Institutional Report
School of education
Continuous improvement visit
Edinboro University of PA
Edinboro, PA
Continuing Visit: October 2013
Report Submitted: February 2013
Dr. Nomsa E. Geleta, Dean of the School of Education
Dr. Gwyneth Price, Unit Accreditation Coordinator
gprice@edinboro.edu
I. Overview and Conceptual Framework
I.1 Historical Context and Unique Characteristics
Edinboro University of Pennsylvania is one of the 14 universities in the Pennsylvania State System of
Higher Education (PASSHE) and has existed for 155 years as an educational agent of service and change
in northwestern Pennsylvania. Founded as a teacher-training institution, the University has evolved into a
comprehensive university with a full range of academic and support programs paralleling the region’s
economic, population, and demographic changes. It is currently designated as a “Master’s I-Public”
university. Uniquely, Edinboro University (EU) ranks first in the PASSHE in the number of wheelchair
bound students and is ranked among the five top universities across the nation for service to students with
disabilities. Since the last visit, the School of Education has maintained its high standards and
commitment to excellence even during several significant transitions including reorganizations,
leadership transformations, and state changes to certification areas (Full Description of EU
characteristics).
(Exhibit I.1)
I.2 Institution Mission
Mission: Distinguished by its focus on individual attention to student success, commitment to diversity,
and responsiveness to the evolving needs of the broader community, Edinboro University provides the
highest quality undergraduate, graduate and co-curricular education.
Values: Edinboro University is committed to creating opportunities for intellectual and personal growth in
an inclusive environment. We value excellence, curiosity, respect, responsibility, and integrity.
Vision: Edinboro University will be the first choice among students, employers, and the community for
excellence in higher education.
(Exhibit I.2)
I.3 The NCATE Unit and the School of Education
As a result of recent reorganization, beginning Fall 2013 there will be five colleges/schools comprising
the Academic Affairs Division of Edinboro University: The College of Arts, Humanities and Social
Sciences (CAHSS); the College of Science and Health Professions (CSHP); the School of Business; the
School of Education; and the School of Graduate Studies and Research. Until reorganization, CAHSS and
CSHP were combined under the College of Arts and Sciences. The School of Education (SOE) includes
all programs in the departments of Early Childhood and Special Education, Elementary, Middle and
Secondary Education, Health and Physical Education, and Professional Studies. The Unit includes all
programs in the School of Education plus the professional educator programs in the College of Arts,
Humanities and Social Sciences, namely Art Education and Music Education. The Dean of the School of
Education is the head of the Unit and also serves as the certification officer for all professional educator
programs at the University (SOE Homepage).
Faculty from the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences as well as from the College of Science
and Health Professions prepare our students in general education courses and serve on NCATE
committees. Preparing our teacher candidates and related professionals to fulfill the belief statements of
the Conceptual Framework is viewed as a collaborative effort among School of Education faculty and
faculty from the CAHSS and CSHP. This collaboration prepares our teacher candidates and related
professionals with the knowledge, skills, dispositions and experiences to effectively facilitate student
learning.
Changes to initial certifications were made in accordance with the PA Department of Education revised
guidelines. The new certificates (Initial/Advanced Program Chart) issued after January 1, 2013, are:
(a) Early childhood (PK through grade 4)
(b) Elementary/Middle (grades 4 through 8)
(c) Secondary (grades 7 through 12)
(d) Specialized areas (PK through grade 12)
(e) Special Education PK-8 (PK through grade 8) with a dual certificate in Early Childhood
EU is currently developing a program in Special Education (grades 7 through 12) as a dual
certificate with Secondary Education.
In order to best prepare our candidates for these new certifications, in 2010 some of the SOE departments
were rearranged such that we now have the departments of Early Childhood/Special Education, and the
Elementary, Middle, & Secondary Education and Professional Studies, as well as the existing Health &
Physical Education. Many of the advanced programs, including those for other school
professionals: Reading Specialist, Principal/Superintendent/Special Ed Supervisor, Educational or School
Psychologist, and School Counselor are all housed in the Professional Studies Department.
I.4 The Conceptual Framework
The Conceptual Framework (CF) was developed in 2003-2004 by a diverse team comprised of members
from seven academic departments, the Office of the President, and Office of University Planning,
Institutional Research, & Continuous Improvement. The purpose of the committee was to ensure that the
CF would engender multiple perspectives from faculty and administrators across the
university. Construction of the CF consisted of a study and adoption of elements from the following
sources:

University Mission and Vision Statement

NCATE Standards

INTASC Standards

School of Graduate Studies and Research Mission Statement

School of Education Mission Statement

The Unit’s Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions at the Graduate level (Grad KSD)

PA-354 Standards (from PDE)

National Board Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)
The knowledge base that provided direction for the framework narrative was collaboratively researched
and has been updated by faculty members across the Unit. Agendas and minutes from Steering
Committee and CF Committee meetings outline the step-by-step process used to write a framework that
resulted from a shared, collaborative vision. Exit outcomes were developed for use in creating
assessments that reflect the CF as candidates progress through and complete their programs.
The NCATE Unit Conceptual Framework is entitled Effective Facilitators of Learning showcasing the
Unit’s belief in the role of all education professionals. The Unit faculty continues to believe in and
support the CF that was developed although minor revisions to the CF were made over time related to
alignment with current standards and mission statements. This is also reflected in the updated
bibliography. It is the purpose and vision of the SOE to prepare highly qualified teacher candidates and
related professionals who possess the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to positively impact the learning
of students in a diverse and global society. This vision is focused on 10 belief statements that serve as the
foundation for program, course, and clinical experience development. Further discussion of particular
Belief Statements can be found in Exhibit I.3 (Statement Discussion).
The Unit’s CF, Effective Facilitators of Learning, is evident throughout the campus and the local and
regional community. The CF is consistently shared with candidates and faculty members. It appears on
all syllabi, and it is articulated by professors, clinical field supervisors, cooperating teachers, Unit
graduates, and current students. Evidence that the CF is a shared vision with undergraduate and graduate
students can be found in the History of the CF Development, the extensive list of references, the
alignments of the CF with INTASC, PDE, Grad KSD, NBPTS (Alignments) and each individual SPA
report. The Unit’s CF, Effective Facilitators of Learning, provides philosophical grounding for all initial
and advanced programs. Each course offered in the Unit has aligned content with the CF. This is
evidenced by specific components of the framework being addressed in course syllabi.
Significant changes since the 2006 NCATE review include how our candidates reflect on the vision and
belief statements. Beginning in 2006, for every course in the Unit, candidates reflected upon how each
course fulfilled the belief statements of our CF at the end of each semester or course (2006 Rubric). As
the committee reviewed these data, it became apparent that there were inconsistencies in implementation
of the reflection assignment. The directions were interpreted differently by professors, and some
professors did not assess the reflection using the rubric on Livetext. Students found redundancy in having
to reflect in every course every semester, resulting in lower quality of their written work. During the fall
2011semester the committee (in concert with unit faculty input) changed the assignment from assessing
individual courses to looking at the programs in relationship to the CF. The instructions were changed
(2011 CF reflection) to have candidates reflect upon their entire program in light of every belief
statement. The committee agreed that undergraduates would reflect at the beginning, midpoint and the
end of their program and include all of the belief statements in their reflections. Graduate students would
reflect twice-once at the beginning and once at the end of their program (Courses for CF assignment).The
rubric was also revised to include knowledge, skills dispositions for each belief statement in light
of candidate progress in the program. Data is now being collected and analyzed to determine
effectiveness.
1.1 Evidence of candidates’ ability to meet professional, state, and institutional standards and
impact on P-12 student learning.
Professional association standards ensure initial and advanced program candidates have the knowledge,
skills, and dispositions to serve successfully in P-12 schools. Edinboro University (EU) currently provides
49 initial certification programs and 12 advanced programs. EU is nationally recognized by 11
Specialized Professional Associations (SPAs) and four other accrediting bodies: the American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association (ASHA), the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related
Educational Programs (CACREP), the National Art Education Association (NAEA), and the National
Association of Schools of Music (NASM). In an effort to continually improve, two advanced programs
not seeking national recognition, Masters in Middle and Secondary and Masters in Special Education,
have now officially adopted standards from the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards
(NBPTS) and the Council of Exceptional Children (CEC) advanced standards respectively and developed
assessments to meet those standards. Data collection began summer 2012.
Programs recognized with conditions, including Science, English, and Math, have all implemented
changes to assessments and programs to address the comments of reviewers, and have since submitted
Response to Condition reports. Health & Physical Education (HPE), currently unrecognized due to
continuing conditions, has developed a new assessment plan with all assessments to be implemented
beginning Spring 2013. HPE will submit again for recognition in September 2013.
1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates
Data from the SPA reports demonstrate that EU programs meet or exceed the 80% pass rate for
completers on all required licensure exams. Though these data demonstrated that candidates possess
appropriate levels of content knowledge, changes to programs came as an impetus from the PA
Department of Education through the Chapter 49-2 legislation. For example, all initial certification
programs now embed 270 hours of special education instruction and 90 hours of ELL instruction.
Further evidence of content knowledge stems from the candidacy and admission requirements. All initial
certification candidates must attain candidacy to continue with professional education
courses. Candidacy requires an earned GPA of 2.8 or above and passing of the required state exam. All
candidates must have a 3.0 GPA at the time of graduation in order to be certified (student teaching
handbook). Candidates in advanced programs must meet all admission requirements of the Graduate
School as well as any additional program requirements. Special Education Option II candidates, Masters
only candidates in Early Childhood, and Masters only candidates in Middle & Secondary must hold a
degree and/or a teaching certificate in a related area.
Additional evidence for content knowledge can be found by reviewing programs of study and the general
education requirements (undergraduate catalog).
1b. Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates
State program review ensures that all initial and advanced certification programs maintain a high standard
with regard to content knowledge and pedagogy. The last state review was conducted in 2004 and
resulted in approval of all initial and advanced programs leading to certification (Review Summary). New
initial programs resulting from the PA Chapter 49-2 legislation were developed and approved by the
state in 2009. Advanced programs mirroring these programs were approved through the Assurance
process in the Fall of 2011. The next state review is tentatively scheduled for 2014-2015 (1.3.a).
Title II reports were submitted for all academic years from 2008 to 2011. The Institutional Summary
Reports can be found at the EU NCATE site under the title of Praxis. All programs far exceed the 80%
minimum set forth by NCATE, as does the aggregate pass rate for the Unit as a whole. Further, the
median score was above the cutoff score in all but two Praxis exams. The Praxis data for Spanish – World
Language and Chemistry Content Knowledge show median scores below the cut off score, particularly in
the past two years. The low number of candidates taking these exams may skew the results per year,
however the results are still of some concern. For reasons not related to test scores, the Spanish Education
program has been placed on moratorium. Over the past three years, the number of candidates taking the
Chemistry exam has decreased significantly, however, the SOE will work with the Chemistry department
to determine how to increase scores particularly in the area of Solutions, Solubility, & Acid/Base
chemistry. It should be noted that in Pennsylvania one cannot be certified in a program without passing
the required Praxis/PAPA assessment. Workshops, peer tutoring, and on-line courses are available to
those candidates having difficulty passing the required exams.
Key assessments, scoring guides, data, and summaries for the School of Education (SOE) programs
related to pedagogical content knowledge are found in the individual SPA reports and are included
in major projects, field experiences, student teaching, and internships.
Faculty supervisors use the PDE 430 form, a statewide assessment, to evaluate student teachers in four
categories of performance and provide evidence to support the evaluations. Category I: Planning and
Preparation – relates directly to pedagogical content knowledge. Individual performances rate from
Unsatisfactory to Exemplary. Means and standard deviations are provided by program and by semester
for all students in initial programs.
The items on the PDE 430 are closely aligned with items on the EU designed Teacher Candidate
Performance Profile (TCPP) assessment. EU faculty collaborated with P-12 teachers to develop, pilot, and
refine this instrument. Since the categories on the two instruments are similar, the Unit is able to compare
the two assessments, provide a more detailed analysis of candidate content knowledge, and use the results
to improve programs. Questions range in focus, but there are specific questions directed toward
pedagogical content knowledge.
All advanced programs for teachers have key assessments demonstrating pedagogical content knowledge
that programs use for continuous improvement. These assessments include the following: Master of
Education Early Childhood Education – The Math & Science Kit and the Literacy Project; Master in
Education Special Education (Option II) – Best Practice Project and the 695 Grad Project; Master of
Education Middle & Secondary Education - Unit Plan and Action Research Project .
1C. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates
Candidate assessment data indicate that initial and advanced candidates in education who receive degrees
from EU are well prepared to assume professional roles in the educational community. The Unit relies
upon multiple measures from an array of courses to ascertain the effectiveness of its programs including
course grades, cumulative grade point averages (GPA), instructor observations, portfolio assessments,
state certification examinations, and field experience and clinical experience assessments. Evidence of
candidates’ professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills also stems from information gathered
from surveys given to clinical faculty, as well as through employer and alumni surveys.
Use of the TCPP provides a full picture of teacher candidates' knowledge, skills, and dispositions across
all initial programs (TCPP). The TCPP is a 53-item assessment based on INTASC standards and PDE 430
form. Each item in the Profile is rated as target, acceptable, developing, or unacceptable. The four
categories, as with the PDE 430, include planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction
and professionalism. The correlation of these two assessments provides a richer and more detailed
analysis on the teacher candidate's abilities in these four areas. The TCPP is used by programs to assess
candidates in capstone experiences and there are items on the Profile that are directly related to impact on
student learning. Teacher Candidates consistently rated well above the acceptable rating on these
questions.
The Instructional Assessment Plan (IAP) is a Unit assessment completed by all initial certification
candidates. This unit plan ensures that candidates are able to choose appropriate instructional strategies
based on content knowledge, state and national standards, and student needs. Further, this unit plan
requires the selection of effective instructional technologies and strategies to promote student learning.
Advanced programs for teachers all have key assessments documenting pedagogical knowledge and skills
that programs use for continuous improvement. These assessments include the following: Master of
Education Early Childhood Education – Curriculum Action Plan and Advocacy Plan; Master in
Education Special Education (Option II) – Best Practice Project; Master of Education Middle &
Secondary Education - Unit Plan and reflection and research papers.
1d. Student Learning for Teacher Candidates
Evidence for candidates’ impact on student learning in specific programs is documented in individual
SPA reports, as well as the IAP and TCPP. The IAP is a major source of evidence for which teacher
candidates can apply professional and pedagogical knowledge in order to positively impact student
learning. In student teaching assignments, candidates are required to design a sophisticated unit plan that
incorporates at least five lessons. In addition, candidates must employ a pre- / post- test design to gather
data on student learning. These data must be analyzed and reflected upon for insights for future teaching
(IAP). The TCPP is directly aligned with the state required PDE 430 form. The PDE 430 categories of
Classroom Environment and Instructional Delivery are directly related to impact on student learning.
