School of Education Unit
Response to BOE Offsite Report
Continuous Improvement Pathway
Alan Biel, PhD.
Interim Dean, School of Education
abiel@edinboro.edu
Gwyneth Price, PhD.
Unit Accreditation Coordinator
gprice@edinboro.edu
School of Education
140 Butterfield Hall
Scotland Road
Edinboro, PA 16444
http://www.edinboro.edu/departments/education/dean_of_ed_index.dot
Edinboro University appreciates the feedback provided by the BOE Final Report detailing the evidence
for passing the standards and areas for improvement. The following response is prepared to provide the
UAB with the necessary information to supplement the Final report for decision making purposes. For
each standard, there are responses to comments made within the Overall Findings where applicable;
responses to the Areas for Improvement as necessary; and additional explanation and evidence needed
to address any concerns.
Standard 1
Overall Findings
No negative comments.
No response necessary.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Additional Evidence
In addition to the Diversity Survey and Conceptual Framework Assessment, unit data on dispositions is
also gathered through the Disposition Survey (Exhibit 1.1). This is an anonymous survey resulting in
aggregate data for the Unit but can be analyzed by program or graduation date or other demographic
variables. Anonymity increases the likelihood of honest responses and allows for the unit to investigate
overall attitudes on sensitive dispositional issues such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic differences.
The Unit is currently working toward a system of recording both positive and negative dispositions for all
candidates individually, as an ongoing piece of their program. The Special Education program will be
piloting this system in spring 2014 using a Livetext-based survey, completed by instructors and
supervisors at the midterm of the semester for all candidates in their courses.
Standard 2
Overall Findings
BOE Comment: Evidence was provided of six meetings since December 2009. However, the minutes
and interviews with CIT members during the on-site visit did not indicate that improvements to programs
and the unit were the result of decisions based on data analysis.
Response:
Though it is true that many of the major changes in the Unit have occurred due to outside influences such
as state legislation, changes in state and national standards, and administrative changes, the SPA reports
(Exhibit 2.1) and Program Analysis Reports (Exhibit 2.2) do demonstrate a focus on data analysis. In
addition, the documents from the most recent Unit meeting (Exhibit 2.3) show the progression toward
using data for improvement.
Areas for Improvement
1. The unit does not involve the professional community in the development and evaluation of its
assessment system regularly and systematically.
The membership of key decision-making groups does not include stakeholders from outside the
unit.
a. Though possibly not evident through the discussions in the IR, input on pieces of the
assessment system has been gleaned from both internal and external sources. Several of
the CI committees include faculty members from programs outside the unit. In particular
the Dispositions CIC and Diversity CIC have members from other programs on campus
and these members have been integral in key discussions such as developing the SOE
dispositions policy and developing diversity proficiencies.
Input from clinical faculty has been solicited for the development of individual
assessments such as the Teacher Candidate Performance Profile and Instructional
Assessment Plan as well as for programmatic assessments, particularly in the Early
Childhood program.
In the past two years, improvements have been made that will continue to make
evaluation of the assessment system by stakeholders outside the unit a more regular
occurrence. The creation of the Educational Partners Advisory Council (EPAC) in fall
2011 has allowed for regular and productive conversations between the unit and key
stakeholders. Placing the assessment system as a standing item on the agenda for these
meetings beginning fall 2013 will allow for more targeted discussions. There is evidence,
moreover, that such discussions have already taken place. The productive and
informative meeting with EPAC members on the proposed Special Education 7-12
program led to specific inclusions in the programs and will affect the assessments
administered in those courses (Exhibit 2.4). Perhaps even more clearly related, EPAC
members had direct input on the development and administration of the Employer
Satisfaction Survey (Exhibit 2.5). This survey, a key assessment for transition point #5
based on the Conceptual Framework and program standards will also serve as a source of
input from key stakeholders on the quality of our graduates’ knowledge and skills, and
can be used in conjunction with other assessment system data for program and unit
improvement. Further input will continue to be obtained through the use of the Clinical
Faculty survey, Faculty satisfaction survey, and Alumni satisfaction survey.
b. With the reassertion of the PDS Steering Committee, it will be possible to gain feedback
from our partners on key aspects of the assessment system with more regularity (Exhibit
2.6).
2. It is not clear how programs and the unit as a whole use data to systematically initiate and
monitor changes.
