INSTITUTIONAL REPORT
Continuing Visit
Continuous Improvement Pathway
tia
l
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
C
on
fid
en
4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016
March 1-3, 2015
Type of Visit:
Continuing visit - Initial Teacher Preparation
(Confidential) Page 1
Institutional Report for a Continuing Visit (Continuous
Improvement Pathway)
Updated May 2013
OVERVIEW
This section sets the context for the visit. It should clearly state the mission of the institution.
It should also describe the characteristics of the unit and identify and describe any branch
campuses, off-campus sites, alternate route programs, and distance learning programs for
professional school personnel.
I. Overview and Conceptual Framework
I.1 Summarize the institution's mission, historical context, and unique characteristics (e.g., land
grant, HBCU or religious).
This self study document located in Exhibit i.5.a.
American University (AU) was chartered by an Act of Congress in 1893 and founded under the auspices
of the United Methodist Church. Since its founding, American University has aspired to one overarching
goal: to serve as a great national university, located in the nation's capital, enriched by the city's
incomparable resources, welcoming talented and dedicated students and faculty from the United States
and around the world. AU is an institution committed to academic excellence. Its mission is grounded in
the premise that the quality of the student experience and engagement with the community, nation, and
world matters. AU students are drawn from across the country and the world. Students come from all 50
states and almost 150 countries.
Throughout its history, AU has been dedicated to interdisciplinary inquiry, international understanding,
interactive teaching, research and creative endeavors, and the practical application of knowledge. It
values public service and encourages the integration of academic programs and campus life with the
larger local, national, and international communities. It strives to combine the finest qualities of a liberal
arts college with the best qualities of a research university that is home to many prominent professional
schools.
The university enrolls more than 13,000 students, including approximately 7,300 undergraduate
students; 3,700 graduate students; 1,700 law students; and more than 600 visiting students. All schools
and colleges, except the Washington College of Law (WCL), have both undergraduate and graduate
programs. Each of the university's seven schools has unique strengths. The School of Public Affairs
(SPA) is one of the nation's oldest public policy schools and includes one of the highest-ranked public
affairs programs in the country. The School of International Service (SIS) is ranked in the top 10
worldwide for both undergraduate and graduate study. The Kogod School of Business (KSB) has been
ranked as no. 21 in the country for its undergraduate international business specialty and in the top 10th
percentile for its MS in taxation program. The School of Communication (SOC) has risen to prominence
as a leader in professional education, with a focus on investigative journalism, documentary film, and
political communication, enhanced by a new PhD in communication studies. The College of Arts and
Sciences (CAS), home to the School of Education, Teaching & Health, provides the liberal arts
foundation of the university and is home to renowned artists, scientists, educators, and scholars in the
social sciences and humanities. The Washington College of Law is known for its highly ranked
programs, including international and clinical education. It is recognized for the diversity of its student
(Confidential) Page 2
body and its commitment to the public interest. Together, these six schools and colleges offer 68
bachelor's degrees, 54 master's programs, 10 doctoral programs, and 5 law programs, as well as
undergraduate and graduate certificate programs. A seventh school, the School of Professional and
Extended Studies (SPExS), was created in 2012 to oversee a range of programs for non-matriculated
students, including the Washington Semester Program, Washington Mentorship Program, Graduate
Gateway Program, and Washington Internships for Native Students.
In 2008, under the leadership of President Cornelius M. Kerwin, university students, faculty, staff,
alumni, and trustees worked collaboratively to develop a new strategic plan designed to advance the
university's mission. The plan, AU in the Next Decade: Leadership for a Changing World, was
developed by a 20-person committee that included members from every division on campus. A link to
the plan can be found in Exhibit i.5.a.
4000 character limit
I.2 Summarize the professional education unit at your institution, its mission, and its
relationship to other units at the institution that are involved in the preparation of professional
educators.
The Education Preparation Provider (EPP) at American University is the School of Education, Teaching
& Health (SETH), housed in the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS). The Dean of SETH is the head of
the unit. SETH's mission is the professional development of dedicated and proficient teachers,
educational leaders, health professionals, and researchers. Graduates are equipped to accommodate
learner needs, nurture the strengths and talents of those they serve, and provide leadership in large and
small organizations, classrooms, educational institutions, and public policy arenas.
SETH has had many accomplishments since the previous NCATE visit in 2007. We continued to
strengthen our commitment to teacher quality in DC public and public charter schools with two
additional grant programs that recruit and train individuals to teach in STEM areas. These grants, Math
for America and Lab2Class, provide individuals with strong academic backgrounds in Math or Science
with a one-year residency program and academic, supervisory, mentoring, and financial support to
become fully certified teachers in DC schools by means of a MAT in Secondary Education (Math or
Science). Although programs developed through these grants differ slightly in design from traditional
teacher education programs, expectations of teachers who complete these programs mirror those of
candidates in traditional programs.
