet regularly with non-tenured faculty to mentor their
scholarship.
The College of Education’s grantsmanship is the strongest in the university. During the past five
years, funded grants supported research and service in many areas, including teacher content
preparation in math and science, professional development, and recruitment of special education
teachers, to mention a few. Most of these programs have their foundations on strong partnerships
with local school districts, resulting in benefits of faculty expertise and resources being extended
to educators, students, and their parents, as well as benefits to candidates as they grapple with
contemporary problems and become part of the solution.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 80 of 100
Standard V
Table 5.3.2. College of Education Grants Summary Report 2000-2005
Title & Description
Partners/ Schools
Funder
Project Directors &
Faculty Involved
Project TEAM: Recruiting
and Training Culturally
Diverse Preservice Special
Educators to Serve
Children with Low
Incidence Disabilities
Project PEERS: Recruiting
and Training Bilingual
Students into a Full-Time
Interdisciplinary Bilingual
Special Education
Graduate Program
Early Childhood SMART
Program: Eisenhower
Professional Development
Program
• MCC Dept &
Spec Ed Dept.
• Regional Day
School, Jersey City
• A. Harry Moore
School
Jersey City Public
Schools/ A. Harry
Moore School
Depts. of Spec. Ed
& Multi-cultural
Ed
Jersey City, Perth
Amboy, Newark
Public Schools
• 75 teachers
USDOE
$560,966
2001-2004
Tracey Amerman, SPEC
Mihri Napoliello
MCC
USDOE
$799,553
1999-2003
NJDOE
$470,940
2001-2003
Teacher Preparation
Quality and Capacity
Collaboration with
Arts & Sciences
Teacher Effectiveness
Grant: Early Childhood
Project Success
• Hudson Country
Comm College
• 65 Teachers
Jersey City • 9
schools
• JCPS Teacher In
Residence
• 3 Professors-In-
NJ Comm.
Higher Ed
$473,975
2001-2005
NJ
Commission
on Higher
Ed
$669,001
2001-2004
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 81 of 100
Contribution to the
development of quality
graduates
Scholarships for minority
students for full time
graduate program in LowIncidence Disabilities
Institutionalization
Brian Hurwitz,
SPEC
Mihri Napoliello
MCC
Scholarships for minority
students in Masters
Program for Special Ed/
Bilingual Education
Special Ed with Bilingual
certification program available
through MA in Special Ed
Ken Counselman ECE
• Althea Hall, EDU
• Lila Carrick, ECE
• Ikechukwu Ukeje, ECE
• Jody Eberly, ECE
• Debbie Bennett, EDU
• Ken Yamaguchi, EDU
• Chris Shamburg, EDTC
Muriel Rand, COE
• improved science &
math content knowledge
of teachers
• improved technology
skills of teachers
• Digital videocameras,
instructional materials, still
cameras purchased for schools
and NJCU faculty
• developed instructional library
• improved instructional delivery
in math, science, technology
• Lead to other funding
Six new faculty and one staff
member positions maintained by
NJCU
Jo-Anne Mecca, CTPP
• Matt Caulfield ECE
• Meg Rothberg ECE
• Muriel Rand COE
• Stephanie Robinson
ED TRUST
• Kathy Tague, ECE
• Lila Carrick LTED
Provided funds for 6 new
faculty, one staff member
and professional
development for faculty
• New Course on
Strategies for Successful
Teaching
• Training for 65 teachers
and 12 NJCU faculty in
Standards in Practice
• Counselor for P-3
recruitment
Standard V
Three courses designed for
Project TEAM: SPEC 629;
SPEC 602; SPEC 601
• New Course continues
• Articulation agreements
• Counseling materials
• Resource center in place
• Teacher-In-Residence
permanently funded
• Professor-In-Residence
program expanded
Title & Description
GAINS (Gaining
Achievement in the New
Standards) Program for
Social Studies and Visual
and Performing Arts
Folger Shakespeare Library
GOALS 2000 Professional
Development School
Program
Project Mentor: Regional
Center for Students with
Learning Disabilities
Charter School Planning
Grant
NJCU America Reads
Emotional Development in
Low SES Children
Title VI International
Education: Reaching
Across Borders
NCATE Institutional Report
Partners/ Schools
Residence
• Education Trust
75 Public School
Districts statewide
• 110 teachers
• 250+ parents
Funder
NJDOE
$500,897
2001-2002
Project Directors &
Faculty Involved
• Leanne Alexandrini
HCCC
Muriel Rand, COE
William Librera EDLD
Cathy Shevey EDLD
Winifred McNeil ART
Janice Van Allen MUSIC
Judy Glies EDU
Audrey Fisch
EDU & English
Chris Shamburg
EDTC
Contribution to the
development of quality
graduates
• Early Childhood
Resource Center
Produced videotapes and
training materials for
teachers and parents,
carried out parent training
in approx 75 school
districts
Preservice teachers,
recent grads, and teachers
from partnership districts,
attend a professional
workshop.
Jersey City:
Lincoln H.S.
Dickinson H.S.
Snyder H.S.