Advanced programs for teaching professionals incorporate key assessments to demonstrate a thorough
understanding of assessment and data-driven decision making. Case Studies, Action Research projects,
Response to Intervention projects and other course-based Research Projects are used by these programs as
evidence of candidates' knowledge and skills in the use of research based strategies to impact student
learning. (Exhibit 1.3.c)
1e. Knowledge and Skills of Other School Professionals
All advanced programs for Other School Professionals are nationally recognized and meet the National
and State standards for their fields. Evidence of content knowledge and skills can be found in the SPA
reports for each of these programs. Additionally, the advanced program in Counseling is nationally
recognized by CACREP, therefore demonstrating sufficient evidence of knowledge and skills in the
counseling field.
1f. Student Learning for Other School Professionals (OSP)
Candidates for OSP roles apply their knowledge, skills, and dispositions to promote growth and
development among students enrolled in diverse settings. These candidates create positive learning
environments through reflection and effective use of data analyses, research, and standards-based
practice. Data from key assessments indicate that candidates are able to apply this knowledge of best
practices for diverse learners and have a positive impact on student learning. Each of the advanced
programs that are classified as OSP is unique in the manner in which it facilitates student learning. The
description from the School Counseling program is one example of how an advanced program meets this
element of Standard 1. Other examples can be seen in the Educational Leadership Intern Focus Project
examples.
1g. Professional Dispositions for All Candidates
Candidates are evaluated throughout their undergraduate and graduate experiences on professional
dispositions. Students are informed of these expectations through a number of venues including course
syllabi, Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogues, Candidacy/Graduate Record In Progress (GRIP)
Applications, course assessments, and guidelines for clinical experiences.
Professional dispositions are reflected in the Conceptual Framework (CF). Evidence that candidates
demonstrate these dispositions is revealed in the results of the CF reflection assessment. University
supervisors also assess dispositions of teacher candidates at the conclusion of the student teaching
experience through the PDE 430 instrument, which is directly linked to criteria specified in the
Pennsylvania Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for Educators. Likewise, as discussed in other
sections, the TCPP also contains items directly related to the PDE 430 and addresses dispositions,
specifically related to professionalism.
Disposition policies and procedures are appropriate for candidates at both the initial and advanced
levels. Program policy became the foundation for program procedures for addressing professional
dispositions and providing remediation when candidate dispositions are in need of improvement.
Recently, a School of Education Disposition Policy was developed and approved by the Disposition
Continuous Improvement Team to support program and department disposition policies. These policies
aim to identify issues related to dispositions in the early stages of the candidate’s program of study.
Policies include a procedure for documenting and remediating issues of concern.
The process for assessment varies across programs and includes checklists, reflection on the Unit’s
Conceptual Framework, and observations that are specific to each disposition. The process of evaluation
and remediation is dependent on and follows both the SOE and appropriate Departmental Policies.
1.2.b Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement.
(1) In response to the Chapter 49-2 regulations, department changes occurred to the organization of the
School of Education. The SOE currently consists of the Departments of Early Childhood and Special
Education; Elementary, Middle, and Secondary Education; Health and Physical Education; and
Professional Studies (Educational Leadership, Reading, Education/School Psychology, and
Counseling). This change reflects EU's commitment to meeting the needs of candidates as well as the
expectations of the state.
The new PA certificates issued by EU as of January 1, 2013, are:
a. Early Childhood (PK through grade 4).
b. Elementary/Middle (grades 4 through 8).
c. Secondary (grades 7 through 12).
d. Specialized areas (PK through grade 12).
e. Special Education PK-8 (PK through grade 8) with a dual certificate in Early Childhood.
EU is currently developing a program in Special Education 7-12 (Grades 7 through 12) with a dual
certificate Secondary Education.
The Middle Level program was designed using the AMLE standards as well as the PDE regulations. The
Framework for Grades 4-8 Program Guidelines established recommendations for the development of
courses for Middle Level concentration. The two options provided include the following: Option #1: One
concentration and three generalists (Focus) academic content areas and Option#2: Concentration in two
content areas, and two generalists (Focus) academic content areas. In response, EU now offers a Middle
Level certification with nine different options (Initial and Advanced Programs Chart).
In an effort to more effectively focus on issues of diversity in the classroom as well as to meet state
requirements, EU initial certification programs now include credits/hours in Special Education and
English Language Learner (ELL) content. As of January 2011, any candidate, applying for teaching
certification, regardless of entry date or major, must complete 270 hours of Special Education and 90
hours of ELL instruction prior to certification or satisfy competency requirements in these areas.
In further response to these changes, as well as at the request of local school partners, EU is in the process
of developing a Special Education 7-12 program. This collaborative effort between the Secondary and
Special Education program, based on the input from P-12 partners, will result in a 140 credit hour
program ending in certification for candidates in both a secondary content area as well as special
education (PDE 7-12 Program Guidelines).
(2) The Conceptual Framework (CF) reflection assessment was used to provide evidence of candidates’
ability to connect the course content to the CF. Based on analysis of the CF reflection data by the CF
committee, the CF assignment was revised to provide more precise evidence of a candidate's ability to
reflect on all statements of the CF providing evidence of how well programs are producing completers
with the desired knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Beginning with the spring 2012 semester, candidates
are now required to write a thorough reflection on each belief statement and discuss where the
components of the belief statements were met within their program. Each assessment has a defined rubric
(Conceptual Framework Exhibit ).
(3) Several sources of survey data are now available for review and analysis by programs, graduates, and
faculty. The Clinical Faculty survey was developed in the Spring of 2012. Results demonstrate that our
Clinical Faculty believe our candidates are well prepared to be Effective Facilitators of Learning. When
asked about our candidates' knowledge, skills, and dispositions with regard to each CF Belief statement,
clinical faculty consistently rated 90% or more of our candidates at the target or acceptable level. Alumni
satisfaction and Employer satisfaction surveys were developed and administered beginning in Summer
2012. These surveys asked questions pertaining to the preparation of graduates in all initial and advanced
programs. Questions reflected both the CF and INTASC standards (initial) or program specific standards
(advanced). These surveys are an example of continuous improvement efforts by the SOE, adding to past
efforts of programs to collect data from candidates (e.g., Student Teacher Survey) and employers (e.g.,
Ed Leadership Focus Group Summary).
(4) Beginning in the Spring of 2012 and continuing for all future spring semesters, programs use the
Program Analysis Report (PAR) template for the inspection and analysis of program data. This analysis
then leads to decisions about programmatic changes and requires deadlines for implementation. This
process was initiated as a part of continuous improvement efforts in the area of data driven decision
making, and is integral to both the NCATE and the Middle States processes.
(5) Upon entering the position, the current Dean of Education made changes to the Unit governance
structure to reflect a culture of continuous improvement. This initiative created the Accreditation
Coordinating Council (ACC) to support the Accreditation Coordinator in the ongoing process of
accreditation. (ACC Agendas and Minutes). This was an impetus for a change in culture and the renaming
of the Standard Committees as the Continuous Improvement Committees (CIC). The CICs no longer
solely focus on meeting NCATE standards, but instead are charged with the broader issues surrounding
those standards including Dispositions, Assessment, Clinical Experiences, Diversity, Faculty Vitality, and
Governance. The Chairs of these committees now form the Continuous Improvement Team (CIT) which
meets at least once a semester to discuss overlapping issues, facilitate collaboration, and allow for the
distribution of information across the Unit. CIC chairs also conduct presentations at the Unit meetings
held each semester (Structure chart).
(6) In the Fall of 2012, the Unit adopted a Disposition Policy for the School of Education. Though
departmental policies were already in place and utilized, this policy was meant to be more
broadly encompassing and provide support to the departmental processes (Disposition policies).
(7) In the Spring of 2012, two non-SPA related programs, Special Education Option II and Masters in
Middle & Secondary, adopted advanced standards. The Special Education program chose the Advanced
CEC standards and developed five new assessments aligned to these standards. These assessments were
implemented beginning Summer 2012. The Masters in Middle & Secondary adopted the National Board
Standards for Teaching and developed a portfolio assessment to ensure alignment with these
standards. The portfolio incorporates many already utilized assessments but adds a reflective piece on the
connection to the CF and the standards. The portfolio assessment was implemented in Spring
2012 reflecting changes based on the needs of the program.
(8) The use of the on-line platform of D2L for the dissemination of data to programs has increased faculty
access and exposure to evidence of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. These data are now available to
any member of the Unit on the Accreditation Site and are kept up to date by the Accreditation Office so
that data-informed-decision making is efficiently facilitated. Data are collected and analyzed through the
use of Livetext.
(9) In order to comply with PDE requirements to enhance the general knowledge base of each teacher
candidate, the School of Education designated specific courses from the general education curriculum that
would support a broad knowledge base essential for effective teaching. These prescribed courses were
approved through the university curriculum process, are listed on the plan of study for each program,
must be passed with a grade of "C" or higher, and are required for graduation.
The School of Education is committed to ensuring that all program completers are prepared with the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn by engaging in processes that
support ongoing assessment, analysis of data, reflection, and implementation of systemic policies and
procedures which support this goal.
2.1 How does the unit use its assessment system to improve candidate performance, program
quality, and unit operations?
The Edinboro University (EU) School of Education (SOE) Unit-Wide Assessment System has been
operating effectively since 2003. The assessment system was designed to reflect the Effective Facilitators
of Learning conceptual framework resulting in a comprehensive system for assessing candidates,
programs, and the Unit as a whole. The assessments within this system are aligned with national and
state standards. The Unit has engaged in continuous aggregation and dissemination of data including
candidate performance; academic statistics; budget; alumni, employer, and candidate satisfaction surveys;
and program/unit assessment data. Programs have used the data to guide program development in the
areas of content, field experiences, and pedagogy. A description of the unit’s assessment system including
the requirements and key assessments used in transition points can be found in Exhibit 2.3.a.
For initial certification programs, admission to Teacher Education programs goes beyond the admission
requirements of the University. Candidates must earn candidacy in order to be officially admitted to a
program. These additional requirements are delineated in the course catalog ( UG catalog – admissions
requirements), are a part of advising (Advising checklist), and require an approved candidacy form
(Candidacy form). Further criteria for entering student teaching, such as passing the
appropriate standardized exam, earning a "C" or better in all specialized course work, and successful
completion of field experiences, are also delineated in the course catalog as well as on the student
teaching pre-requisite form.
Admission to advanced programs is managed by the School of Graduate Studies and Research.
Admission requirements are delineated in the Graduate Catalog (Graduate Catalog) and include the
specific requirements for each program. All advanced programs in the School of Education require a
valid degree and/or certification in an education field.
Candidates receive feedback regularly and systematically through the use of classroom, SPA, and Unit
assessments. Using the Livetext platform for submission and evaluation of key assessments allows
candidates to see results quickly and efficiently as to whether they are meeting the standards of the field.
Within this context, rubric scores, comments, and overall grades can be seen by the candidates as soon as
evaluation is completed so that their knowledge and practice can be affected immediately. This feedback
is in addition to classroom evaluations such as assignments, tests, quizzes, and projects. All candidates
receive a mid-term and final grade that can be accessed on the university platform, SCOTS. All EU
teacher education candidates enrolled in initial programs are able to self-assess through the use of the
Diversity and Disposition Surveys given before candidacy in SEDU 271 and during clinical experiences,
as well as through the Technology Survey in SEDU 183 or HPE 384, and the TCPP in the field
experience. In addition, these candidates are assessed and receive feedback through Unit assessments
such as the Instructional Assessment Plan and PDE-430 to improve their planning and performance. All
candidates in both initial and advanced programs receive feedback on the Conceptual Framework
reflection to aid in guiding them toward becoming Effective Facilitators of Learning.
To ensure candidate success in program completion, the Unit has developed a comprehensive assessment
system based on integrated assessment and evaluation measures, particularly focused on five transition
points. Critical points for monitoring candidate progress through both initial and advanced programs
include admission, candidacy, clinical experience, graduation, and first-year professional. Though there
are some current supports in place for first-year professionals, these are in their initial stages of
development. Though transition points may be defined differently between initial and advanced, they are
still critical and effective for monitoring the success of candidates. A complete description of criteria and
key assessments at each transition point for various programs are provided in Exhibit 2.3.a. The data from
these assessments, together with other evaluation measures, are used by committees and administrators
within the Unit’s structure to manage and improve the unit’s operations and programs (CIC Minutes).
Many steps have been taken to ensure that Unit and program assessments are providing unbiased, reliable,
and valid results. These steps include but are not limited to the following:


Diligent programmatic discussion during the development of each assessment and rubric;
Assessments and rubrics posted on the candidate’s dashboard in Livetext at the beginning of
each semester; Assessments and rubrics can be seen and studied prior to assignment and
submission.
 Unit meeting discussion of data from Unit assessments each semester;
 Program review of program data from all assessments using the Program Analysis Report
each spring;
 On-going posting of all data from all assessments on the D2L platform for review by all
faculty;
 All assessments based on the appropriate program/SPA/INTASC/NCATE standards. Rubrics
are all aligned to the relevant standards;
 All surveys continue to be developed with the input from various stakeholders including
program, administration, and P-12 partners.
Our current assessment system promotes data collection that is used to drive meaningful program change
by providing regular and comprehensive information on candidate qualifications, proficiencies, and
graduate competence. These data are collected and analyzed through the use of informational
technologies – primarily our accreditation support platform, Livetext. The program related data are
housed within our SPA reports, all of which are posted on the EU website NCATE page (SPA reports).
These data are regularly and systematically collected, aggregated by the Unit Accreditation coordinator
(UAC), and disseminated as quickly as possible using the online platform of D2L. All members of the
SOE have full access to the data, both program and Unit, at all times through the use of this platform.
Data are also discussed at Unit meetings in both the Fall and Spring semesters. Additionally, data driven
program changes can clearly be seen in SPA Reports and, beginning Spring 2012, annual Program
Analysis Reports.
In order for data to be reviewed and used effectively, a structure was put in place (CI governance
structure). The Accreditation Coordination Council (ACC) is comprised of the Dean, Associate Dean,
current UAC, past UAC, and the Management Technician responsible for data collection support. This
council meets regularly to oversee the program and Unit-wide assessments. Representatives from each of
the NCATE Standards Committees, now referred to as Continuous Improvement Committees (CIC), are
responsible for reviewing both the program and Unit-wide assessments as led by the ACC. These
representatives, comprising the Continuous Improvement Team (CIT), are faculty from each of the SOE's
four departments, as well as the ACC members, and meets regularly to discuss Unit assessment issues.