Limited evidence was provided to show that identified changes in the unit and programs were
driven by analysis of data.
a. The most convincing evidence of data analysis driving programmatic decisions can be
found in SPA reports, Program Analysis Reports (PAR), and Student Learning Outcome
Assessment (SLOA) reports (Exhibits 2.1 and 2.2). Those programs recognized through
the SPA process are regularly reviewing data with a greater emphasis placed on this
analysis at the time of SPA review. Two other required processes augment this and
ensure that non-SPA programs are also regularly analyzing data. First, within the past
two years as part of the Middle States Self-study process the University has placed a
stronger emphasis on data related to Student Learning Outcomes. All programs on
campus now complete SLOA reports annually for the University SLO Coordinator and
Advisory Council review. This information is then available for and feeds directly into
the 5 year review cycle for all programs in the PASSHE system. Second, the Program
Analysis Reports were developed specifically to aid programs in the SOE to bridge the
gap between the NCATE assessment process and the SLOA process. These reports
require an annual review of program data based on the goals/objectives adopted by the
program. All programs are asked to analyze the available data and suggest changes or
revisions necessary based on that analysis. Implementation dates for such revisions are
required. As programs complete this annual review, a review of implementation progress
and results of changes are also expected.
Unit meetings held in the fall of each academic year now include a review of unit data
and time for discussion of that data. Suggestions from those meetings are then taken to
the appropriate CIC meeting for review and implementation. (Exhibit2.3)
At a recent meeting of the ACC, it was decided to direct each CIC to have one meeting
per semester focused on data informed decision making (Exhibit 2.7). Any data not
available through the D2L accreditation page that CIC’s wish to review should be
requested through the Accreditation Office at least one month in advance of the meeting
date. An annual report, beginning in Spring 2014, will then be filed with the
accreditation office delineating the findings of the meeting. A template is to be developed
to aid in the completion of these reports (Exhibit 2.8). Results of this analysis and any
suggestions for change can then be presented at the next Unit meeting for discussion if
necessary.
Additional Evidence
None.
Standard 3
Overall Findings
No negative comments.
No response necessary.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Additional Evidence
None.
Standard 4
Overall findings
No negative comments.
No response necessary.
Areas for Improvement
1. The opportunity for candidates to work and interact with a diverse faculty.
Faculty in the unit, the university, and school-based faculty represent minimal ethnic and racial
diversity – although the new strategic 5 year plan makes this area a focus.
a. The University as a whole continues to focus on increasing the diversity of the faculty and
candidate population. As noted in the President’s letter to faculty (Exhibit 4.1), the 20132018 Strategic Goals and Objectives (Exhibit 4.2) lists “recruit and support a more diverse
faculty and staff” with particular attention to evaluating the faculty and staff recruitment
process, assess the applicant evaluation process and establish systems to support a more
diverse community. Of note, positions were offered to two diverse candidates, however the
candidates declined the offers.
b. At the February 2013 CIC meeting, the Diversity CIC made recommendations to be shared
with the University Diversity Council on this matter. Specifically, it was recommended that
EU place a greater emphasis on hiring diverse faculty by:
i. Training search committees
ii. Ensuring diverse representation on search committees
iii. Providing prospective diverse faculty members with names and contact
information of EU faculty who could comment authentically on issues from a
similar perspective as that of the candidate.
iv. Inviting members of the UDC to participate in searches.
v. Initiating (i.e., at conferences), building, and maintaining informal, personal
relationships with potential faculty members (even when an active search is
not underway)
vi. Considering reviving the Fredrick Douglas initiative at EU
c. As follow up to the recommendations above, the Fredrick Douglas Scholar initiative has been
reinstituted and pursued as an avenue to recruit diverse faculty to EU. Additionally, the
Diversity CIC and the University Diversity Council continues to work on this area for
improvement. (Exhibit 4.3)
2. Candidates have limited opportunities to interact with diverse candidates.
The number of ethnic/racially diverse candidates on campus is limited, but plans are in place to
increase the number of diverse candidates served by the university.
a. Recent discussions with the Associate VP for Enrollment, Management, and Student
Success and the Dean of Education have focused on sharing information about program
quality with prospective candidates.
b. Additionally, the CUE Equity Scorecard created by the Center for Urban Education
supports the university system in its efforts to close equity gaps in access and success for
underrepresented minorities (URM) and PELL grant recipients. As four members of the
Evidence Team are also on the SOE Diversity CIT, these members have posed inquiry
questions to the team related to the under-representation of diverse candidates in the
teacher preparation and related professions programs. These four members have been
trained in the inquiry process to ask questions from an equity minded perspective and to
critically examine institutional barriers to recruitment and retention of candidates from
URM, in particular African American and Latino/Hispanic. We have discussed the value
of a diverse teacher workforce in education and the related professions and have begun to
formulate a specific plan to address our institutional gap. The percentage of URM
candidates in the NCATE unit is under three per cent. While the plan is in the early stages
of discussion, the Diversity CIT is committed to exploring unique ways of increasing
diversity among EU candidates (Exhibit 4.4).
c. Edinboro’s efforts to recruit candidates of diverse backgrounds are demonstrated through a
variety of activities within and for P-12 schools that include interaction with current
candidates. Middle & Secondary Education Club members are still actively involved in the
College for Every Student program, most recently presenting a program in Lincoln
Elementary school. Shadowing Days for Perseus House Charter School students allow these
students to come to campus, partner with an education student, experiences classes, take a
campus tour, and have help in filling out an application. Campus visits for students from
PDS locations such as Roosevelt Middle School bring hundreds of possible future candidates
to campus to open their eyes to what is available here for them at EU through tours and
programs presented by candidates. Our programs are constantly looking for ways to reach in
to diverse communities and to use this interaction to aid in bringing diversity to the campus
community.