Hudson County
Prep Academy 1
North Arlington
and Lodi Schools
25 teachers
Local high schools
throughout NJ
Geraldine
Dodge
Foundation
$2159
NJDOE
$173,709
2000-2002
NJ Comm
$400,000
1999-2004
Jo Anne Juncker
ECE
University
Academy Charter
High School
Jersey City Public
Schools
NJDOE
$200,000
2002-2003
NJCU
Foundation
$6,200
2000-2002
NIMH
$243,158
2000-04
USDOE
$171,000
2002-04
Muriel Rand, COE
Chris Shamburg EDTC
Jill Lewis, LTED
Fran Levin, LTED
Develop a partnership to
support field placements,
and recruit future students
Provides field experiences
for Literacy Education
students
Ikechukwu Ukeje
ECE
Extended faculty
knowledge base about
children’s development
Newark Early
Childhood Centers
Page 82 of 100
Jennifer Aitken
Allan DeFina
LTED
Started Professional
Development School
program
Provides diagnostic
testing, tutoring, and
accommodations
Donna Farina
MCC
Standard V
Institutionalization
• Professional development
materials left in each school
Videotapes, trainers manuals,
website, and cadre of trained
teachers available statewide
Preservice teachers interact with
current teachers in the field;
recent graduates give us
feedback; relationships with
teachers from partnership
districts
partnership with North
Arlington, provided extensive
technology materials to school
Project Director now funded as
permanent position, summer
program and some tutoring
funded by NJCU
Formal partnership agreement
between UACHS and NJCU
Partnerships with local schools
to provide tutoring services
Faculty have become more
knowledgeable & teaching has
improved
Curriculum in courses has been
permanently changed
Title & Description
A Specialization of
Teaching ESL in Higher
Education
Project Diversity:
Recruiting and Training
Culturally Diverse Students
into Full-Time Interdisciplinary Bilingual/
Special Education
Undergraduate Program
Black British Students in
the Victorian Period
Teacher Effectiveness
Grant: Developing Positive
Behavioral and Academic
Support within a Secondary
Special Education Setting
Partners/ Schools
Candidates
participate in a fullyear, two days per
week field
experience in the
Union City Public
Schools
• Hudson Country
Comm College
• Snyder High
School, Jersey City
•126 teachers
Application of X-Ray
Early Learning
Improvement Consortium
Project TELL: Teaching
English Language Learners
in the General Education
Classroom
NCATE Institutional Report
Jersey City,
Newark, Union
City Public
Schools
Hudson County
CC; Passaic
County CC; Jersey
City, Paterson,
Passaic, Union
City, West New
York Schools
• 100 teachers
Funder
Project Directors &
Faculty Involved
NJ Comm
49,986
2002-04
US DOE
799,964
2002-06
NJ Research
Grant
2002-03
NJ
Commission
on Higher
Ed
796,158
2002-2005
US Dept of
Defense
NJDOE
149,000
2002-2007
USDOE
1,500,340
2002-2006
Page 83 of 100
Institutionalization
Vesna Radanovic
MCC
Clyde Coreil ESL
Brian Hurwitz
SPEC & Mihri Napoliello,
MCC
Contribution to the
development of quality
graduates
Developed new program
for teaching ESL in
higher ed programs
Scholarships for
undergraduate special
education candidates to
graduate with cert in ESL
and/or Bilingual
Education and SPEC
Audrey Fisch
ENG
Improvement in faculty
content knowledge
Improved faculty knowledge
Andrew McCabe
SPEC
• Mary Alice McCoullough,
LTED
• Basanti Chakraborty, ECE
• Brandi Herring
• Brian Hurwitz SPEC
Ken Yamaguchi
CHEM
Sai Jabunathan ECE
Jo Anne Juncker ECE
Matthew Caulfield ECE
• 8 courses offered to
inservice teachers
• Technology training
• In-class support from
Professors-In-Residence
• recruitment of minority
special ed candidates
Improvement in faculty
content knowledge
• Training graduate
students to use assessment
instruments to evaluate P3
language competence
Increase # of Preservice
teachers licensed to work
with LEP students in
urban schools
• Established Freshman
Academy with NJCU
• Professors-In-Residence
• Professional Development
School begun
• Special Ed Articulation
Agreement with HCCC
Improved faculty knowledge
Elba Herrero, MCC
• John Klosek MCC
• Ramundo Mora HCCC
• Miriam EisensteinEbsworth, PCCC
• Rogelio Suarez HCCC
• Thomas Ramsden PCCC
Standard V
New courses developed, faculty
knowledge increased
New curriculum program
developed as permanent option
for undergrad students
• Faculty trained in assessment
and research procedures
• Statewide partnership with 5
institutions
Establish Career Ladder for ESL
Certification; Establish new
degree track
Title & Description
Partners/ Schools
Funder
Project Directors &
Faculty Involved
Transition to Teaching:
New Jersey Consortium for
Urban Education (NJCUE)
Montclair State
Univ; Kean Univ;
Wm Paterson
Univ.; Jersey City,
Paterson, Newark
Public Schools
USDOE
NJCU:
$615,000
2002-2007
Title V: Developing
Hispanic Serving
Institutions Cooperative
Arrangement Grant:
Improving the Pipeline for
Latinos in Education
Summer Scholars Program:
Bilingual Scholars, Future
Educators/ Humanities
Scholars, Scholars for
Social Justice
• Hudson County
Community
College
• Passaic County
Community
College
Union City
Jersey City
Irvington School
Districts
• 155 high school
students
• Jersey City Public
Schools
• 3 schools
USDOE
$3,004,330
2002-2007
Ivan Banks, COE
• Althea Hall, EDU
• Chris Shamburg EDTC
• Jill Lewis LTED
• Darrell Cleveland EDU
• Frederick Hill EDLD
• Muriel Rand, COE
• Reid Taylor SPEC
David Trujillo, OGSP
• Lila Carrick LTED
• Carrie Robinson EDLD
• Andrew McCabe SPEC
Improving Teacher Quality
Partnership Grant
NCATE Institutional Report
Union City
Public
Schools
$155,000
2000present
NJDOE
540,000
2003-2005
Page 84 of 100
Carrie Robinson EDLD
Mihri Napoliello MCC
• Althea Hall, EDU
• Hugo Morales
Ken Counselman, ECE
• Lila Carrick LTED
• Althea Hall, EDU
• Ken Yamaguchi,
EDU/CHEM
• Chris Shamburg EDTC
• Debbie Bennett
EDU/MATH
Contribution to the
development of quality
graduates
• 60 new teachers
working in urban school
districts
• New alternate route
curriculum developed
Institutionalization
Faculty development on
working with ESL
students in regular
classroom, improved
coordination of student
services
• Developed college level
courses and intensive
summer program for
advanced high school
students
Improved faculty skills and
attitudes, articulated programs
with Hudson CCC and Passaic
CCC
• Improved content
knowledge of teachers in
math and science
• establishment of student
teaching placement in
PDS schools
• Three PDSs established
• Development of DVD
Instructional Library
• Instructional Classroom
Materials
• Development of technology
suite; cameras, scanners
Standard V
• Established new graduate level
alternate route program
• Established consortium with
other institutions
Program is completely
institutionalized, continuing each
year funded jointly by Union
City and NJCU
Element 4. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service. Consistent
with the University’s mission, many service activities stem from the unit’s active
partnerships with urban school districts. For instance, summer professional development
sessions are offered to teachers; consultation services are provided to numerous school
districts; summer institutes for students in local schools are conducted on campus; and
training workshops are facilitated throughout the region. Faculty members are actively
engaged in leadership positions in professional organizations, advisory boards, task
forces, and professional associations. These include:
 service on the Executive Board of the National and New Jersey Association for the
Education of Young Children
 service on the Board of the International and New Jersey Reading Association
 membership on the New York City Council of Supervisors and Administrators
 membership on panels of the NAEYC
 membership on the Board of Examiners of the NCATE
 reviewers for numerous professional journals including Young Children, Journal of
International Online Learning, The Reading Teacher, and other tier-one professional
journals
Element 5. Collaboration. Collaboration is a major strength of the professional
education unit at New Jersey City University. Many faculty members are engaged in
close, sustained, and long-lasting partnerships with the P-12 sector, with colleagues in the
arts and sciences, with other institutions of higher education, and with the community at
large. (See also Table 5.3.2) Faculty from programs outside the COE participate in unit
governance through committees and membership on the COE Council, as well as through
professional development activities, curriculum development, and assessment.