Each member of the CIT serves as a co-chair for a particular committee and is responsible for reviewing
key assessments pertaining to one of the NCATE standards and related Unit issues (e.g., Clinical
Experiences: Early Field Placements or Clearance Issues). Each chair reports findings and
recommendations to the Team and Unit. The review process of Unit operations began in 2006 and
continues in order to consider revisions to the assessment system, governance structure, and Unit-wide
data such as exit surveys, diversity data, the Teacher Candidate Performance Profile. These deliberations
have already resulted in employer, alumni, and faculty surveys; changes to the diversity survey; a new
system for compiling student complaints; and, a SOE disposition policy (Unit meetings & CIC minutes).
Data collection and analysis are facilitated through the use of the College of Education Information
System (CEIS). CEIS is an EU – SOE data warehouse comprised of elements extracted from the
university's student information system, Banner, and other sources. The underlying strategy was to
simplify, unify, and verify data from multiple sources to enhance query and analysis capabilities. Integral
to the functioning of the system is the use of a professional report writing application (Crystal Reports).
CEIS allows the SOE to use a flexible range of criteria to track the progress of students within the SOEdefined population. Originally designed and implemented to comply with NCATE requirements, it has
been used as a reporting and analysis platform by the SOE since its creation in 2005 (CEIS Overview and
Explanation).
In response to a university need to track the progress of the larger population of all EU students, a second
database called RBASE was created, and was based on the CEIS model. SOE subsequently realized a
need to utilize information from beyond the SOE, and so began to incorporate elements of RBASE with
CEIS. Further improvement will occur as the university implements a comprehensive data warehouse in
2013-2014 that will allow for replacement of the RBASE/CEIS system.
In addition to reporting capabilities, the systems discussed offer value-added functionality. An example of
this is an application currently under development called the Undergraduate Profile. This application
summarizes various key transitions by student, and presents them in a unified visual interface, allowing
an advisor or researcher to see at a glance important measurements for a specific student. These
measurements can originate from multiple sources—even different database environments—and may help
pinpoint where academic or other issues originate.
Though resolution to student complaints has always been a high priority for the SOE, changes to this
process have been recently implemented. Beginning in the Fall of 2012, a system was developed to
document the candidate name, date, type of complaint, and resolution to that complaint. This database is
kept on a secure server and is used to inform the SOE regarding areas for improvement to better serve
candidates. As of the 2011-2012 academic year, it became clear that students did not understand the
proper protocol for registering complaints, prompting the SOE Dean’s office to develop a system to
address this issue. In an effort to provide candidates with a clearly articulated process to register
complaints, a specific e-mail address was created (soehelp@edinboro.edu) for this purpose. The SOE
website now provides directions for communication flow to ensure that students follow the protocol for
expressing concerns. If a candidate has contacted the instructor, advisor, and/or chair of the department
and not resolved the issue, s/he may forward the complaint to the e-mail. This is checked daily by a
representative in the Dean’s office who will then record this in the database and create a plan for
resolution to the problem. These initiatives were formally approved by the Assessment CI team in
November 2012 and implemented during the end of the Fall 2012 semester (Student concerns process and
Student concerns log).
The strong growth of SOE faculty expertise using candidate and program assessment has made the SOE
Unit faculty a valuable resource and leader for the university as it pursues Middle States accreditation. As
the university focusses more on data driven decision-making, particularly in relation to learning
outcomes, the SOE is regarded as the model for other schools to replicate. In support of a university-wide
commitment to continuous improvement, the Provost appointed an Assessment Coordinator in 2010 to
work with each department/program independently to develop assessments based on student learning
objectives. The Assessment Coordinator has taken an active role in establishing and monitoring a
sustainable and cyclical process for program review focusing on implementation of assessments, analysis
of assessments, and a plan for improvement based on the results. (Middle States webpage) The template
designed to support this process includes objectives, an assessment plan, assessment results, and a plan
for a response to the analysis of results. A review of the completed 2011 Student Learning Responses
indicate that many of the departments have made detailed suggestions for programmatic changes based on
assessment of the data. The SOE is notably one of the strongest in this area with specific
recommendations based upon data analysis at unit meetings, program meetings, and department retreats.
The SOE Unit Accreditation Coordinator and the University Assessment Coordinator have worked
closely to move the university toward its goal of authentic and meaningful assessment, analysis, and
continuous program improvement.
2.2.b Continuous Improvement: Summarize activities and changes on data that have led to CI of
candidate performance and program quality.
There have been several agents of change for the Unit since the last NCATE visit. New legislation by the
state, as well as a change in leadership in the SOE, led to significant changes to the assessment system
and to the Unit. Many of these changes have improved the effectiveness of the assessment system, and
thus, have led to candidate and program improvement.
EU teacher certification programs were changed to reflect a focus on Early Childhood, Middle and
Secondary education, as well as an integrated approach to Special Education and ELL. As new state
program requirements were legislated in Pennsylvania (Ch. 49-2), all new initial programs were
submitted to PDE. Following approval, the new programs were implemented effective Fall 2009. (Initial
and Advanced Programs) This development process provided an opportunity for faculty to revisit the
current assessment system. As a result, today’s programs have in-depth assessments with detailed rubrics
addressing candidate competencies related to specific professional standards.
As a consequence of the changes in the certification requirements the admission criteria for initial
programs were revised. The admission criteria described in 2.3.b reflect these changes. Praxis I tests,
developed by ETS and used for many years, have been replaced by the PAPA test, developed by Pearson
and used beginning Spring 2012 with the newly established cut-off scores. (Praxis I and PAPA sites)
New PECT tests have been developed as exit exams, in place of the Praxis II, for the Early Childhood,
Special Education, and Middle Level Candidates. Secondary 7-12 candidates still take the Praxis II to
ensure appropriate content knowledge. All licensure exams for advanced programs have remained the
same however an on-line format is under development (PDE Testing Requirements).
Other changes to program admission requirements include the following:
(a) Candidates entering initial programs as Graduate students no longer have a specific Math or English
requirement. A bachelor's degree is assumed to indicate basic mathematics and English knowledge
appropriate for an initial certification program. (PDE weekly email & clarification)
(b) Though there are general admissions requirements for all Graduate programs, minimum GPA
requirements vary depending on the program, but range from 2.8 – 3.0 for teacher certification. Some
programs require additional evidence of readiness (Praxis or GRE) for applicants with lower GPAs. (Grad
Admissions)
(c) Appropriate clearances must be obtained prior to obtaining candidacy. (Clearances)
(d) SPED 210 is required for obtaining candidacy for most initial programs. (Candidacy form)
(e) Candidates wishing to enter the Educational Leadership and Educational Psychology programs must
provide a writing sample in response to a question related to the field. (Grad Admissions – Ed programs)
Using the Desire to Learn (D2L) platform, Unit and program data are now regularly distributed to all Unit
faculty. Logistical support for this dissemination is provided through the SOE Office of Accreditation.
Any member of the Unit can now access D2L and see the latest data available for all programs and for the
Unit. Members can then use this information to make programmatic decisions, to review SPAs, facilitate
CIT discussions, and support Unit retreat discussions. To ensure that available data are viewed and
discussed regularly, the Program Analysis Report (PAR) template was developed and a schedule for
submission implemented (PAR template). Given this template, all programs are to review the most
current data and make recommendations for change with specific implementation dates. The template was
first developed and used in Spring 2012, and has been revised to include Goals and Standards in order to
ensure alignment. As program data is being reviewed every spring, it was determined that Unit data
should be reviewed during the Fall semester. This was first implemented in Fall 2011, and continued in
Fall 2012 at the Unit meetings.
As discussed in 2.1, changes in leadership within the SOE led to changes to the assessment system
review structure and ultimately improved the assessment culture of the SOE. As previously described,
the ACC was convened to oversee and direct the SOE’s accreditation efforts. This council provides
directives for the Continuous Improvement committees (formerly known as Standard Committees). The
shift in name to CIC reflects the shift in culture away from strictly meeting each Standard toward dealing
with all issues associated with the SOE on a continuous basis. The CICs include the following:
Disposition, Assessment, Clinical Experiences, Diversity, Faculty Vitality, and Governance. The cochairs of each CIC also meet regularly as the CIT and present progress at each Unit meeting. The CIT,
along with the ACC, coordinate Unit efforts to maintain accreditation. This structure has been made
possible by the commitment of the SOE and university leadership to dedicate resources for its success.
The main resource made available was the increase in release time for the UAC from 6 credit release (0.5
load) to 12 credit release (1.0 load).
As an additional part of the structure, the Educational Partners Advisory Council (EPAC) was started in
Fall 2011 which has led to the use of additional data to guide program improvement. This vital group
consisting of superintendents and administrators from area school districts meets once a semester at the
University to discuss important topics affecting partnerships, clinical experiences, and impact of programs
on P-12 student learning. Feedback from the EPAC group was used in the development and dissemination
of the Employer Satisfaction Survey. Additionally, the P-12 partners requested a 7-12 Special Education
program to meet their future needs. In response to this request, the SOE applied for and received a state
grant during the summer 2012 to design a SPED 7-12 master’s program. A program proposal was
developed during the Fall 2012 semester and has been submitted to the University Wide
Curriculum Committee for consideration early in Spring 2013. The program will be submitted to PDE in
February of 2013. The development of this program included a conversation between university field and
student teaching coordinators from each department and EPAC members to discuss concerns related to
implementation of state guidelines for the four stages of field experiences. The SOE developed a mutually
beneficial plan in response to these concerns which was implemented immediately. Further, feedback
from EPAC indicated a need for the appointment of a full-time director to oversee all field and student
teaching placements. Beginning in Spring 2013, a new Director of Field Experiences and Student
Teaching was appointed. (EPAC minutes & SPED 7-12 minutes)
Additionally, there have been many efforts since 2007 to obtain feedback from stakeholder groups
including candidates and P-12 administrators. On-line surveys have now been developed to obtain
feedback from many different stakeholder groups. Alumni, Employer, Clinical Faculty, Faculty, and
Candidate surveys all provide important information for program improvement. All surveys were based
on the Conceptual Framework as well as the appropriate standards for the program and stakeholder.
Reaching each of these stakeholders has required cooperation with the Alumni Office, the local
Intermediate Unit, and area school districts.
Under the direction of the Dispositions CIC and the Associate Dean, a SOE Disposition policy was
developed in Fall 2012. Though all programs were governed by program specific disposition policies, it
was determined that an overall SOE policy was necessary to encompass, support, and sustain each of
those individual policies. The Disposition CIC will continue to monitor its use and revise as necessary.
Under the direction of the Assessment CIC and the Associate Dean, a SOE Student Concern database was
developed. In this way, the Unit maintains records of formal candidate complaints and documents their
resolution. This system was developed in Fall 2012 to begin use in Spring 2013(Student Concern
Process). Possibly the most vital part of this process is the intentional attempt to teach candidates the
appropriate process for lodging a complaint. Teaching candidates the established steps in the process and
the need for appropriate use of language will aid in swift resolution and in collection of data relevant to
program improvement, while protecting the rights of all persons involved.
In an attempt to connect the NCATE and Middle States accreditation processes, the Program Analysis
Report form was developed by the Assessment CIT. These report forms facilitate analysis of data
regarding specific program improvement each spring. Though SPA review provides granular data about
program completers, the data were often used to revise assessments and only viewed from the perspective
of SPA standards, as opposed to a more global view of Student Learning Outcomes within the
University. These reports necessitate program faculty to review data with the intent of program change.
This process began in Spring 2012.
There have been many continuous improvement efforts within programs. The following are just a few
examples: (please click to see description)
(a) Early Childhood Education major program revision
(b) Advanced (non-cert) Programs adopt standards and assessments
(c) New Science Report of Supervision Form
(d) HPE Technology objectives
(e) Re-examination of Reading Program
(f) Educational Leadership Comprehensive Exam
Since 2008, one of the major Unit assessments – the Teacher Candidate Performance Profile (TCPP) –
has been refined to better reflect state and national standards. This assessment is completed by University
Supervisors, Cooperating Teachers, and Candidates in both Field and Student Teaching/Intern
experiences (TCPP data).
Under the direction of the Diversity CIC, an investigation into the use of theMulticultural Awareness
Knowledge Skills Survey (MAKSS) and the MAKSS-T (for Teachers) diversity surveys was
undertaken. The MAKSS was piloted in 2011 as an option for advanced programs. The Cultural
Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI), currently used for diversity information, was developed
primarily for initial certification candidates. The MAKSS uses more appropriate language for advanced
candidates. As a result of that pilot and dissatisfaction with the CDAI, the MAKSS-T was approved in
Fall 2012 at the Unit meeting and with implementation in Spring 2013. The committee will assess the
effectiveness as data becomes available.
One particular area of interest for the Assessment CIC is in the area of “elimination of bias” in the
assessment system. The CIC has discussed and approved an effort to encourage systematic discussion at
the program level with regard to rubric development and use. All faculty within a program must have a
consistent definition of rubric criteria and must apply those definitions consistently throughout the use of
the assessment. These conversations must also happen at the Unit level for assessments such as the
Instructional Assessment Plan, TCPP, and, especially, the Conceptual Framework Reflection. Beyond
this, the CIC has discussed the possibility of reliability and validity investigations of assessments. Though
alignment with standards aids in this quest, systematic investigations involving the triangulation of
data are suggested to ensure the fairness and accuracy of the assessments and evaluations. The
Assessment CIC will initiate discussions with department chairs and program heads to determine a course
of action and timeline for implementing such investigations.
Assessment has been the largest area of growth for the SOE. All of the activities listed above demonstrate
a commitment to continuous improvement in the area of assessment. The new governance structure now
in place is capable of sustaining the continuous improvement process taking into consideration changes to
national and state standards, changes in state legislation, new research findings, and feedback from P-12
partners. Through the use of systematic assessment and evaluation, data driven decisions can be made
programmatically to enhance Unit, program, faculty, and candidate performance. Unit and program data
analysis have now become internalized within the School of Education. Evaluations from the unit retreats
indicate faculty members appreciate the availability and access to program and Unit data and the time to
analyze it together. This process has taken place over the past two years and has led to a noticeable shift
toward a culture of assessment (Retreat evaluations).
3.1 How does the unit work with the school partners to deliver field experience and clinical practice
to enable candidates to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to help all students learn?