3. The Unit does not ensure that all advanced teaching candidates have field experiences with P-12
students from different socioeconomic groups, and students from diverse ethnic/racial groups,
ELLs, and students with disabilities.
Candidates in these programs are teaching in their own classrooms and the unit has assumed
that they had a diverse placement (s) in their initial preparation. No systematic process is in
place to determine this or to include requirement in the master’s degree program to demonstrate
proficiency with diverse students.
a. All advanced programs strive to incorporate diverse opportunities into courses and
field experiences as much as logistics may allow. Though not all experiences are
ethnically/racially diverse, there are always differences among the population that are
thought provoking, spur meaningful discussion, and necessitate thoughtful decision
making. Several of the advanced programs, including the Masters in Early
Childhood, Masters in Special Education, and Masters in Middle & Secondary
Education require that the candidate already be certified to teach. Thus, most of these
candidates have already participated in diverse experiences during initial certification.
Having said this, when the placement is controlled by the program, an effort to find a
diverse placement is made. In addition, coursework in required courses such as
SEDU 702 Teaching in the Contemporary Multicultural Classroom and SPED 710
Seminar in Exceptionalities ensures discussions surrounding, reflections on teaching,
and interactions with diverse populations. (Exhibit 4.5)
Two programs, in particular, have focused on the question of ensuring diverse
experiences for their advanced candidates even though all courses are delivered
online and candidates enroll from around the country. Due to this logistical
restriction, controlling the placement of the candidates for all field experiences is
not possible. These programs have addressed this question in the following ways:
b. Educational Leadership: Experiences provided for candidates within the program include
working with diverse populations within the school district. Candidates for Principal K-
12 certification must spend a minimum of 180 hours during a culminating internship in a
K-6 elementary building and a separate internship at a 7-12 secondary building. While
many candidates conduct one of their internships in their assigned building, most conduct
the second internship within an unfamiliar building. Candidates for the Superintendent
and/or the Supervisor of Special Education must conduct their internships while focusing
on a K-12 district perspective. A district perspective takes candidates in buildings
throughout the entire school district.
The Principal-Supervisor Final Assessment (Exhibit 4.6) displays instances where
diversity is assessed. For example, standards Standard 4.2: Respond to Community
Interests and Needs and Standard 6.1: Understand the Larger Context both incorporate
and assess diversity.
A plethora of activities are intertwined in course work that requires students to assess,
interview, and summarize their findings. For example, In SCHA 731, School and
Community Relations, Activity 4B External Public, asks candidates to define "external
publics" and indicate why it is important to develop good "external community relations."
They are instructed to “Comment on how you as an educational leader would promote
good communication with and among each of the following external publics: 1. Parents,
2. Older Adults, 3. General Community Groups, 4. Diverse Cultures, 5. Critics”.
Likewise, students are asked to define “Internal publics" and indicate why it is important
to develop good "internal community relations." They are instructed to “Comment on
how you as an educational leader would promote good communication with and among
each of the following internal public: 1. School Board, 2. Administration, 3. Teachers, 4.
Non-Instructional Personnel, 5. Pupils”. (Exhibit 4.7 Representative Samples of External
and Internal Publics).
c.
Reading: All advanced candidates in the Graduate Reading Program have a
diverse placement through their participation in READ 712 Reading Clinic, a
required course for both the masters and certification programs. Clinics are
organized by the Program faculty, and all candidates work in designated clinic
sites with participating P-12 students.
In 2013, designated clinic sites were as follows:
Migrant Education Program at the Bayfront Center (all participating students
were ELLs)
Cambridge Springs Elementary School (designated as “Rural Distant” by CCD)
Saegertown Elementary School (designated as “Rural Fringe” by CCD)
Wattsburg Area Elementary Center (designated as “Rural Fringe” by CCD)
James W. Parker Middle School (designated as “Rural Fringe” by CCD)
Standard 5
Overall Findings
No negative comments.
No response necessary.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Additional Evidence
After the submission of the IR Addendum, but prior to the BOE on-site visit, analyses of available survey
data was completed. This analysis was shared with the Unit faculty at the September 2013 Unit meeting
and was available for BOE review.
Initial/Teacher Prep Survey data analysis (Exhibit 5.1)
Advanced Program data analysis (Exhibit 5.2)
Standard 6
Overall Findings
No negative comments.
No response necessary.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Additional Evidence
None