Table 5.5.1 Collaboration Partnerships of Unit Faculty with Other Faculty & Agencies
Partnership Type
P-12
Arts and Sciences
Other IHE
Federal Agencies
State Agencies
Business
Community
Number of
Partnerships
122
5
9
7
12
2
1
Number of
Faculty/Staff
67
23
31
17
53
10
4
Number of School
Districts
104
80
10
9
89
2
3
Element 6. Unit Evaluations of Professional Education Faculty
Performance. Our systematic and comprehensive evaluation process is carefully
controlled through our Union Contract with AFT. The process consists of (1) the
reappointment process for probationary faculty and for professional staff and (2) the posttenure review process for senior faculty. At the conclusion of each evaluation process,
feedback is offered to each faculty member by the president of the university and dean of
the College of Education. Department chairs regularly review candidate evaluations of
adjunct faculty for professional development needs and rehiring considerations.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 85 of 100
Standard V
Non-tenured faculty evaluation occurs on an annual basis during the 5-year probationary
period, at which time a decision of tenure or non-reappointment occurs. Faculty develop
electronic portfolios according to University criteria containing evidence of the
following: mastery of subject matter, effectiveness of teaching, scholarly and/or creative
abilities, effectiveness in University and community service, and continuing growth. In
Fall 2004, the COE Personnel Committee created a rubric to evaluate faculty portfolios
that was also used by the Dean for the second level review.
Figure 5.6.1. College of Education Personnel Committee Rubric
Criteria I Teaching.
Criteria
Standard
Mastery of subject
• Strong peer evaluations
• Participation/leadership in professional organizations
• Student-centered learning outcomes with effective assessment
• Strong student course evaluations
• Courses consistent with and supportive of overall program outcomes
• Ongoing summative and formative evaluation of student learning
• Ongoing development, review, and redesign
• Integrated with and supportive of outcomes
• Student-centered
• Currency in discipline-specific and pedagogical concepts
• Collaboration with colleagues which benefits the teaching/learning
enterprise
• Participation/leadership in professional/education development
activities
• Student-centered learning outcomes with effective assessment
• Positive feedback from students, employers
• Student presentation and publication
Academic
instruction
Learning Activities
Development, review, and
redesign of learning activities
Teacher
development
Advisement/
mentoring
Artifacts
0-5
Criteria II. Scholarly/Creative/Professional Work
Criteria
Standard
Artifacts
0-5
Publication of articles relevant
to one’s discipline or profession
Publication of books and/or
manuscripts, relevant to one’s
discipline or profession
Review of books
Presentation of scholarship at
conference or professional
organization
Authored or co-authored funded
research, grants, and projects
Refereed journals
Professional publications
Stature of the publisher/press
Stature of publisher
• Local, state, regional, national, international
• Conference Presentations (with formal papers)
• Conference Presentations (without formal papers)
Stature of the sponsoring organization/agency
Criteria III. Service To The University And Community
Criteria
Standard
University service
• Level of commitment/participation
• Achievement of outcomes
• Length of high quality service at the University
• Holding elective or appointive office
• Level of commitment/participation
Community service
NCATE Institutional Report
Artifacts
0-5
Page 86 of 100
Standard V
Supports the department in its
initiatives
Supports the College of
Education in its initiatives
Supports the mission of
NCATE
Supports overall program
outcomes
Letters of Support
• Achievement of outcomes
• Partnerships with other organizations
• Holding elective or appointive office
• Level of commitment/participation
• Achievement of outcomes
• Partnerships with other departments
• Level of commitment/participation
• Achievement of outcomes
• Partnerships with other Colleges
• Level of commitment/participation
• Achievement of outcomes
• Partnerships with other faculty
• Level of commitment/participation
• Achievement of outcomes
• Partnerships with other faculty
• Demonstrates a diversity of support from within the University
Tenured faculty members are reviewed by contractual agreement not more than once
every five years. The requirement is for a self study in which the faculty member
provides a written assessment as to contributions to the college and community over the
last five years and intentions for future, an assessment of teaching effectiveness, an
assessment of scholarly and/or research achievements in one's field/discipline, a
statement of professional objectives and how they might be achieved, an assessment of
professional strengths and or areas for future professional development, and what career
development assistance is requested if any. There is a peer assessment committee in
which each candidate selects the members in consultation with his/her chair and must
include at least two tenure colleagues, one in the dept, etc. The peer assessment process
includes classroom observation and required student input.