3a. Collaboration between Unit and School Partners
Edinboro University (EU) has worked collaboratively with our local public schools and agencies to
deliver field experiences and clinical practice that allow for the development of the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions necessary to become Effective Facilitators of Learning. Throughout its history, but most
notably since 2005 when the SOE established its first Professional Development School (PDS)
partnership with Erie City School District (ECSD), collaborative partnerships have been utilized to
design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical practice.
The SOE and its partners collaborate to provide clinical experiences for teacher candidates in initial
certification programs. While maintaining the collaboration with ECSD through Roosevelt Middle and
Peiffer Burleigh Elementary Schools, EU continues to develop PDS partnerships, most recently with
Penncrest School District at Cambridge Springs Elementary and the Erie County YMCA. (Exhibit 3.3.a)
Currently, two PDS directors collaborate to facilitate initiatives that serve to build reciprocal benefits and
ultimately contribute to student learning in the P-12 schools. Recent examples include a Multicultural
Night at Pfeiffer Burleigh and also an after school tutoring program at Cambridge Springs Elementary.
Collaboration is evident with all of our regional P-12 partners which include approximately 39 school
districts. Many of these districts serve a large ELL population (e.g., Perseus House), a large population of
low SES students (e.g., Corry, Titusville, and Union City), or are diverse in race/ethnicity (Erie School
District). Outside of the region, the SOE collaborates with the Department of Defense to provide
international clinical experience for initial certification candidates. Over the past four years, the Unit also,
in conjunction with the University's office of International Student Services of EU, developed a
relationship with schools located in China. For examples of programming established through these
partnerships and other informal agreements with local agencies (Exhibit 3.3.a). In addition, advanced
programs partner with local schools as well as schools from across the state, country, and the world.
Many field and residency experiences occur outside of the public school system at community-based
agencies, clinical settings, and charter schools (Exhibit 3.3.a). Culminating experiences such as the
clinical experience in the Reading Program and the research project on student achievement in the
Educational Leadership program contribute to the ongoing collaboration of University and P-12 partners.
Collaboration is not only evidenced by the number/type of sites for the clinical experiences but also in the
variety of stakeholders who have input into the development of these experiences (Exhibit 3.3.a).
Although the design of field and clinical experiences is primarily the responsibility of the SOE faculty,
the Unit and school partners share expertise and integrate resources to support candidate learning. P-12
administration and clinical faculty are consulted on all phases of field experience and clinical practice.
For example, the Early Childhood and Special Education Department pilots all new assessments and
requests feedback from cooperating teachers on the overall quality of each junior field experience
placement.
Formal collaborative activities include advisory groups such as the Educational Partners Advisory
Council (EPAC) and the ECSD Academic Advisory Group. EPAC was started in Fall 2011 and consists
of a vital group consisting of superintendents and administrators from area school districts. This
group meets once a semester at the University to discuss important topics affecting partnerships, clinical
experiences, and impact of programs on P-12 student learning. Feedback from the EPAC group indicated
a need for a 7-12 Special Education program. In response to this request, SOE faculty have used a grant
from PDE to develop such a program which will be submitted to PDE for review in Spring 2013. Also
during the Fall 2012 semester, university field and student teaching coordinators from each department
met with the EPAC to discuss concerns related to implementation of state guidelines for the four stages of
field experiences. We were able to develop a mutually beneficial plan in response to these
concerns which was implemented immediately (EPAC minutes & SPED 7-12 minutes). The ECSD
Academic Advisory Group council consists of four higher education institutions working together
to increase the opportunities for student achievement of the P-12 students within the regional, high
poverty, diverse district of Erie.
In addition, Unit faculty members collaborate with P-12 students, parents and community members on a
variety of experiences along with district administration and clinical faculty. Examples include literacy
nights, multicultural nights, parent literacy workshops, and Wilderness Quest (Exhibit 3.3.a).
Through collaborative development, implementation and evaluation of clinical experiences, the Unit is
able to prepare candidates to be Effective Facilitators of Learning.
3b. Design Implementation and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
Established criteria for entrance to clinical practice is well documented for all initial certifications as well
as advanced programming. Please see Exhibit 3.3.b for evidence of all established criteria.
EU initial certification candidates complete four stages of field experiences. Reflecting PDE
guidelines, the SOE established four stages of field ranging from observations to full clinical practice
(Exhibit 3.3.b). Initial certificate candidates participate in a variety of observations and
exploratory activities in Stage 1 and 2 field experiences, all requiring reflective practice. Classroom
observations, tutoring, community events, and school board meetings are just a few examples of the
opportunities provided through partnerships with local schools and agencies.
In Stage 3 field experiences, the teacher candidates continue to apply and reflect on their content,
professional and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions. Teacher candidates and
interns complete coursework focused on pedagogy in conjunction with extended field experiences in
schools, childcare centers, afterschool programs (art field program), alternative education youth centers
(grant with PH), and agencies.
Prior to the capstone experience, all initial certification students must successfully complete state
mandated licensure exams. In these Stage 4 experiences, the candidate is fully integrated into the school
program and into teaching practice. Candidates complete observations and are observed by supervisors
and clinical faculty (observation forms). They interact with teachers, families of students, administrators,
university supervisors, and other interns about their practice continually. Candidates reflect on their
experiences in lesson reflections, debriefings, and goal setting with clinical faculty and supervisors. They
also participate in professional performance courses where they discuss and reflect with other teacher
candidates (SEDU 491, SPED 486, ECED 380, ELED 450).
Coordination of all internship/student teaching clinical experiences for initial programs is handled through
the Office of Certification and Student Teaching (OCST). The OCST collaborates with leaders of more
than 100 individual schools in 20 school districts, matching candidates with cooperating teachers in rural,
urban, and suburban districts. Matches are submitted using the established protocol of the district for
approval and/or additional recommendations. The Director of Field Experiences and Student Teaching
may also discuss individual cases with district personnel until placements are finalized.
The OCST and Unit are responsible for determining required criteria for clinical faculty and working with
the P-12 administration to determine the acceptability of qualified clinical faculty. The OCST is also
responsible for the training of all supervisors and clinical faculty to ensure that all parties are aware of
their responsibilities to the candidates, P-12 students, and the Unit (Attendance & PPT). Additionally, the
OCST Director ensures that all University supervisors have a teaching credential and/or appropriate
experience for the area in which they supervise.
All programs are responsible for coordinating early stage and all embedded field experiences. A
designated faculty member, usually the Department’s Assistant Chair or the Program Head, accomplishes
this coordination. Each of these individuals is responsible for the training of those involved as clinical
faculty for these field experiences. These trainings occur both on-site and on campus. (EMSE Junior Field
training)
The field and capstone experiences for each advanced program, including conventional and distance
learning programs, encourage candidates through the use of embedded field experiences to synthesize
theory and apply it to their fields of study. Additionally, they call for practicums and internships with
different durations and requirements that are driven by the standards of the individual SPAs (syllabi and
handbooks and SPAs).
Field and capstone experiences have various evaluation tools which include but are not limited to the
Teacher Candidate Performance Profile (TCPP), Instructional Assessment Plan (IAP), and PDE 430 form.
Though all of these are effective Unit assessments, the IAP is an assessment that yields rich data
reflecting candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Teacher candidates justify their own practice
based on data collected through pre- and post- instructional assessment and analysis. Completion of this
assessment requires teacher candidates to provide evidence of impact on student learning.
All initial programs require a course in instructional technology. As can be seen in the results of the
Technology Survey, teacher candidates are well-versed in software and on-line resources as well as
integrating interactive white boards, iPads, and other instructional media into their instruction and
assessment. Additional evaluation of appropriate technology integration in instruction occurs through the
use of the Report of Supervision form, TCPP, and PDE 430 (Exhibit 3.3.f). Advanced programs require
course work focused on the use and implementation of appropriate technology for their respective fields
(Exhibit 3.3.f).
Exit criteria for initial certification and advanced programs are well defined and can be seen in Exhibit
3.3.b.
3c. Candidates' development and demonstration of knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions to
help all students learn Initial certification candidates demonstrate mastery of content areas and
pedagogical and professional knowledge through course grades and key SPA assessments, Unit
assessments, and state mandated professional exams (PECT, PAPA and Praxis). Prior to enrolling in
student teaching/internship, candidates must complete prior field experiences as well as the required
professional examination. Advanced programs vary in mandated test requirements, but all require a
clinical experience to demonstrate mastery.
The Unit’s CF is reflected in all field and clinical experiences. The CF is aligned with INTASC,
Pennsylvania State Standards, and the pertinent SPA standards, which are in turn aligned with program
requirements and assessments. In addition, all candidates in field and student teaching complete an
assignment that requires them to describe how the experience has enriched their understanding of the CF
(Exhibit 3.3.f).
The ability of candidates to affect student learning is assessed in the initial certification program through
multiple assessment strategies including the IAP, as well as reflected on the Discipline Specific
Competencies, TCPP, and the PDE 430 (Exhibit 3.3.f). These evaluations are completed by both clinical
faculty as well as university supervisors.
All programs facilitate reflective practice through coursework and during all stages of field. See syllabi
and outlines in Exhibit 3.3.b. Candidates are provided the opportunity to discuss reflection with clinical
faculty during Weekly Student Teaching Analysis. Candidates also begin continuous assessment,
reflection and action directed at impacting P-12 learning by developing the IAP. All clinical practice is
designed to provide opportunities that include students with exceptionalities and students from diverse
ethnic/racial, linguistic, gender and socioeconomic groups. Each candidate in the SOE is required to take
two courses in special education (See SPED 210 and 370 syllabi) and required by policy to have a
“diverse” placement for either their Stage 3 or Stage 4 clinical experience.
3.2.a The following are areas where the Unit is currently performing at the Target level.
All programs in the SOE are focused on the goal of developing the professional knowledge, skills, and
dispositions of candidates such that all completers will have a positive impact on P-12 student
learning. In the spirit of continuous improvement, programs continue to make data-driven changes in
order to attain this goal, however, there are areas at which the Unit feels both initial and advanced
programs are performing at "target" level. These areas include the following: collaboration with our
School Partners to provide excellent instructional activities and field experiences for candidates; the
design and implementation of clinical experiences that allow reflective practice to inform decision
making; and the work with P-12 schools to provide professional development for clinical faculty. The
number and type of activities vary by program, and the following sections give a brief summary of these
experiences and demonstrate the commitment of the Unit in these areas.
A. Collaboration between Unit and School Partners.
Conceptual Framework: As can be seen in the History of the CF, during the development and
refinement of the framework faculty members from across the Unit and across the University were
consulted at length through committee, program, department, and unit meetings over the course of two
years. Currently, on-going evaluation of the CF by P-12 partners occurs through discussions at biannual EPAC meetings and through the use of the Clinical Faculty Survey (results). Both efforts began in
the 2011-2012 year and will continue as an integral piece of the assessment system.
Instructional Activities for Candidates and Students: As a result of joint deliberations and the
development of the CF, programs became more committed to engaging candidates in experiences that
bring meaning to the CF. For example, to encourage candidates to focus on respect and embrace diversity
(CF - A), candidates have the opportunity to attend the Philadelphia Urban Experience, provide a reading
clinic for children of migrant workers, and participate in activities in high poverty urban and rural PDS
schools. Opportunities that support the educational and personal growth of learners (CF-C) include
Student Shadowing Day for Perseus House Charter School students and College for Every Student
presentations at Cambridge and East High Schools. Authentic experiences such as Wilderness Quest
outdoor camp and Code Orange Day as well as activities at McKeever Environmental Center with middle
school students, and stage 3 field experiences through YMCA partnerships allow candidates to lead and
monitor student learners using motivational and management skills (CF-G). Finally, candidates are
encouraged to assess, create, and adapt instruction that provides opportunities for every student to be
successful (CF-J) in activities such as the Art after-school field in conjunction with CHAMPS, HPE
Swim lesson for those with special needs in the PennCrest School District, and the MEd in ECED
Summer Residency program. More information on each activity listed can be seen in Exhibit 3.3.a.
B. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field and Clinical Experiences
Apply and Reflect in a Variety of Settings: All programs within the SOE recognize the importance of
reflective practice and using reflection to guide decisions that impact student learning. For this reason,
opportunities for reflection are found throughout programs.
In SEDU 271, a course taken by all teacher candidates, virtual observations are completed specifically to
demonstrate best practices in ELL instruction. Candidates also observe in a PreK-12 classroom. In each
instance, candidates are required to reflect upon the observations and discuss their experiences.
Middle Level candidates enrolled in MLED 350/360 participate in a variety of observational experiences,
including shadowing a student, observing teaming, and participating in advisory team. They reflect on
each of these experiences and make connections to research based middle level practices and features as
well as adolescent development.
In light of the new middle level certification in PA, administration from Titusville Middle School along
with faculty from the Unit and the district are piloting a year-long clinical experience that incorporates the
teaming aspect of recommended middle level practices. In this more intensive Stage 3 and 4 field
experiences, school partners are involved in the delivery and evaluation of field and clinical experiences .
Cooperating teachers also participate in formative and summative evaluations of candidates in junior field
and student teaching.
Middle and Secondary candidates are required to complete three specific observations before entering
Stage 3 field. These observations include reflections based on diversity, classroom management, and
student characteristics.
Dual candidates of Early Childhood and Special Education have three field experiences prior to Stage 4
field. These experiences require candidates to create, teach, and reflect on each lesson and to discuss their
experiences.
Advanced programs also have many opportunities for field experiences prior to clinical experiences. For
instance, the Educational Leadership program has field embedded into every course leading up to the
internship experience. These experiences are assessed through a summary evaluation and reflection.
School Psychology also requires observations to be completed in four different courses prior to
internship, again assessing through both reflection and comprehensive exams.
In advanced programs for certified teachers, field experiences are also required. Graduate students
in EMSE who are certified teachers take part in a candidate designed field experience focusing on an area
that the individual identifies as a professional development need. This Design Your Own Experience
(DYO) has a series of required stages to complete and involves reflection, research, observation,
implementation, and a final presentation. In ECED 720 candidates participate in a one week residency
where they help plan and implement a math/science center. In the MEd in Special Education, candidates
are certified teachers seeking special education certification. Candidates complete a 125 hour internship
with a certified special education teacher.
Stage 3 field experiences are included for all initial teacher candidates as a separate course for most
programs, though Early Childhood has completely embedded field experiences. These experiences are
intensive and require 90 hours in the classroom – observing, helping, teaching, and fully participating as
an instructional partner with the clinical faculty. Candidates are required to reflect on all lessons taught in
the field. (Handbooks)
Candidates reflect on and can justify their own practice: Initial teacher candidates are required to reflect
on each lesson they teach throughout their Stage 3 and Stage 4 experiences (handbooks). They are
instructed to provide reflection on their instruction, classroom management, and methods of assessment
and determine what was effective or ineffective and what ways they could improve their performance,
management, and assessment methods based on analysis of student learning. Further evidence of
reflection from initial certification candidates can be seen through inspecting the descriptions and data
from the IAP and the CF reflection assignment.