Element 7. Unit facilitation of Professional Development. New Jersey
University provides financial assistance for faculty members to engage in professional
development/renewal, scholarship, and service/leadership. The cumulative effect of
professional development opportunities on campus as well as financial assistance for
professional development specific to each faculty member’s area of expertise, are
consistent with the conceptual framework, needs of candidates, and national standards.
The following are some of the Professional Development Initiatives available to NJCU
Faculty.
The Center for Instructional and Technological Innovation. This center functions as
a resource for faculty looking to enhance their teaching via instructional technology,
multimedia approaches, and on-line course delivery. The CITI’s Instructional
Technology Mini-Grants have funded fifty technology projects from 2001 to 2004 with
an average award of $1,500 in 2003-2004.
Faculty Web Based Teaching. Educational technologists work individually with faculty
members to provide training and support in course development and in using the Web CT
application and LiveText for candidate portfolios and data collection. To date,
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 87 of 100
Standard V
approximately 150 faculty members have received WebCt training. 64 faculty from the
College of Education have been trained and have developed and taught courses on line.
Separately Budgeted Research (SBR). The program is designated to financially support
faculty research and other scholarly/creative activities that are within the area(s) of a
faculty member’s current or anticipated teaching responsibilities. SBR funds can be used
to support, among others, projects involving instructional technology and projects
promoting effective teaching strategies for active learning in the University classroom.
Career Development Program (CD). Faculty and professional staff members submit
applications for funding for: professional development as the result of one’s review as a
tenured faculty; continuing education in the form of tuition; and professional travel to and
from workshops for presentations and/or general participation.
Mini Grant Program (MG). Faculty and professional staff apply for individual mingrants up to $200 to provide small awards for activities not normally covered by
departmental, CD or SBR funds. Activities that may be funded are the purchase of books
and supplies, attendance at a workshop/conference and professional travel.
International Incentive Grants (IIG). Awards of up to $1,000 support faculty wishing
to create new internationally-oriented courses, or in infusing an existing course with
international content. These awards also support professional librarians cooperating with
a department or a faculty member to internationalize library resources related to course
development.
Table 5.7.1 Professional Development Program Funding and Participation
Program
SBR
Career Development Awards
Mini Grants
International Incentive Grants
Time
Period
1999-2005
1999-2004
1999-2004
2000-2004
Total
Awards
$293,000
$200,304
$25,134
$28,500
No of
Faculty
137
296
141
33
No of
COE
Faculty
15
95
34
6
College of Education Unit Faculty Professional Development Opportunities. In
addition to opportunities available to faculty from University sources, there are a number
of professional development activities which are specific to the College of Education
which have been offered over the previous five years. This is a partial list of those
activities:
• Funding for travel for professional presentations and conference attendance. All faculty
receive $800 per trip. In the previous academic year, 69 trips for COE faculty were
funded from various funding sources. The current professional development budget for
travel in the COE is $20,000.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 88 of 100
Standard V
• Attendance annualy at the NCATE Institutional Orientation and Professional
Development Conferences sponsored by AACTE and NCATE. 30 Faculty and staff have
attended in the last 5 years.
• Retreats for all members of the COE Unit are held at least twice a year. Recent retreats
have focused on such issues as the Goals and Framework of the NCATE 2000 Standards
(Spring 2002, Special presentation by Dr. Thaddeus Phillips, Chair, Special Education,
Coppin State College, Baltimore, Maryland), developing professional electronic
portfolios (Fall, 2002), the COE Conceptual Framework (Spring, 2003), the introduction
of LiveText as the COE data collection vehicle (Spring, 2003), the impact of the No
Child Left Behind Act on the children of New Jersey (Fall, 2003), recent faculty
conference presentations (Spring, 2004), and faculty governance (Fall, 2004).
• The following are learning communities in the College of Education which have met
regularly under the sponsorship of the College:
1. The Technology Group, exploring issues of instructional delivery and innovation
2. The Writers Group, a working group designed to assist in the preparation and
submission of faculty writing
3. The Research Group, a working group exploring the latest findings and trends in
educational research
• COE Council annual retreats during which members of the Council develop short- and
long-range goals, reflect on achievements of the previous year, and are offered an
opportunity to explore their role as the academic leaders of their other colleagues on the
faculty.
• Meetings every other week of the COE Council. While parts of these meetings are
dedicated to operational issues of College business, there is also ample opportunity to
explore other issues of interest and concern to higher education professionals. Examples
of this include: examination of the implications of instituting a writing assessment for
undergraduates in a college of education, comparison of accreditation systems, aligning
graduate admission requirements to our mission as a College (all in 2003); standard
alignment possibilities (both nationally and locally), setting standards for field placement
quality, ways to work effectively in cooperation with the New Jersey Department of
Education, the COE governance structure (all in 2004).
• Yearly convocations for the entire COE Unit, at which nationally renowned educators
from our local region have spoken to faculty, administrators, and students on the issue of
supporting the learning of all students (from the perspective of superintendents and the
Education Law Center, the driving force behind the establishments of the Abbott
districts).
• Occasional special workshops and presentations such as the Action Research
Conference held on campus in June, 2004, facilitated by Terence O’Connor, Dean,
College of New Jersey.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 89 of 100
Standard V
Standard VI. Unit Governance and Resources
Element 1: Unit Leadership and
Authority
The College of Education consists of seven
academic departments, the Center for
Teacher Preparation and Partnerships, and
the A. Harry Moore Demonstration School
for severely disabled children. The
Professional Education Unit also contains
Music Education, Art Education, School
Psychology and School Guidance in the
College of Arts & Sciences, and Health Education and School Nursing in the College of
Professional Studies.