Candidates in advanced programs are required to reflect and justify their practice throughout all
programs. Evidence can be seen by reviewing key assessments including but not limited to the following:
(a) Reading – Case Study and Professional Development Project
(b) Ed Leadership – Personal Vision Essay and Focus Project
(c) School Psychology – Comprehensive Evaluation
(d) Masters in Middle & Secondary – Portfolio
(e) Special Education – Most Promising Practice Project
(f) Masters in Early Childhood – Math & Science Learning Project
For more evidence of reflection, please see SPAs.
Candidates interact with teachers, families, administrators, university supervisors and other interns
about their practice:
There are many opportunities throughout the SOE's programs for candidates to interact with other
candidates as well as with Unit, University, and P-12 faculty. One example of this opportunity for
interaction within an initial program is the EMSE Portfolio Showcase and Interview held on campus each
semester. The showcase features portfolios assembled by Junior Field (stage 3) candidates to display
evidence to all those invited including University, Unit, and P-12 faculty and administration. The poster
session demonstrates how a candidate's experience modeled the CF, met the INTASC standards, and
impacted their teaching as well as student learning. In a similar light, the Educational Leadership
Showcase allows advanced program candidates to participate in an AERA-style poster presentation based
on their internship experience and action research. The Reading Clinic luncheon allows reading
candidates to come together with their University Supervisors to discuss their experiences as well as to
acknowledge the efforts of the collaborating P-12 partners. Interaction with families is exemplified
through the Literacy Nights planned and implemented by candidates in the Early Childhood
programs. Other examples of interaction can be seen in projects such as the following: Reading
Professional Development Project; Stage 4 Student Teaching; School Psychology Internship; ECED
Family Literacy Bag; SPED Option II Response to Intervention Project; and the Masters in Early
Childhood Child Case Study.
Candidates in Advanced programs participate in field experiences that require them to critique and
synthesize educational theory related to practice based on applied research: Advanced programs all
include the design, implementation, and evaluation of activities that are theoretically-based and involve
the use of research and technology. As examples, the Educational Leadership program has a Student
Achievement Focus project and a poster presentation completed according to AERA guidelines. School
Psychology interns are involved in case studies. Middle and Secondary Masters students are involved in
action research projects. Masters in Early Childhood candidates participate in case studies and action
research projects, and, likewise, candidates in the Reading program are also involved in action research
projects and case studies.
3c. Candidates' development and demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, & Dispositions to help all
students learn.
Candidates work collaboratively with other candidates and clinical faculty to critique and reflect on each
other’s practice and their effects on student learning: All candidates are involved in projects requiring
collaboration with other candidates. Through coursework, in-class discussions, discussion boards, and
chats, candidates are able to share perspectives and develop appreciation for the perspectives of others.
Seminar classes, such as SEDU 491, ELED 450, and ECED 380, taken concurrently with student
teaching, allow candidates in their capstone experience to ask questions of one another and develop
insights from others’ experiences. Additionally, there are three practicum days or professional
development days designed for all candidates in student teaching to interact with their peers, with
university faculty, and with professionals in the field.
Candidates interact with clinical faculty routinely to gain feedback on their teaching and impact on
student learning. Weekly goal setting meetings with clinical faculty, conferences with university
supervisors and Skype conferences with professors, are all used for this purpose. Through written and
oral feedback channels, there are ample opportunities for clinical faculty to critique a candidate’s
performance.
Candidates are able to reflect on and analyze clinical faculty performance through written observations
completed at all stages of field. Though these observations are not shared with the clinical faculty
directly, discussions of virtual observations are held in SEDU 271, and written feedback on required
observations is given to candidates as part of coursework in SPED 210, SEDU 475, and student teaching.
Additionally, seminar courses during student teaching allow candidates in those programs the opportunity
to discuss techniques observed in the classroom.
Professional Development (PD) activities: As is evident from the CF, a commitment to excellence within
our programs necessitates a desire to collaborate with, learn from, and engage in a professional learning
community with other educators. To model this, professional development (PD) with local schools and
partners as well as with other P-12 faculty is evident across the Unit. One major example of this type of
collaboration is our relationship with Perseus House Charter School of Excellence. Through a 3 year PD
Grant with Perseus House Charter School, PD has been and continues to be provided in the form of
workshops, 3 credit graduate courses, model classrooms, and action research projects. Joint Conferences
with General McLane (GM) School District have provided opportunities for both University and P-12
faculty to present and learn from each other. Further, EU has always supported NWPMSA
conferences through strong participation and as the event coordinators. PD activities are also provided
through our PDS partnerships including 3 credit graduate courses for ECSD faculty. Other attempts at
providing and benefiting from PD activities include the following: Presentations at conferences for
University and P-12 faculty such as the Keystone State Reading Association, National Council for the
Teachers of Mathematics, the National Middle School Association, and the Principals Leadership
Induction Network; Consultantships and mentorships with GM School District, Art in Action, and PA
novice leaders; and providing a Director, coordination, and support of the PennLake National Writing
Project.
More information on each of these is available by clicking the link as well as in Faculty Vitae and the
Faculty Qualification Survey data.
The following are areas where the Unit is strong but still “moving to target.”
Though all programs within the Unit strive to be "target" in all areas of preparing candidates, it is with a
spirit of continuous improvement that certain areas have been identified as still "moving to target." For
some of these areas, certain programs are quite strong and are being investigated as models for other
programs. Improvement is already under way will continue to be supported by the new governance
structure, including the addition of EPAC, strengthened support of PDS, and continued efforts to provide
opportunities to work with diverse populations.
3a. Jointly determining placements: The Director of Field Experiences and Student Teaching continues to
work with Principals and Superintendents to ensure the best possible placement for teacher candidates.
Candidates are placed based on information given in the application such as location, P-12 school
attended, experience with diverse learners, and certification area. It is the responsibility of the designated
district administrator to supply the OCST and the field coordinators with appropriate clinical faculty.
Training for cooperating teachers is held every semester for those working with student teachers in all
content areas. Similar training is held for those working with Junior Field candidates at the Middle and
Secondary level. Training is also required by the School Psychology Program and the Educational
Leadership Program provides on-site training (Manual) for its on-site supervisors. This training is
particularly important since most candidates in advanced programs are completing field experiences and
internships within the districts where they work, and therefore, program heads assign the placement
according to adult learner needs and in support of growing professionals in the institution. To further
ensure the best possible placement for candidates, approval of the mentor is documented on the internship
application in programs such as the Educational Leadership, Special Education, and Counseling.
Similarly, internship agreements are signed by both SOE and Clinical faculty in School Psychology.
PDS: The Professional Development Schools Partnership, which began as the result of a Congressional
Grant in 2005, has experienced structural changes since its inception. The funding provided support for
director release time, resources for the schools, substitutes for K-12 liaisons to attend the steering
committee meetings, and support for professional development. As the funding ended, less financial
support contributed to challenges in continuing to finance substitutes for the steering committee meetings.
This led to a change in structure whereby the director met with the liaisons from each school on site rather
than gather all liaisons together. However, in the spirit of continuous improvement and acknowledging
the value of the guidance of a steering committee, the PDS directors intend to reinstitute the steering
committee model during the spring 2013 semester. Using the NCATE rubric for evaluation, the steering
committee will assess the current structure and develop a plan to move forward.
3c. Candidates develop and demonstrate proficiencies that support learning by all students as shown in
their work with students with exceptionalities and those from diverse ethnic/racial, linguistic, gender, and
socioeconomic groups: Though the location of EU can be restrictive to the Unit’s ability to provide
ethnically/racially diverse experiences, the Unit is dedicated to providing initial certification candidates
the opportunity to develop and demonstrate the proficiencies that support learning by all students. This
dedication can be seen through policies such as the requirement of all Initial certification candidates to
have a diverse Stage 3 or 4 placement and through the required coursework of SEDU 271 and SPED 210
for candidacy. This commitment is augmented by the state mandate for 90 hours of ELL & 270 hours of
Special Education instruction, but is also exemplified through presentations such as Poverty and the
Urban Learner at practicum days for student teachers. Other experiences available to candidates to
encourage the disposition that all students can learn include the established Philadelphia Urban
experience, the newly developed Erie Urban experience, and the PDS collaborative HPE Swim project.
Though all advanced programs in the Unit now require field experiences, the employment status of the
candidates enrolled as well as the on-line delivery of the programs have the potential to restrict the
diversity of the experiences. With this in mind, advanced programs have incorporated coursework to
specifically address these proficiencies including the Ed Leadership focus project and Sociological
Inventory, SPED 710 required by the Masters in Early Childhood, Middle & Secondary and School
Psychology, SEDU 702 required by the Masters in Middle & Secondary, and the Reading Clinic /
Migrant Education Program and READ 708 in the Reading Program.
3b. Training and Evaluation of Clinical Faculty: Training is conducted by the OCST for clinical faculty
acting as mentors for student teachers. Similar training is conducted for clinical faculty participating as
mentors for those in SEDU 475. Training is also conducted by the Educational Leadership Program for
supervisors. Training, however, is not systematic throughout the Unit. Similarly, due to the delicate nature
of P-12 partnerships and the consistent demand for clinical faculty, evaluation of clinical faculty is not
completed systematically. The Unit depends on the feedback from district administrators and University
supervisors to provide information on the appropriateness of the clinical faculty beyond meeting the
minimum criteria for serving in this capacity. A clinical faculty survey has been developed from which
demographic and other data can be gleaned.
Collaboration with P-12 Schools on program design. During the Fall 2011 semester, the Dean of
Education established EPAC which meets biannually or more often as needed. The partnership includes
area superintendents, the intermediate unit director, special education directors, and designees. The
conversations are invigorating, informative, and in the true spirit of collaboration. Examples of such
discussions can be seen in Exhibit 3.3.a. (EPAC agendas and notes from SPED 7-12 meeting).
As this report reflects, the Unit is highly successful in providing a variety of field experiences that
develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of our candidates that will allow them to have a positive
impact on the learning of all students. In order to be Target on all aspects of this standard, the Unit must
move toward systematically collecting and analyzing data on all experiences, using the data to guide
program improvement, and developing a mutually acceptable plan for the selection and evaluation of
clinical faculty. The new governance model supports this effort by creating a culture of assessment and a
renewed commitment to using data to continuously improve all preparation programs.
4.1 How does the unit prepare candidates to work effectively with all students, including individuals
of different ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual
orientation, and/or geographical area?
Edinboro University demonstrates a strong commitment to creating an "inclusive environment" in which
students from a multiplicity of cultures, backgrounds, abilities and experiences are successful (University
Mission). The NCATE Unit’s Conceptual Framework, Effective Facilitators of Learning, reveals a strong
commitment to preparing all candidates to work effectively with all students. Evidence such as our vision
statement, “an understanding of our diverse and global society” and the first belief statement of our
Conceptual Framework, “accept the requirement to build a civil society that focuses on respect and
embraces diversity” reveals this commitment and informs curricular and experiential program decisions.
Further evidence resides in the adoption of the Diversity proficiencies to be integrated into each program
and met by all candidates.
All Unit programs design curriculum and provide “experiences for candidates to acquire and demonstrate
the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn” (NCATE, 2008,
p. 34). This statement is evidenced by the fact that all programs adhere to national diversity standards set
forth by their Specialized Professional Associations [SPAs] or by the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS). In each program area, carefully designed curricular experiences are
required so as to promote candidates’ abilities to “contextualize teaching and draw effectively on
representations from the students’ own experiences and cultures” (p. 34). In the following subsections,
specific curricular experiences related to diversity are detailed (diversity course matrix and syllabi).
Initial Certification candidates engage in a wide range of curricular experiences related to diversity.
Edinboro's general education Core requires that all candidates in undergraduate and teacher certification
programs take a course related to cultural diversity and social pluralism. The objective of this requirement
is to promote “knowledge of diverse ways of living and thinking that are rooted in cultural, ethnic, racial,
gender and social differences” (UG Catalog, p. 50). The undergraduate core also requires that students
take courses in the following categories: Artistic Expression, World Civilizations, American
Civilizations, Human Behavior, Natural Science, and Ethics. These courses contribute to students’
understanding of and appreciation for human diversity (UG Catalog, p.48).
Since the Unit’s last NCATE visit, the SOE has made curriculum changes that now require additional
coursework related to diversity. Specifically, Special Education Competencies must be embedded into all
programs. To address this specific diversity issue as well as to meet state expectations, the Unit created
two new courses, SPED 210 Introduction to Exceptionalities and SPED 370 Adaptations and
Accommodations in Inclusive Classrooms. At least one of these two new courses is now required for all
teacher preparation programs. Initial certification candidates are further required to take an additional
education course specific to diversity, SEDU 271 Multiculturalism in American Schools, which includes
at least 60 hours of content related to English Language Learners (course outline for SEDU 271). Within
these as well as other professional education courses, candidates become aware of different learning
styles and practice adapting instruction for the success of all students. Courses including the topic of
diversity have been implemented into every initial certification program (diversity course matrix).
Two key examples of program design and implementation focusing on diversity include the Early
Childhood/Special Education program and the Health and Physical Education program.
Post Baccalaureate Teacher Certification Programs
The NCATE Standards, SPA standards, and the NBPTS form the foundation for the Unit’s post
baccalaureate teacher certification programs which include the Early Childhood Education Program,
Middle Level Program, and Secondary Education Program. All standards include curricular requirements
related to teaching diverse student populations.
Advanced Programs in Teacher Education
Advanced Programs in Early Childhood Education, Special Education, and Middle/Secondary Instruction
all require candidates to take SPED 710 Seminar in Exceptionalities and SEDU 702 Teaching in the
Contemporary Multicultural Classroom where they learn content related to children with special needs
and diverse backgrounds. State and national standards were used as a guide to develop curricular
experiences that promote candidates’ understanding of and ability to work effectively with diverse
learners. Curricular experiences are aligned with major assignments embedded in the courses (Key
assessments).
Related Professional Graduate Programs
All advanced programs expose candidates to diversity content in both traditional face-to-face courses, and
online courses. On-line courses bring together candidates from geographically diverse areas, helping to
create a learning environment characterized by rich discussions about issues of diversity due to the
perceived anonymity of online discussions (Curtin & Dixon, 2010). Additionally, these advanced
programs use national SPA and Pennsylvania Department of Education standards to inform the design,
implementation, and evaluation of curriculum. Two examples that detail how specific programs provide
curricular experiences for graduate candidates to acquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and
professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn come from the Graduate Reading Program
and Educational Leadership.
Field Experiences
Carefully designed field experiences ensure that our candidates have opportunities to extend and apply
proficiencies related to diversity. These experiences allow candidates to apply their knowledge and
skills regarding how to teach all students by differentiating instruction in a variety of settings. Each initial
candidate is placed in at least one school setting that has a diverse student population and most offer
placement opportunities for the candidates to become involved in the community. These experiences
allow for the growth of each candidate's professional dispositions (Diverse settings policy).
Undergraduate and Teacher Certification Programs and Post Baccalaureate Teacher Certification
Programs
Every teacher candidate and field student is required to be placed in a school that has been designated as
having a significant population of children of poverty, exceptionalities, and/or diverse ethnicity for at
least one of their field experiences. Through an ongoing demographic study in which our student teachers
are trained, the schools are ranked according to socioeconomic levels, numbers of children with
exceptionalities, and ethnic diversity (Appendix C).
PDS partnerships have remained strong since the last NCATE visit, and the Unit is continuing to expand
the experiences related to urban learners for candidates by developing relationships with an expectation of
formal partnerships using the PDS model. PDS District Liaisons (PDS report 2010-2011) have played an
integral role in developing a model that reflects the PDS nine essential elements. District teachers and
representatives visit EU’s campus to share insights about teaching in an urban setting, and district
teachers have served on panels, as guest lecturers, and provided input in curriculum planning. The
superintendent and teachers from the Erie School District have been invited guests at the Student
Teaching Practicum during the mid-point of the student teaching experience and these informal sessions
entitled “Poverty and the Urban Learner” have been extremely well received by our candidates, serving to
further strengthen the reciprocal relationship between the University and District partners.
In addition to required experiences, candidates have the opportunity to attend the Philadelphia Urban
Seminar, a two-week residential urban studies program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This seminar
provides an opportunity for students to immerse themselves in an urban setting through teaching, working
with students in small groups, focused observations, journaling, and a day-long community service
project. Written reflections reveal that students find them to be high impact experiences and influential in
changing their perspectives in relation to teaching in an urban district.
In Summer 2012, an Erie Urban Seminar was designed to replicate the Philadelphia Urban experience and
to make a positive connection with a local urban district. This is the first step in developing a program
that will introduce students to an urban setting early in their college experience, with the hope that they
will be better prepared for field experiences and student teaching. Plans also include an urban track which
will include an increased number of urban field experiences as well as specialized curriculum to address
the needs of learners in an urban setting.
Related Professional Graduate Programs:
Two examples of advanced program, diverse field experiences are the Reading Clinic and Educational
Leadership Intern Program.
Graduate Reading. In the Graduate Reading Program, every candidate is required to take READ 712:
Reading Clinic. In this capstone course, candidates work one-on-one with children from local schools or
community organizations that cater to an economically, geographically, or linguistically diverse
population. (list of partnering school districts). One community partner is the PDE’s Migrant Education
Program, a recipient of a 2011 Excellence in Summer Learning Award. Through this program and in
connection with READ 712, candidates have the opportunity to work with and learn from the children of
migratory farm workers. In 2012, the program increased the number of Summer Reading Clinics that are
offered through PDE’s Migrant Education Program and it is expected that involvement with this
community partner will continue to expand in future years.
Educational Leadership. An important aspect of the required Educational Leadership Program Internship
is the focus project on student achievement. Advanced candidates disaggregate student achievement data
by gender, race, ethnicity, economic status, students with special needs, and English Language Learners.
Data are analyzed and candidates develop plans to address any achievement gaps noted. Field experiences
and internships provide a rich setting in which to apply course content reflected in this plan. Candidates
in the building or district level leadership program have experience in conducting a sociological inventory
of a diverse community. Candidates in the Educational Leadership program conduct summaries,
evaluations, and reflections for every course, with ongoing attention to providing leadership that promotes
the success of all students.
Within the requirements of SCHA 731 School and Community Relations, a required course in all
educational leadership programs, candidates conduct a sociological inventory in a diverse setting (SCHA
731 rubric) included are the topics that educational leaders should understand and be able to analyze
customs and traditions, populations’ characteristics, existing communication channels, community
groups, leadership, economic conditions, political structure, social tensions, and previous community
efforts.
4.2.b Continuous Improvement: Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to
continuous improvement of candidate performance and program quality.
A major continuous improvement effort began in the Spring of 2011 with a discussion of Diversity
Proficiencies. The proficiencies were established by theI Diversity Continuous Improvement Committee
(CIC) and presented to the unit at the Fall 2012 Unit meeting. The CIC invited feedback which they
brought to the next committee meeting. After a review of the feedback, the CIC adopted the proficiencies
and presented them to the unit. The committee also directed each program to ensure that these
proficiencies were meaningfully integrated into the coursework and field experiences and that they were
assessed. One such assessment would be the Conceptual Framework reflection. Discussion about best
practices was discussed at the Fall 2012 CI Diversity CIC meeting and will continue in the Spring 2013
meeting. Many suggestions were offered, but the committee feels strongly that the decisions on
integration should be at the program level (minutes from CI Diversity).
In an attempt to assess candidates' knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to diversity, all candidates
in the Unit were required to take the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory [CDAI]. The Diversity CIC
examined and analyzed data from this survey and researched other instruments that might be better suited
to assessing candidates’ awareness in relation to diversity proficiencies. The CIC recognized that one
Graduate program faculty in particular had concerns about the relevance of the CDAI to their candidates
and programs. In an attempt to explore other surveys which might provide more meaningful data, the
committee spearheaded a pilot of the Multicultural Awareness Knowledge Skills Survey [MAKSS]
adapted for teaching in Spring and Summer 2010 semesters. Graduate programs in Educational
Leadership, and Art Education participated in the pilot (pilot survey data).
Data from the MAKSS pilot and CDAI data were shared with departments at a Unit retreat (Fall 2011)
with the directive to examine how the results might impact program decisions. The resulting discussion
suggested that undergraduate programs would like to pilot the MAKSS-T as an alternate diversity
assessment survey. Each program undertook a careful review of their course sequence and program
requirements for the purpose of determining the most appropriate times at which to administer the
MAKSS-T. Based on these discussions, some programs chose to administer the assessment at an entry
and exit point (so as to measure change over time in relation to a specific program learning experience)
while others chose to administer it at an exit point only (to ensure that candidates demonstrate appropriate
proficiencies). This new model was piloted in the Fall 2012 semester (Minutes from Diversity
Committee).
In alignment with state expectations, additional hours related to special education were implemented. In
addition to the curricular changes noted above, SPED 210 Introduction to Exceptionalities and SPED
370 Adaptations and Accommodations in Inclusive Classrooms are now required courses for all teacher
preparation programs. Stage 1 and Stage 2 field experiences are required in these two courses. Field
experiences include observations, followed by reflection through writing and class discussions.
Results of the Teacher Candidate Performance Profile (TCPP) and diversity survey data reveal that there
is growth in the area of dispositions related to diversity. When the Diversity CIC reviewed specific data
related to diversity, they discovered that most candidates score in at least the acceptable range. Each
department has a dispositions policy should a candidate not display dispositions appropriate for the
profession or working with diverse student populations. These disposition policies are aligned with the
Unit dispositions policy.
One other item of note is that EU has made good faith efforts to recruit faculty with expertise related to
diverse student populations (Exhibit 4.3.g and 4.3.h).
Experiences working with diverse faculty
As a Unit committed to continuous improvement, the SOE's plan to increase candidate experiences
in working with diverse faculty include a focused and intentional recruitment effort including attendance
at conferences where recent graduates are seeking positions, participation in a system wide effort to work
with specific doctoral programs at HBCs and other institutions, collaboration with the campus University
Diversity Council to increase the number of diverse faculty members at the university, and the
establishment of connections through professional organizations. The University Diversity Council has
also offered to be available during the search process for potential candidates to meet faculty of color on
campus. Additionally, the Diversity CIC will prepare a plan to recruit diverse faculty members in the
School of Education. We view this as a university issue as well as a School of Education area of concern,
thus coordinated efforts are viewed as the strongest approach.
While the School of Education has made a good faith effort to recruit faculty of diverse professional
backgrounds and qualifications, geographic areas, ethnicities, gender, and physical abilities, our efforts
have not been as successful as we would like in the areas of race and ethnicity (faculty demographics
table). Offers were made to two diverse candidates in the Spring 2012 semester; however they took other
positions. The Dean’s Office remains committed to increasing faculty diversity and has communicated
that this is a priority in the next search process. The Dean has also established a quicker timeline so that
we are in line to offer positions to the most highly qualified candidates before other offers are made.
Please see the Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Policy No. G005 for the
university’s plan for good faith effort in the area of recruitment and retention of faculty of color.
In an effort to encourage multiple perspectives, we have developed a session at the student teacher
practicum whereby professionals from urban settings lead a conversation about culturally responsive
teaching and management. This is well received and includes teachers of color from public schools in the
area. We also participate in the Philadelphia Urban Seminar where candidates who attend are introduced
to diverse speakers and diverse public school faculty and administrators. Students are also encouraged to
attend activities on campus which address issues of diversity and are often led by panels including faculty
of color.
Experience working with diverse candidates
The Diversity CIC has adopted as its priority for the next year a focus on recruitment and retention of
candidates of color to EU's teacher preparation programs (candidate demographic table). This initiative
has grown out of an awareness of the importance of a diverse teacher workforce for all P-12 students, the
changing demographics of Pennsylvania, the critical conversations about culturally responsive pedagogy
and management, and the success of every student. A diverse faculty benefits the P-12 student, the
university candidates, the school community, and the local community (notes from fall 2012 CI meeting).
The University is also committed to increasing access and success (graduation) for under-represented
minorities and Pell Grant recipients. Edinboro University has recently become a lead school in
Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education’s (PASSHE) Access to Success (A2S) initiative. This
initiative is a data driven project that focuses on recruiting, retaining, and graduating underrepresented
minorities. The SOE's Associate Dean serves as co-chair of this initiative and she is joined on the team
by the SOE Dean and faculty from the EMSE Department.
The Undergraduate Admissions Office has also been participating in and completing many goals and
objectives related to the recruitment and retention strategies for diverse candidates. This office hosts an
Annual Education Night (Admissions Conversion Event) in support of School of Education focused
recruitment. Examples of additional practices related ot the recruitment of diverse candidates include the
following: 2012 Erie County High School Visitation Day (March 7, 2012) – event designed to recruit a
diverse population of students from Erie County; diversity mailing from the Admissions Office sent to all
underrepresented applicants and a mailing from the Multicultural Affairs Office to all underrepresented
admits; timely review of PASSHE Board of Governors Tuition Waiver (Full or Half Tuition) recipients;
participation in national diversity college fairs; participation in higher education diversity
conferences/workshops; participation on the NCATE Diversity Committee; participation on the
A2S/Center for Urban Education Equity Scorecard Team(s); and participation on the University Diversity
Council.
Experience working with P-12 students from diverse groups
As noted above, to ensure that all candidates gain experience working with P-12 students from diverse
groups, every teacher candidate and field student is required to be placed in a school that has been
designated as having a significant population of children of poverty, exceptionalities, and/or diverse
ethnicity for at least one of their field experiences (data table diverse demographics for P-12 schools).
Through an ongoing demographic study of the schools in which our student teachers are trained, the
schools are ranked according to socioeconomic levels, numbers of children with exceptionalities, and
ethnic diversity (Appendix C).
Students have multiple opportunities to conduct observations and academic activities in different schools
throughout their four stages of field experience in the undergraduate programs and throughout field
experiences and practicum experiences in advanced programs. The new inclusion requirements and the
creation of the Special Education courses offer opportunities for students to observe and/or participate in
activities with students with special needs or accommodation requirements. Our collaboration with the
PDS schools also provides high poverty and diverse settings for field experiences, student teaching, and
internships.
Throughout the coursework, candidates are required to provide adaptations in lesson planning for students
whose other language is English, those with special needs or IEP requirements, students with physical or
mental disabilities, students with emotional disorders, students with learning disabilities, and students
with cultural characteristics that may require adaptations.
Discussions are in place to prioritize providing experiences for candidates to work with P-12 students
from diverse groups within and across departments. In the spirit of continuous improvement we are
committed to moving forward with this goal in creative ways to enhance our candidates' ability to
maximize learning for every student or client.
5.1 How does the unit ensure that its professional education faculty contributes to the preparation
of effective educators through scholarship, service, teaching, collaboration, and assessment of their
performance?
5a. Qualified Faculty
Unit faculty at Edinboro University (EU) have earned doctorates or exceptional expertise. All tenured and
tenure track faculty hold terminal degrees in their field. All faculty employed as full or part-time
temporary instructors have terminal degrees or extensive expertise in their field. All faculty have
expertise in the content area in which they supervise. Clinical faculty are licensed in the fields that they
teach or supervise and are “highly qualified” according to the state (PDE HQT definition) or recognized
for their competence in their field. In addition, university supervisors and P-12 clinical faculty are
assigned according to content area. Faculty qualifications can be seen in (Exhibit 5.3.a).
5b. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching
All SOE faculty have an in-depth understanding of their fields and are teacher scholars who integrate
what is known about their content fields, teaching, and learning in their own instructional practice.
Teaching by the SOE faculty reflects the proficiencies outlined in professional, state, and institutional
standards. All SOE faculty align their syllabi using the NCATE syllabus template (Syllabus Template) to
the INTASC/SPA standards, PDE guidelines, and the CF belief statements. The syllabi provide evidence
of best practices in all facets of teaching. Integrated into all programs are 90 hours of ELL instruction and
270 hours of Special Education, meeting state expectations and enhancing candidate knowledge of
diverse students. Required courses for all initial candidates such as Multiculturalism in American
Schools (SEDU 271), Technology for Teaching and Learning (SEDU 183), and Introduction to
Exceptionalities (SPED 210), all indicate a commitment to integrating diversity and technology
throughout coursework. Use of Smart technology, iPad carts, Laptop carts, and designated computer labs
are all used as teaching tools throughout the SOE. Faculty teaching on-line incorporate the latest
technology recently transitioning from Wimba to Bb Collaborate. Further, SOE faculty value candidates’
learning and adjust instruction appropriately to enhance candidate learning. As can be seen in the SPA
reports , they understand the use of multiple forms of assessments to determine effectiveness, and data
driven decision making. Additionally, some initial and advanced programs have adopted the
Understanding By Design model which maximizes candidate learning. Many faculty members have been
recognized as outstanding teachers by candidates and peers across campus and in schools, receiving such
awards as the Keystone Technology Integrator, the Technology Pioneer, and the EU Educator of the Year
award (Exhibit 5.3.a).