The Unit Head for Professional Education Programs is the Dean of the College of
Education, Dr. Muriel Rand. The Dean sits on the President’s Cabinet and reports to the
Vice President for Academic Affairs. She is responsible for faculty assignments, hiring
recommendations of faculty and staff, review of non-tenured faculty, promotion and
range changes, budgeting for the College and the A. Harry Moore School, professional
development of unit faculty, and all policies and procedures of the unit. She is the NJ
Department of Education certification officer for the University and ensures that all
programs meet state guidelines. The Dean approves all new course proposals and
curriculum changes for approval, oversees all scheduling of courses, and approves the
material for the University catalogues. She presides at the College of Education Council
meetings and has veto power over the policy decisions of that body.
The Assistant Dean in the College of Education, Dr. Ivan Banks, is responsible for
assisting the dean in all areas. He organizes, plans, ands directs major review and
planning, including NCATE Accreditation, student support and assistance, curriculum
development, and grants development for departments and programs in the college. The
assistant dean also works as a liaison with department chairs, programs coordinators and
other administrative offices to facilitate matters arising in related fields.
The Assistant to the Dean in the College of Education, Ms. Sachie Tsumura, assists with
all aspects of the College of Education Assessment System, including data collection,
data analysis, assistance to department chairs and programs outside the College of
Education, training of faculty in LiveText, and maintaining assessment data and reports.
The Center for Teacher Preparation and Partnerships (CTPP) oversees collaboration with
all P-12 partnerships, including support and development of Professional Development
Schools, Professors-In-Residence, Teachers-In-Residence. This office is responsible for
the planning, development, and assessment of clinical and field experiences for the unit,
including data collection related to field experiences. The CTPP oversees the College of
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 90 of 100
Standard VI
Education Advisory Council and the Field Experiences Committee. The Center staff
includes the Director (who reports to the Dean), Assistant Director, Certification
Processor, two clerical support staff, a graduate assistant, and student assistants.
The A. Harry Moore School, with an enrollment of 175 children from local districts,
functions as a Professional Development School for both Special Education candidates
and those in a variety of other programs. The School contains a Teacher Resource Center
and Assistive Technology Lab for students and candidates. The Principal of the School,
Ms. Judy Ortman, reports directly to the Dean of the College of Education.
VP for Academic
Affairs
Dean, College of
Professional Studies
• Health Education
• School Nurse
Dean, College of
Education
Departments:
Early Childhood Ed
Educational Technology
Elementary & Secondary Ed
Educational Leadership
Literacy Education
Multicultural Education
Special Education
Dean, College of
Arts & Sciences
• Music Education
• Art Education
• School Psychology
• School Guidance
Center for Teacher Preparation
& Partnerships (CTPP)
A. Harry Moore School
During the NCATE Accreditation Visit in 2000, the BOE Report cited two weaknesses
pertaining to Unit Governance. As a result, the College of Education developed a new
unit governance system that was approved by the faculty in Fall 2003. This structure
created the College of Education Council with representatives from the 7 COE
departments, the A. Harry Moore School, the CTPP, Music, Art, Health, Psychology, and
the COE Dean’s office. In addition, various committees were created to ensure that
students and P-12 practitioners had a voice in the college decision-making. This structure
was reviewed in the Fall 2004 by the COE Council and at a faculty retreat. Faculty
systematically gave feedback to the Council in two rounds of revisions and a revised
structured was approved in January, 2005. The following description provides the details
of the new (and current) structure:
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 91 of 100
Standard VI
NJCU College of Education Policy-making Process
Academic
Departments
Field
Experience
Committee
Assessment
Committee
Curriculum
Committee
Diversity
Committee
Recommend Policy to
COE Council
CEAC
Committee
(Reviews
policies and
provides
feedback)
Approves Policy
Executive
Committee
Dean
Approves
Policies
(Veto Power)
University
Senate
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 92 of 100
Vice
President for
Academic
Affairs
NJ
Department
of
Education
Standard VI
Faculty
Committee
Student
Affairs
Committee
Curriculum Committee
Serves as the College Curriculum Committee for University Senate Governance. Reviews
new courses submitted by individuals and Departments that are designed to prepare
teachers and other school professionals. Reviews other program/curriculum changes
submitted by Departments that are designed to prepare teachers and other school
professionals. With assistance from the Dean’s Office, oversees and coordinates program
approvals with the New Jersey Department of Education. Reviews pertinent information
from the Assessment and other Committees on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions for
teachers and other school personnel to assure that candidates meet national, professional,
state, and institutional standards. Ensures that the curriculum is aligned to the NJCU COE
Conceptual Framework, NJ Professional Teaching Standards, NCATE, and other national
specialty association standards.
Membership: 1 member from each Department; 1 member, each, from Art Education, Music
Education, School Psychology, and Health Education, School Counseling; 1 representative from
the partnership districts chosen by the CEAC. One COE undergraduate student and one COE
graduate student appointed by the COE Council. 2-year term. 15 members.
Assessment Committee
Monitors, reviews, and recommends for approval policies related to Unit and programlevel assessment. Coordinates data collection from Departments and programs, with the
exception of data collected by the Field Experience Committee. Performs unit analysis of
assessment data, and produces a report on this data analysis each semester for the COE
Council, the Curriculum Committee, and other Committees as appropriate. Makes
recommendations to the COE Council for improvement of Unit performance based on
data collection and analysis. In coordination with the Departments, develops needed
assessments for Unit and program-level review.
Membership: Assistant to the Dean; 1 member from each Department; representative from
University Assessment Committee appointed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. One COE
undergraduate student and one COE graduate student appointed by the COE Council. 2-year
term. 11 members total.
Field Experience Committee
Monitors policies related to the design, delivery, and evaluation of field and clinical
experiences for teacher candidates and other professional roles in the schools. Collects
and analyzes data on candidate performance and disseminates such data as needed,
including forwarding the data to the Curriculum and Assessment Committees for
purposes of improving candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions, as well as
improving Unit operations associated with field experiences. Based on data collection,
recommends policy changes to the COE Council.