Teaching effectiveness is highly valued at EU. The Statement of Promotion Policies and Procedures
(Faculty Promotion Policy), Statement of Tenure Policies and Procedures (Faculty Tenure Policy), and
peer evaluation process document and clearly define the standards for measuring effective teaching and
define evidentiary pieces that faculty must include in their promotion and/or tenure materials to document
teaching effectiveness. Both tenure and promotion to all ranks are contingent upon significant evidence
that a faculty member is effective as a teacher.
5c. Modeling Best Professional Practice in Scholarship
A majority of Edinboro University professional education faculty, both tenured and temporary,
demonstrates scholarly work in their fields of specialization, with this work supporting the mission of the
University and the CF of the Unit. Faculty present at the annual conferences of respected, national
organizations such as NASPE, IRA, NAPDS, and NSMA (Faculty Presentations). Faculty publications
support the value EU places on scholarship and include peer-reviewed manuscripts in
various professional journals, textbooks, and book chapters (Faculty Publications). Also, faculty members
engage in scholarship with Edinboro graduate and undergraduate students as well as P-12 educators,
and share their scholarly works on campus and in the community. For example, over the past five years,
faculty presented with P-12 faculty and/or candidates at annual conferences such as the Pennsylvania
Supervision and Curriculum Development (PSACD) Annual Conference . Additional scholarship
activities include serving on editorial boards; reviewing books, book chapters, program evaluating,
presentations for regional organizations such as PAC-TE and KSRA, proposals, and grant applications;
and conducting evaluations for various projects or curriculums. A more detailed examination of the
professional education faculty’s scholarly endeavors may be found in exhibits 5.3.a and 5.3.d.
Scholarly activity includes the successful development of grant proposals. Over the past five years,
faculty have written successful proposals to support areas as Professional Development Schools,
integrating technology into the curriculum, integrating Arts across the curriculum, and Environmental
Education. Funding agencies have included the U.S. Department of Education and the Pennsylvania
Department of Education. For a more comprehensive examination of external grants secured by School
of Education faculty, please refer to the Grants Summary Document . SOE faculty members have also
been increasingly successful in receiving support through the Edinboro University Senate Grants
Committee for their scholarly efforts.
5d. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service.
Faculty model service, collaboration and leadership (Exhibit 5.3.a). They collaborate regularly with P-12
practitioners and with faculty in other university units. Service to the profession is highly valued at EU
and faculty members are expected to engage in service that contributes to the betterment of society and
Edinboro’s position as a leader in teacher education. Service is emphasized through both the annual
faculty reviews within the School of Education and the promotion and tenure guidelines of Edinboro
University (Faculty Promotion Policy & Faculty Tenure Policy) Professional education faculty serve on
the majority of important University-wide committees. Faculty also serve the education profession at the
local, state, regional, and national levels through organizational membership and leadership as well
as through participation in full range of professional organizations (Faculty Memberships).
Service to the profession is also extensive at the local level as faculty work with P-12 committees,
Professional Development Schools, Advisory Councils, local conferences, the Middle School Network, as
well as activities at the Community Outreach Center and other local organizations (Faculty Survey
Results).
Notably, professional education faculty develop relationships, programs, and projects with colleagues in
P-12 schools and faculty in other units of Edinboro University to refine knowledge bases, conduct
research, make presentations, publish materials, and improve the quality of education for all students .
Professional education faculty are actively involved in P-12 schools through the supervision of interns,
committee work, consultation, research, and service. Faculty provide courses at various sites for P-12
partnering personnel and develop programs and activities for low performing schools such as those
provided to Strong Vincent High School, Roosevelt Middle School, Peiffer Burleigh Elementary, and
Cambridge Springs Elementary schools through PDS initiatives and to Perseus House Charter
School Faculty through a school improvement grant (Service Collaboration Samples) .
5e. Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance
At EU, systematic and comprehensive evaluation of faculty is conducted. The evaluation system includes
regular and comprehensive reviews of the faculty member's teaching, scholarship, service, collaboration
with the professional community, and leadership in the institution and profession. In the SOE, the intent
of this review is not only for evaluation but also to identify areas for professional development. For a
comprehensive, detailed description of the faculty performance evaluation criteria and procedures, please
refer to Article 12 in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Additionally, faculty content knowledge is
evidenced by (a) the large number of faculty holding the terminal degree (Appendix D), (b) facultydeveloped course syllabi (Course Syllabi), (c) university requirements for promotion and tenure (Faculty
Promotion Policy & Faculty Tenure Policy), and (d) scholarly activity.
5f. Unit Facilitation of Professional Development
Based on the identified areas for improvement mentioned in faculty evaluations, the Unit provides
opportunities for faculty to develop new knowledge and skills, especially as they relate to the Conceptual
Framework, performance assessment, diversity, technology, and other emerging practices.
Multiple opportunities for professional development are provided for faculty at EU. For example, the
Technology and Communications (T&C) Department provides training sessions each semester to enable
faculty members to learn about new technology, software, and programming for the improvement of their
teaching (Technology Training ). In addition, training is provided by the Unit Accreditation Coordinator
and the Management Technician assists faculty with skill development related to Livetext, an on-line
platform used for data collection and analysis (Livetext training). Further, the University supports faculty
research and funding from external sources through the Office of Grants and Sponsored Programs (GSP)
which provides support to faculty for grant writing and securing other sources of external funding.
Professional development is supported at Edinboro University through a sabbatical leave program for
faculty professional development and research (CBA Sabbatical). All faculty members with at least
seven years of service may apply for a sabbatical. Sabbaticals are granted with full salary for one
semester or half salary for the academic year. Sabbatical proposals are competitive and are reviewed by a
University committee that makes recommendations to the President.
Edinboro University encourages professional development beyond those provided on campus. For
example, the Dean of Education’s office allocates funds to individual faculty members for reimbursement
of travel funds related to attending and presenting at professional conferences (Travel expenses). Often
reimbursement for professional development is tied to scholarly needs and interests identified as part of
the faculty evaluation process. Funding for transportation to professional conferences may also be
attained through individual departments in the School of Education at Edinboro University.
Professional education faculty support the mentoring of new faculty by experienced faculty. The
Professional Studies Department has a formal mentoring policy while other departments are more
informal in their approach. Mentoring is highly valued is a routine practice among professional education
faculty. The SOE also supports new faculty with a Unit level mentoring program.
5.2.b Continuous Improvement: Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to
continuous improvement of candidate performance and program quality.
5a.
Each program has criteria for clinical faculty, however, these programs are still quite dependent on the P12 administration to provide the Unit with clinical faculty who are appropriate mentors for our candidates.
In order to gain more information on clinical faculty qualifications, a survey was developed and delivered
electronically to all those acting as cooperating teachers or supervisors of candidates (Clinical Faculty
Survey & Results). In addition, a process is being developed to allow candidates to provide feedback on
their mentoring experience as it relates to the Conceptual Framework. This reflection will be implemented
beginning Spring 2013.
5f.
Due to a change in leadership and culture, a new governance structure was put in place beginning in Fall
2011. Continuous Improvement Committees (CIC) comprised of Unit faculty and administrators as well
as other University faculty now discuss the issues of the Unit. These committees are based on, but not
limited to, the NCATE standards and include the Conceptual Framework, Dispositions, Assessment,
Clinical Experiences, Diversity, Faculty Vitality, and Governance. The Faculty Vitality CIC monitors
and enhances professional development. The committee meets regularly and has started developing plans
and policies to enhance professional development for professional education faculty (Faculty Vitality Minutes). The Continuous Improvement Team (CIT), comprised of the Chairs of the CICs convenes at
least once a semester to discuss issues that may overlap and to gain perspective for future work of the
CIC. As an example of this, the Faculty Vitality chair gained ideas for professional development and
these suggestions then led the work of the committee for future professional development opportunities
(e.g., Diversity workshops). The committee has also gleaned ideas for professional development
opportunities by surveying the faculty at the Unit meeting and asking Chairs to distribute surveys at
department meetings. The Faculty Vitality CIC is examining how funds are allocated for professional
development opportunities and will continue to solicit feedback from faculty regarding future professional
development opportunities.
As a part of this new governance structure, the Dean of Education sought additional resources to allow for
a full-time Unit Accreditation Coordinator. This position was created to facilitate all accreditation related
activities for the Unit, including Middles States, NCATE, SPA, and PDE activities. One responsibility
assigned to this position is communication with and training of Unit faculty in aligning course syllabi
with standards, assessment development, and collection of data using Livetext. Regular communication
through e-mail, CIC meetings, and departmental meetings provides opportunity for faculty to receive
timely feedback to questions and to become more informed about the accreditation process. Training on
data collection through Livetext is provided each semester in both the group and individual setting. In
addition, the UAC provides an NCATE overview workshop for new and temporary faculty at the Fall
Unit meeting.
As indicated above, the SOE faculty meets once a semester, providing professional development on Unit
related issues. These meetings provide critical opportunities for CICs to share information regarding
professional education policies and practices. Topics addressed during Unit meetings include reviewing
and updating policies and practices related to dispositions, clinical experiences, diversity of faculty,
professional development, and the Conceptual Framework. The use of D2L enhanced these meetings
allowing faculty to provide information on-line to the unit in an efficient manner. There is time during
each fall meeting to review and discuss Unit data; while at the Spring meeting, program data are the
focus. In addition, each meeting has time set aside for discussion of a topic of interest such as Student
Affairs or Tips for Advising. (Unit Meetings)
In 2011 the SOE Dean provided each department chair with the book The Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning Reconsidered encouraging each department to develop a culture of inquiry and scholarly
growth. Each department has instituted initiatives in this regard, for example the Department of EMSE
holds monthly Brown Bag Lunches with presentations by faculty on a topic pertinent to the field of
education. Faculty in the HPE department were instrumental in beginning "open sessions for budding
scholars" to assist them in developing their scholarship agenda and the publication process, and the
Professional Studies Department has a committee that guides and supports the development of
scholarship by faculty in the department.
One identified area of need with regard to professional development is new faculty mentoring. Programs
within the Unit implement this in a variety of ways and with varying success. The Associate Dean of the
School of Education has developed policies and recommendations for the mentoring of new and adjunct
faculty and conducted orientations each year for new faculty (Mentoring Plan). The Dean has instituted an
informal mentoring initiative, spearheaded by the Associate Dean. Formal orientation of SOE new
faculty is held every semester or as needed, (Advising ppt.) and the Associate Dean schedules mentoring
lunch sessions to help faculty meet tenure and promotion requirements and to help junior faculty establish
professional development and scholarship goals.
5d.
Dialogue about the design and delivery of instructional programs with P-12 schools has been enhanced by
the creation of the Educational Partners Advisory Council (EPAC). EPAC consists of many
superintendents, assistant superintendents, IU directors, etc. from a three county area, and serves to give
feedback to EU’s SOE on programmatic changes and other issues that surround collaboration between
higher ed. and P-12 schools including diversity and clinical experiences. These regular meetings of key P12 stakeholders have provided insight into several SOE initiatives. Most recently, this council provided
essential feedback regarding the developing of a Special Education 7-12 program (Minutes of 11/29
meeting). Conversations with PDS and other school partners have led to collaboration on many
professional development opportunities as well as changes to both Unit and P-12 programs (e.g., yearlong field with Titusville Middle School, Perseus House Charter School). PDS continue to be an area of
focus as well as the development of other types of partnerships with area school districts.
Further feedback on Unit programs is obtained through the use of the Employer Satisfaction survey which
was sent to all known employers of graduates of any initial or advanced program. Implemented in the Fall
of 2012, the survey was developed by members of the Assessment CIC who continue to discuss
possibilities for increasing the response rate from our P-12 partners.
5e.
Recent improvements have been made with regard to how student evaluations of faculty are completed
for on-line teaching. EU now uses an on-line instrument to complete student evaluations of faculty
teaching online. All off campus faculty evaluations (e.g., off site courses and field and student teaching
supervision courses, and online courses) are also conducted electronically. In the process of updating this
system, the questions for the student evaluations of faculty were revised and the new instrument was
implemented in Spring 2011. The new delivery method of the instrument should prove to increase the
response rate and provide a more complete picture of faculty instructional quality.
5f.
Currently the School of Education utilizes a database known as CEIS (College of Education Information
System) which contains the population of students unique to the SOE. It has been used for the past six
years to perform numerous analyses and reports. Building on the success of CEIS, and using the same
design approach, another system was built for retention reporting purposes, and was named RBASE. The
main difference between the two systems is in the populations contained. While CEIS contains only SOE
students, RBASE contains the entire university population. Both contain populations back to 1998, the
year Banner was installed at Edinboro (CEIS Overview and Explanation).
It has been proposed that these two databases be combined under one umbrella. RBASE is currently used
primarily for retention research, and includes such information as demographics, grades, addresses,
coursework, test scores, GPAs, and hundreds of other elements, simplified and unified for easier
reporting. CEIS contains similar data, as well as elements such as candidacy information, clearance data,
course requirements, and other SOE-specific information, as well as certain LiveText data and data from
other sources. By incorporating the two systems into one, and utilizing a method for drilling down to the
SOE population, the SOE would have the means to continue to produce a wide variety of reports and
analyses, but more importantly could also perform comparative studies in relation to the aggregated
university population. Such a resource would encourage collaboration among Units on campus with the
possibility of research across schools as well as between academics and administration. Encouraging such
research and collaboration is in direct support of our University promotion process and would spur a
research culture (RBAM proposal). It is hoped that this same functionality will be available when the
University implements a comprehensive data warehouse in 2013-2014.
Major renovations to the structure of Butterfield Hall are underway. Butterfield Hall will be the primary
location for all professional education instruction. Renovations will include state of the art technology
upgrades as well as facility upgrades. The office for the Dean of the School of Education will be
constructed and added onto the first floor of Butterfield Hall. Additionally a state of the art lecture hall
will be added. This renovation will allow most School of Education faculty members to be housed in
Butterfield Hall. As is discussed in Standard 6, these major renovations will enhance the professional
education faculty members’ abilities to model the conceptual framework, Effective Facilitators of
Learning. (Butterfield Hall Renovations) and implement best practice with resources and facilities
reflective of their disciplines. Further, the close proximity of program faculty will allow for enhanced
communication across programs and encourage new teaching methods including co-teaching and
integrated curriculum models.
6.1 How do the unit’s governance system and resources contribute to adequately preparing
candidates to meet professional, state, and institutional standards?
Unit Leadership and Authority
The Edinboro University NCATE Unit includes the programs and program faculty in Art Education,
Music Education, and Speech-Language Pathology as well as all four departments in the School of
Education (SOE): Early Childhood and Special Education (ECED/SPED), Elementary, Middle, and
Secondary Education (EMSE), Health & Physical Education (HPE), and Professional Studies (PROS).