Membership: Director, CTPP; Assistant Director, CTPP; former NJCU student intern; present or
past cooperating teacher; administrative representative from partnership districts; 1
representative from each Department. 2-year term. 12 members.
Diversity Committee
Reviews, designs, and recommends to the COE Council policies and procedures related
to the implementation of assessment of curriculum and field experiences to assure
candidates and other school professionals develop knowledge, skills, and dispositions
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 93 of 100
Standard VI
necessary to help all students learn, including students with special needs. Assist
Departments and the Unit in efforts to achieve faculty, student body, field experience
placement, and other types of diversity in the College of Education. Plans activities and
programs related to diversity within the College and the larger community. Serves as
liaison to other community and multicultural organizations.
Membership: 1 member from each Department; representative from the CTPP; University
diversity representative appointed by the Vice President for Academic affairs; representative from
the Jersey City Public Schools nominated by the Superintendent; assistant principal from the
administration of the University Academy Charter High School; faculty representative from the A.
Harry Moore School; COE student appointed by the COE Council. 2-year term. 13 members total.
Faculty Committee
Carries out a needs assessment for mentoring of new faculty members. Develops and
implements a mentoring program for non-tenured faculty. While ensuring adherence to
AFT contractual guidelines, monitors faculty performance and recommends for approval
by the COE Council policies, procedures, and practices associated with faculty
qualifications, performance evaluation, and professional development. Collects and
monitors data as needed to ensure faculty are qualified and model best professional
practices in scholarship, service, and teaching, including assessments of effectiveness
relative to candidate performance and student learning. A sub-committee of tenured
faculty members serves as the COE Personnel Committee for those Departments without
sufficient tenured faculty to serve as a Department Personnel Committee. While
functioning as such a Committee, it recommends to the Dean candidates for reappointment, promotion, and tenure. Coordinates and develops faculty development
programs.
Membership: 1 faculty member from each department (either tenured or non-tenured). 2-year
term. 7 members total. If needed, additional tenured faculty members will be appointed to the subcommittee (COE Personnel Committee) so that this sub-committee will have representation from
each department.
Student Affairs Committee
Coordinates collection of data, including student concerns and grievances to recommend
policy changes to the COE Council. Creates informational/policy handbooks and at
yearly intervals reviews and recommends any needed changes to the COE Council.
Sponsors receptions and new student orientations. Develops and monitors a process for
mentoring students Monitors reviews, and recommends changes in advisement
procedures to the COE Council. Provides feedback on website and other informational
materials aimed at students. Coordinates student professional organizations, including
Kappa Delta Pi and NJSEA, and other student chapters of specialty professional
associations. Serves as liaison to the Division of Student Affairs. Serves as liaison to the
University Scholarship Office.
Membership: 2 COE faculty advisors, elected at-large; 1 student from each program, selected
by the Departments. A representative from the Dean’s Office will coordinate the meetings.
College of Education Advisory Committee (Formerly TEAC)
Reviews broad policies and practices related to the performance of candidates and
graduates in partner school districts. Facilitates articulation between the University and
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 94 of 100
Standard VI
the P-12 community related to teacher candidates and other school professionals. Shares
information among the University, the College of Education, and the P-12 community on
such issues as regulatory mandates, state and national trends in education, and the
performance of our graduates in the schools. Provides support and guidance for the
further growth and success of Professional Development Schools.
Membership: Dean, Assistant Dean, Director CTPP, Assistant Director CTPP, Assistant Vice President for
Academic Affairs, representative from the COE Council, representative from the Professor-in-Residence
program, COE faculty representative, community parent representative, community leader, novice teacher
(NJCU alumnus), education candidate (student), 2 representatives from the JCEA, superintendents and
principals from partnership districts, non-NJCU alumnus PDS teacher, 1 representative from non-public
centers/schools appointed by the Dean, 1 representative from the Arts and Sciences faculty, community
representative.
College of Education Council
Retains, subject only to veto by the Dean, responsibility for Unit governance, policies,
and resource allocation. Provides leadership and exercises authority to manage and
coordinate programs to ensure candidates are prepared for roles they will assume as
teachers and other professionals in P-12 schools. Reviews and approves
recommendations for policy and procedural changes from Committees and Departments,
and allocates resources as available for full and effective implementation. Reviews for
approval recommendations from the Dean and the Vice President for Academic
Affairs/Provost.
Membership: Executive Committee (meets bi-weekly): Dean; Assistant Dean; Assistant to the
Dea; Director, Center for Teacher Preparation and Partnerships; Principal, A. Harry Moore
School; Department Chairs (7). 12 members. Full Council (meets at least once each semester)
Executive Committee members plus: Chairs of Standard Committees (5); representatives from Art
Education, Health Education, School Psychology, School Counseling, and Music Education;
representative from the P-12 community; one COE undergraduate student and one COE graduate
student appointed by the COE Council. 25 members.
The faculty involved in professional educational programs outside the college of
education are included in the life of the College of Education in various ways. We have 3
faculty from Arts & Science with Joint Appointments (math, science, and English) and
two Teachers-In-Residence from partnership schools. We communicate equally with all
faculty involved in professional education through list serves, memos, and handbooks,
and all faculty participate in retreats and faculty meetings. Committee membership
includes faculty from outside the college of education as well as P-12 practitioners. The
unit provides professional development on effective teaching and funding for travel for
faculty in other units of the institution involved in professional education.
Element 2: Unit Budget
During the last 5 years, state appropriations to the University declined from 48% of total
net revenue for fiscal year 2001 to 42% of the total for fiscal year 2004. It is anticipated
that the State’s appropriation will decline to 39% by fiscal year 2010. In spite of these
budget problems, the University has maintained commitment and support for professional
education programs at high levels as seen in Table 6.2.1.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 95 of 100
Standard VI
Table 6.2.1. NJCU Budget Allocations, Five-Year Trend Comparison of the Three Colleges and University Totals.