The Dean of Education is the head of the NCATE Unit (Unit Structure).
The leadership and structure of the Unit are quite different from the time of the last NCATE site visit in
the fall of 2006. The Unit has created a mechanism to function as a coherent entity (CI Governance
Structure). The faculty in the SOE and College of Arts & Sciences participate in Unit meetings,
leadership committees, and curriculum development. Along with the traditional departmental structure,
the concerns of the SOE are supported by the Graduate Council which consists of Unit faculty members
who serve in the capacity of program head for their respective advanced programs. The Graduate Council
is led by the Dean of Graduate Studies & Research. Participating in this advisory board allows faculty
from the SOE the opportunity to work with faculty in the College of Arts & Sciences on issues involving
all advanced programs.
Due to the changes necessitated by the PDE Chapter 49-2 legislation and to better position the Unit to
deliver quality programs, a reorganization of the SOE was proposed. The Dean of Education presented
issues concerning this reorganization in several venues (i.e., NCATE Unit Retreat, SOE Council
meetings, Department Chair meetings, Department Faculty meetings, and meetings with individual
faculty members). On November 4, 2008 the University President approved the reorganization of the SOE
(SOE Reorganization Memo). A task force is currently meeting to discuss another possible reorganization
based on the financial and academic needs of the Unit.
Biannual Unit meetings continue (Unit Meeting Agendas and Minutes), which are attended by SOE and
College Arts & Sciences faculty, as well as administration. A new Unit governance structure was also
created by the Dean of Education and this structure is discussed further in section 6.2.b of this report.
Major changes in policies or procedures that may affect the entire Unit as opposed to an individual
program (e.g., changes in admission requirements) are appropriately moved through this new governance
structure for discussion and action. Procedural or curriculum changes that require approval of the
University Wide Curriculum Committee, Provost, or President are submitted by the Dean of Education.
EU continues its collaboration with the established Professional Development Schools partnerships and
through other less formal partnerships with P-12 schools. Memoranda of Understanding between the EU
and partnering school districts, clinical sites, and other organizations are in place. Additionally, the Dean
of Education and a faculty member from the SOE serve on the Erie School District's Academic Advisory
Council (Erie Advisory emails) This advisory council consists of four higher education institutions
working together to increase the opportunities for student achievement of the P-12 students within the
region's high poverty, diverse district. Further higher education collaboration exists as evidenced by the
PRAXIS preparation on-line credit course offered by Butler County Community College. In addition,
articulation agreements also exist between Butler County Community College and Jamestown
Community College to allow more students the opportunity to successfully complete teacher education
programs offered through the SOE.
Unit Budget
The Unit receives allocations that are proportional to other units on campus. The SOE received increased
allocations of the University's Education and General budget resources for instruction for the three years
described in the budget analysis. In 2008-09, the School had received $6.7 million of the $42.6 million in
total instructional expense (15.6%) compared to $9.4 million of the $48.9 million in instructional expense
(19.2%) in 2010-11. Each year provided additional funding to the unit in accordance with the
University's funding priorities. At the same time, the School had an average of 28.8% of the University's
total enrollment (Fact Book data of 09-19-2011) which suggests it operated very efficiently within its
allocation. It should be noted that the School of Education was reorganized in 2009, thus accounting for
the changes in personnel and operating fund allocations from the former Department of Elementary
Education to the Departments of Secondary Education, Professional Studies and Early Childhood/Special
Education (Departmental Budget Analysis).
Personnel
The APSCUF/PASSHE collective bargaining agreement (CBA) defines workload policies for all faculty.
The standard workload is 12 semester hours for undergraduate courses, 9 semester hours for graduate
courses, and 12 semester hours for mixed loads of graduate and undergraduate courses (CBA Article 23
pp. 73-74). The workload for student teacher supervision is 0.6 load hours per student teacher, which
equals 20 student teachers per FTE faculty (CBA Article 23 pp. 74-75). Online courses and face-to-face
courses have equivalent value in the calculation of faculty load. However, faculty receive additional
compensation for teaching online courses (CBA Article 42 pp. 115-117).
The CBA provides support for faculty development in the form of sabbaticals and educational leaves
(CBA Article 18 pp. 44-46). All faculty with at least 7 years of service may apply for a sabbatical of 18
weeks at full pay or 36 weeks at half pay for restoration of health, study, travel or other appropriate
purposes. Faculty members may apply for sabbatical leave every 7 years, and the University may fund up
to 7% of its faculty in any one year. Sabbatical proposals are competitive and are reviewed by a
University committee that makes prioritized recommendations to the President. In addition, the Dean
provides funding to support travel to conferences and other professional venues (Travel Spreadsheet).
The CBA prohibits the use of teaching assistants at EUP (CBA Article 7 pp. 11-13) so all courses and
clinical experiences are assigned to faculty. Part-time faculty members are hired with the approval of the
relevant academic department and academic dean and must have credentials appropriate to the teaching or
supervisory assignment. The recent budgetary constraints experienced by EUP has necessitated the use of
increased numbers of part-time faculty within the Unit (NEED exhibit with #s of temps). However, the
Dean of Education has advocated for tenure track position for each department and has received five
faculty lines for 2013-2014.The Unit makes no distinction between supervising faculty and teaching
faculty. Almost all full-time faculty can be expected to supervise as well as teach (Faculty Work Load
Chart). The Unit has adequate support personnel, and the Dean of Education’s office has added a full-time
Associate Dean position as well as an additional clerical support member.
Unit Facilities
There are several buildings on campus which house Unit faculty, administrative offices, classrooms,
clinics, science laboratories, and areas for computer and technology utilization.
From 2006 to 2012, Butterfield Hall housed the Office of the Dean of Education, the Accreditation Office
and the Department of Professional Studies. Following renovations in 2006, Butterfield Hall became a
wireless environment with 18 smart classrooms, new furniture, an Interactive Television (ITV) distance
learning classroom, and a clinical facility with audio, video, individual counseling/assessment rooms, a
classroom, and a conference room. Butterfield Hall is currently undergoing a complete transformation
which will include the addition of new and innovative instructional spaces, state-of-the-art
technology, and faculty offices, as welll as an observation lab to support the Counseling and
Education/School Psychology programs (Butterfield Hall plans). Butterfield Hall will open again in Fall
2013 and will house most of the Unit faculty and programming.
Other examples of appropriate structural resources include:

The Music Education program has a new home on campus. In 2008, the William P.
Alexander Music Building was dedicated. This $5 million state of the art structure houses 17
soundproofed music studios, 14 piano studios, classroom space, a listening laboratory and
library, and a 104 seat recital hall.

The Speech-Language Pathology program also has a new home. In 2011, the Jeremy D.
Brown Human Services Building was dedicated. This $6 million modern edifice houses the
Nursing Department and the Speech, Language and Hearing Department. The new building
enhances the program delivery for these two highly specialized fields of study. The clinical
facilities will permit expansion of community-based services and technological advancements
to improve client care and clinical education of candidates.

Crawford Center, renovated in 2003, houses the Department of Health & Physical Education.
Crawford facilities include: a 15-station lab, gymnasium, three smart classrooms, a fitness
center with 20 strength and 10 aerobic stations, and a human performance lab with
computerized motion analysis, VO2 Max. cardio-respiratory testing, and hydrostatic body
composition analysis.
Unit Resources Including Technology
Candidates have access to a wide variety of student services including: advising, counseling, test
preparation (Praxis/PAPA tutoring), and remediation as they progress toward graduation and certification.
The requirements for certification are increasingly complex, and it is the responsibility of the Unit to
advise about candidacy, program, and certification requirements through one-to-one faculty-candidate
advising (Advising Checklist, 40/80 reviews), and regular electronic communication to candidates.
Other resources include the Baron-Forness Library, the Academic Success Center, Technology &
Communication Help Desk, and more. Links to the resources and services they provide can be found in
6.3.i.
6.2.b Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement of
candidate performance and quality. Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance
through continuous improvement as articulated in unit Standard 6.
Many substantial changes have occurred in Edinboro University’s School of Education since
2009. Changes that have been in response to state mandates as well as changes in governance structure
due to new leadership have supported a renewed commitment to Continuous Improvement.
It is important to note that programs have been significantly modified to reflect the 2008 Pennsylvania
Department of Education (PDE) Chapter 49-2 revisions. Two key changes of PDE Chapter 49-2 for all
future teachers to instruct diverse learners are: 1.) 3 credits or 90 hours of teaching English language
learners, and 2.) 9 credits or 270 hours of teaching students with disabilities. In addition, the following
grades level changes were implemented: change from grades k-6 and grades 7-12 to grades PreK-4,
grades 4-8, and grades 7-12. The following grade level changes specific to Special Education were also
implemented: change from grades PreK-12 to grades PreK-8 and grades 7-12. Reasons for grade level
changes were identified as the following: 1.) enhanced expertise in literacy and reading, 2.) enhanced
disciplinary expertise in science, math, language arts, and social studies, and 3.) acknowledgement of
early childhood and middle level as distinct areas of expertise. A final requirement that affected all initial
programs was the need for four stages of field to be integrated into all programs (Stages of Field) to
provide more opportunities for candidates to apply theory to practice. Partly as a result of these
expectations, the SOE reorganized several departments to reflect the new certifications, and all programs
were revised to include the ELL & Diverse Learner requirements. In addition, a Middle Level program
that offers all 9 options for certification was added. Thus, this program, as well as the new Early
Childhood and Special Education programs, will have completers beginning in 2013. Since all programs
have been revised and candidates are just now completing the programs and gaining employment, data is
just now being gathered to demonstrate the effectiveness of the programs. The renewed focus on clinical
experiences and the feedback we received from our school partners has resulted in the creation of a fulltime Director of Field Experiences and Student Teaching. This position was previously assigned to a
faculty member who received a three credit release as an alternative workload assignment.
Upon entering the position, the current Dean of Education made changes to the Unit governance structure
to reflect a culture of continuous improvement (CI Governance Structure). This initiative created the
Accreditation Coordinating Council (ACC). The purpose of this newly created committee is to support
the Accreditation Coordinator in the ongoing process of developing vision, goals and logistics of multiple
accreditation processes. The committee composition consists of the Dean of Education, Associate Dean of
Education, Accreditation Coordinator, and former NCATE Coordinator, and the SOE Management
Technician. (ACC Agendas and Minutes). This change in culture transitioned the committees previously
known as “Standard Committees” into the Continuous Improvement Committees (CIC). These
committees will no longer solely focus on meeting NCATE standards, but instead are charged with
understanding the larger issues surrounding those standards and facilitating change resulting from data
analysis. The Chairs of these committees now form the Continuous Improvement Team (CIT) which
meets at least once a semester to discuss overlapping issues, facilitate collaboration, and distribute
information among committees (CIT meeting agenda and minutes). The ACC meets regularly to discuss
progress toward maintaining accreditation issues identified by the CIT, and determine direction for the
CIC (meeting agenda and minutes). This new structure is meant to keep the pressing issues surrounding
program and unit improvement in the forefront of conversation, and to provide a definite direction for
progress.
In addition to the above governance structure, an advisory council made up of interested stakeholders also
meets once a semester. The Educational Partners Advisory Council (EPAC) consists of superintendents,
assistant superintendents, IU directors, and others from a three county area, and serves to give feedback to
EU’s SOE on programmatic changes and other issues that surround collaboration between the Unit and P12 schools (EPAC agendas). As an example, members of the EPAC were involved in the development of
our Employer Satisfaction Surveys by giving feedback on questions and directions, making suggestions
for distribution and increasing return rate, and supplying contact information. In addition, EPAC
discussed the need for Special Education 7-12 certified teachers in their buildings. As a response to this
need, the SOE began an investigation into developing this program and received a grant from the state to
support collaboration with P-12 partners and curriculum development.
Another major change initiated by new leadership, after an assessment of the adequacy of current
instructional spaces, is the renovation of the physical space which embraces the SOE and reflects the CF.
In order to produce Effective Facilitators of Learning, the $5 million renovation of Butterfield Hall is
underway. This project will accommodate the addition of the Office of Certification and Student
Teaching (OCST), the Early Childhood and Special Education Department and the Elementary, Middle,
and the Secondary Education Department into the Education building. The OCST as well as these two
departments are currently housed in the Miller Research Learning Center which is scheduled for
demolition upon completion of the Butterfield Hall project. Plans for this new building demonstrate a
concerted effort to meet the needs of all students while embodying the conceptual framework. In
particular, state-of-the-art technology will be integrated (CF-H) into lecture halls, methods classrooms,
computer labs, and other key areas. This technology will be used to model how to teach using the
resources available in the P-12 schools now and what might be available to them in the future. Specific
spaces have been set aside to model instructional techniques in particular content areas including a
Science laboratory, a mathematics classroom allowing for use of manipulatives & technology, and an
Integrated Arts space. Such classrooms will allow faculty and candidates to “demonstrate effective
pedagogical skills, content knowledge, and knowledge of the learner” (CF – B) as well as to “creatively
plan, adapt, and assess instruction” (CF – J). Spaces such as the science laboratory, the counseling areas,
literacy center and others will allow the SOE to contribute to the community (CF – F) through camps,
counseling support, reading clinics, math and literacy workshops, science exploration events, etc. Finally,
having the majority of the SOE faculty in a single building along with the Office of the Dean will
encourage communication and collaboration among faculty (CF-I).
One example of efforts to sustain the continuous improvement efforts based on data is the survey
conducted by the Office of Graduate Studies and Research. In order to make changes which will lead to
continuous improvement of candidate performance and program quality, the Dean of Graduate Studies
and Research administered a survey for candidates enrolled in advanced programs across the Unit.
Questions were focused on candidate attitudes toward: 1.) the University and Programs; 2.) Graduate
Admissions; 3.) Academic Advising; 4.) Instructor Interactions; and, 5.) Technology at the University.
The results of the survey were shared with academic Deans, Department Chairs, and Program
Heads. Each Program Head is expected to submit an improvement plan based upon the data reported for
each program. Further, the data and improvement plans will be shared with program candidates. Finally,
the improvement plans will be monitored by the Graduate Dean and Program Heads for re-evaluation the
following academic year. (Graduate Studies Survey results)
Additionally, beginning in Fall 2011, the Provost initiated a faculty technology replacement plan to
upgrade faculty computer technology on a four year cycle. Available student technology is currently
funded by the University’s “technology fee”. Other classroom, computer lab, and special disciplinespecific technology needs are addressed through proposals submitted to the University's Planning for
Instructional Technology Committee, where the SOE is represented along with other units across campus
(T&C in 6.3.i).