Colleges
Education
Salary
Non Salary
Total
Professional
Studies
Salary
Non Salary
Total
Arts & Science
Salary
Non Salary
Total
Other
Total University
Budget
State
Appropriations
% Change in State
Appropriations
FY '01
Total
University
FY '02
Total
University
FY '03
Total
University
FY '04
Total
University
FY '05
Total
University
6,792,802
635,689
7,428,491
7.12%
0.67%
7,021,350
697,339
7,718,689
6.88%
0.68%
7,428,544
702,339
8,130,883
6.85%
0.65%
7,566,336
830,319
8,396,655
6.75%
0.74%
9,789,677
1,103,399
10,893,076
7.63%
0.86%
2,783,496
101,600
2,885,096
2.92%
0.11%
2,882,881
186,950
3,069,831
2.83%
0.18%
3,015,324
170,950
3,186,274
2.78%
0.16%
3,000,370
137,570
3,137,940
2.68%
0.12%
4,174,070
293,194
4,467,264
3.25%
0.23%
13,325,470
592,420
13,917,890
71,112,851
13.98%
0.62%
13,961,382
684,620
14,646,002
76,557,868
13.69%
0.67%
13,989,030
772,895
14,761,925
82,352,011
12.90%
0.71%
13,775,355
714,795
14,490,150
86,137,595
12.28%
0.64%
17,534,670
1,052,838
18,587,508
94,351,806
13.67%
0.82%
95,344,327
101,992,390
108,431,093
112,162,340
128,299,654
43,477,062
44,554,862
43,869,029
44,365,934
48,717,000
2.4%
-1.5%
1.1%
9.8%
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 96 of 100
Standard VI
College of Education Budget Allocation Trends
The College of Education budget has continued to fund professional development, and
has supported many innovative programs in the last five years. For example, every
faculty member who requested funding for travel for professional conference
presentations was given $800 per trip. In addition, 30 faculty and administrators have
attended the NCATE Institutional Orientation over the last 5 years. The following were
also funded:
• Released time or overload (3 credits per semester) for Professors-In-Residence
in Professional Development Schools
• Professional Development Opportunities such as the Technology Learning
Community and Faculty Research Workshops
• Faculty Retreats, 2 per year for all faculty and staff, and P-12 personnel from
partnership districts
External Funding:
The College of Education has been extremely successful in obtaining external
funding for supporting the work of the unit, especially collaboration with P-12 partners.
The use of external funds in the College of Education is rooted in a belief that grants
allow for planned experimentation to leverage institutional change. Grants are not
peripheral; instead they are planned to further the mission of the college and to be
institutionalized to ensure deep transformation. For example, the Professor-In-Residence
and Teacher-In-Residence programs were initially funded only through grants and are
now an institutionalized part of our partnership work. Similarly, we have created a
variety of new curriculum programs with grant funding which are now part of our regular
offerings. The current grant funding in the COE is $12,401,336, which represents 25
different initiatives. See Standard V, Table 5.3.2.
Element 3: Personnel
The faculty members at NJCU are unionized by the American Federation of Teachers, so
all workload policies are governed by contractual agreement. Faculty load is 12 credits
per semester for both undergraduate and graduate teaching. Supervision of clinical
practice is 12 candidates for each FTE faculty member. These carefully controlled
workload policies and practices permit and encourage faculty to be engaged in a wide
range of professional activities, including teaching, scholarship, assessment, advisement,
work in schools and service, and also to professionally contribute on a community, state,
regional or national basis. This level of work of the COE faculty can be seen in the
documentation for Standard V. In addition, faculty are given released time and overload
for a variety of activities outside the contractual workload.
NJCU does not hire teaching assistants or clinical faculty. The use of adjuncts is carefully
monitored to allow for flexibility of course coverage and to provide a cadre of high
quality practicing professionals to instruct our students. Our target is to have 25-35% of
our load taught by adjuncts. In the following charts we show the five year trends of
adjunct workload and the proposed target for the next fiscal year.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 97 of 100
Standard VI
NOTE: Numbers of faculty in Standard VI are slightly different from other charts
because they refer only to College of Education faculty under the union contractual
responsibility of the Dean of the College of Education. Professional Education faculty
members in other colleges are not included in these data. Tables do not include
percentage of load taught as overload by full-time faculty members. Complete data is
available in the exhibit room.
Table 6.3.2. Percentage of Load taught by Full Time Faculty and Number of FullTime Faculty
% Load Taught by Full Time Faculty
Number of Full-Time Faculty
Early Childhood
Ed Leadership
Ed Technology
Elem/Secondary
Literacy Ed
Multicultural Ed
Special Ed
Totals
2000
48%
60%
20%
70%
51%
70%
36%
51%
2001
60%
29%
34%
53%
58%
72%
38%
49%
2002
68%
25%
32%
56%
49%
58%
31%
46%
2003
45%
22%
31%
50%
64%
65%
28%
44%
2004
60%
43%
47%
55%
55%
56%
25%
49%
2000
4
3
1.5
7
8
5
6
34.5
2001
7
3.5
2
5.5
9
6
6
39
2002
8
3
2
6.5
7
5
6
37.5
2003
5.5
3
2
6.5
9
5
5.5
36.5
2004
7
6
3
8
9
5
5.5
43.5
Table 6.3.3. Percentage of Load taught by Adjunct Faculty 2000-2005
% Load Taught by Adjuncts Fall Semester Analysis
2000 2001
2002 2003
2004
2005
36% 24%
28%
44%
29%
21%
Early Childhood
10% 56%
61%
64%
50%
36%
Ed Leadership
75%
43%
52%
42%
32%
32%
Ed Technology
11% 28%
34%
32%
16%
16%
Elem/Secondary
26% 16%
25%
24%
30%
30%
Literacy Ed
17% 16%
29%
22%
35%
35%
Multicultural Ed
50% 49%
51%
69%
57%
43%
Special Ed
College Average
32% 33%
40% 42%
36%
31%
Support personnel. There is an average of one departmental secretary for every 6 faculty
members. In addition, the College of Education has 2 full-time secretaries in the Center
for Teacher Preparation and Partnerships, 2 full-time secretaries and a full-time
administrative assistant in the Dean’s Office. The COE regularly has graduate students
who work with the academic departments and dean’s office. We also budget enough
funds for all departments to hire at least one student assistant part time during the
academic year.
Element 4: Unit Facilities
The College of Education is housed in the Education and Professional Studies Building,
which is about 11 years old. All faculty have private offices, computers, and networked
printers. There is a conference room available to all departments in the Dean’s suite as
well as the Electronic Classroom (currently the NCATE Exhibit Room) in the same
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 98 of 100
Standard VI
building which is used for faculty training, meetings, and classes. There is adequate space
for adjuncts, grant personnel and graduate assistants, although space will be tight with the
new hires expected in the fall 2005. The Department of Educational Leadership is located
in a row house on College Street and the Department of Multicultural Education will be
moved into the Education building in Summer 2005. The University has ideal facilities
throughout the campus and an aggressive capital improvement plan which can be found
in the exhibit room.
Element 5: Unit Resources Including Technology
Technology Resources. Technology plays a pivotal role in all aspects of the University,
from administrative projects and initiatives to the latest educational programs. The
departments of Information Technology Services (ITS), Academic Computing, and
Campus Information Systems (CIS) have been aggressively implementing new technologies and services in support of its mission.
To keep up with the ever-increasing demand for information and electronic communications, the University data network is in the process of being upgraded from ATM that
delivered 100 Mbps to the end-user over a 650 MB backbone, to Gigabit Ethernet, which
moves data at 1,000 Mbps and can deliver the same bandwidth to the desktop.
Infrastructure technology is utilized by all members of the University community.
In addition to the high performance hard-wired network, NJCU provides a Wi-Fi certified
wireless network, GothicAir available in select outdoor areas throughout the main
campus and in large meeting spaces, such as the cafeteria, convention rooms,
auditoriums, and athletic courts where large sporting events are held. Wireless technology is installed in several classrooms on campus as well, with more scheduled to come
online in the near future.
Technology specifically oriented for students includes over 500 computers in 30
computer labs distributed throughout the campus. Public access labs (12) are available to
all members of the NJCU community. Semi-public labs (7) provide limited access when
not being used for class-oriented instruction. Major-only labs (9) provide specialized
software and hardware to students and faculty within that discipline. Finally, there are 2
teaching labs that are available by reservation only in the Frank L. Guarini Library.
Access to student grades, online registration, and payment is provided through the
GothicNet portal. GothicNet is a web portal that makes technology personal. It integrates
information and utilities from a variety of sources, and delivers them through a userfriendly, role-based gateway that presents only what is relevant to the individual who logs
in. GothicNet is powered by the PeopleSoft Enterprise Information Systems. Access to
the portal is via any computer connected to the Internet, on or off campus; and from any
of the 40 thin-client terminals distributed in common public areas throughout campus.
Faculty members are provided world-class technology resources in support of instruction.
In addition to personal computers or laptops, a technology equipment loaner program is
available. There are 23 “smart” classrooms available throughout various buildings on
campus that integrate an electronic white board, multimedia presentation hardware and a
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 99 of 100
Standard VI
computer workstation. The University uses WebCT, a course management system for elearning (online and web-enhanced) and offers faculty and students web hosting services,
for posting course-related information. For administrative related functions, the
GothicNet portal offers faculty access to grades management, course advisement, rosters,
and other student-related information. Remote access to campus network services is
available to faculty through Virtual Private Networking (VPN).
Comprehensive technology support is provided through a centralized Help Desk managed
by ITS, serving faculty, and staff. Help Desk personnel maintain all personal computer
hardware, peripherals, and software owned by the University, and provide a single point
of contact for all technology-related questions.
NJCU recognizes the rapid advancements is technology an annual capital budget has
been established for the Technology Replacement Program, which includes replacement
of PC’s, laptops, infrastructure, servers, printers and other peripherals on a 3-5 year
timeline. Annual funding is also made available for software purchases that enhance the
teaching and learning experience.
Library Resources. The total expenditure in the first quarter of 2005 was $13,016.85
($2,603.37 per month) for education-related books and media. Expenditures for materials
in support of the College of Education and related programs, represent the greatest
proportion of the library budget when compared to other departmental expenditures. (See
exhibit room for detailed figures). These library materials provide information on content
and pedagogical knowledge as well as information on urban families, communities and
cultures to our education faculty, education candidates and other professional school
personnel candidates. The 12,837 items in our juvenile collection provide our students
with culturally sensitive instructional materials for the diverse linguistic, racial and ethnic
populations and student abilities they will be serving in area K-12 schools.
Many library resources are available electronically, from on or off campus. These
resources include a CD-ROM cluster offering approximately 50 titles; EBSCOhost, a
full-text periodical database; VALE, a citation and/or full-text database; four databases
from the Lexis-Nexis infosuite; the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, the
Kraus Curriculum Development Library; and other databases. A catalog of the library’s
holdings is available through OSCAR, the University online database.
The library also contains two wired classrooms with a total of 49 computers, as well as
computers fitted with software for the disabled. Instruction in research, information
literacy and technology skills is delivered in these classrooms by the librarians. At least
10-15% of the instruction classes are delivered to College of Education candidates.
Accessibility to online library resources and reference is provided through the library
home page and Q&A NJ. Since the later months of 2004 when statistics for the college
affiliation of Q&A NJ users were collected, 303 NJCU students have used the service. In
2004, our online databases were accessed 3 million times. Our library home page also
provides our distance education students with virtual materials and access to our catalog
in addition to our online databases.
NCATE Institutional Report
Page 100 of 100
Standard VI