Other enhancements are evident in our assessment and program management system, described in detail
in Standard 2 of this report, and in practices related to our field experiences, outlined in Standard 3. In
both areas, we provide compelling evidence where we have strived to meet the NCATE standards at the
Target Level. SETH faculty and staff have implemented mechanisms to better support candidate
development and field experiences, to provide more coherent advising and feedback to candidates and
faculty, and to strengthen relations with alumni and local school systems.
2000 character limit
I.3 Summarize programs offered at initial and advanced preparation levels (including offcampus, distance learning, and alternate route programs), status of state approval, national
recognition, and if applicable, findings of other national accreditation associations related to the
preparation of education professionals.
SETH offers programs that prepare teachers, educational leaders and managers, education specialists,
health promotion specialists, and researchers for careers in schools, colleges and universities, federal,
state and local government agencies, business, and community and professional organizations. These
(Confidential) Page 3
programs provide candidates with opportunities to collaborate with professionals in public schools,
educational organizations, and federal agencies through internships, practica, and research. Training in
international education prepares graduates for careers in international organizations, nongovernmental
organizations, international schools, and government agencies.
SETH prepares teachers for initial certification in a total of nine teacher education programs. These
programs are designed to prepare teachers for Kindergarten through 12th grade, in alignment with the
District of Columbia's licensure requirements. Candidates complete their student teaching/internship
experiences at urban and suburban placements in public and non-public schools throughout the DC
metropolitan area. SETH offers no off-campus or online professional education programs, nor does it
support any branch campuses.
SETH offers initial teacher education programs at undergraduate and graduate levels and one advanced
program at the graduate level. Programs of study for each program can be found in Exhibit i.5.a. The
status of the program review process can be found in AIMS. The programs include:
Initial:
BA in Elementary Education
BA or BS in Secondary or K12 Education
Graduate Certificates in Early Childhood, Elementary, ESOL, K12, or Secondary Education
MAT in in Early Childhood, Elementary, ESOL, K12, or Secondary Education
MA in Special Education: Learning Disabilities
Advanced:
MEd in Curriculum and Instruction: Education Policy and Leadership or Literacy
2000 character limit
I.4 Summarize the basic tenets of the conceptual framework, institutional standards, and
candidate proficiencies related to expected knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions.
SETH is committed to advancing theory and professional practice through its programs and the
scholarly activities of our faculty. The faculty recognizes the significance of education in contemporary
life, the potential of education for each individual, and our special responsibilities to produce individuals
prepared for the 21st century. SETH seeks to achieve its goals though creative teaching, rigorous
research, and professional service. It is committed to ongoing social change, societal improvement, and
advancing individual welfare and potential. Graduates of SETH programs act as agents of social change
through their work as health professionals, teachers, researchers, managers, and administrators. They
share a professional belief in working towards excellence, equity, community, and diversity.
Beyond SETH's fundamental commitment to its students and alumni who work in the community to
advocate for the individual, both domestically and internationally, it also prepares candidates to build a
learning society in many diverse environments and for many diverse populations. The outcome is to
equip graduates of SETH programs to meet individual needs, to nurture the strengths and talents of those
they serve, and to provide leadership in public policy arenas.
The teacher education programs in the professional education unit are anchored in a knowledge-based,
research- and values-informed conceptual framework. The framework was developed and adopted by
the faculty in the 1990s and is revisited on an ongoing basis - the framework exists not only as a
standing document, but also as a fluid discussion within the unit, particularly as we add new programs
and consider our outcomes. The mission of SETH reflects and reinforces this conceptual framework,
which is derived from the teaching, research, professional service, and value commitments of the
faculty, and is presented to students in each course via course syllabi (which can be found online by
(Confidential) Page 4
clicking on the documents in Exhibit i.5.b). The current SETH conceptual framework is presented in our
conceptual framework document in Exhibit i.5.c.
The conceptual framework for SETH has at its center the core value of Reflection, which is supported
through the professional commitments and activities evoked by teacher Beliefs, Knowledge, and
Practice. The conceptual framework is organized by the concepts of Community, Diversity, Equity, and
Excellence, and is operationalized through the 10 INTASC standards. Please see Exhibit i.5.c for the
Core Values and Process Elements of the conceptual framework and its alignment with the INTASC,
NCATE, and Program Standards.
Making the Conceptual Framework Operational: The INTASC Standards
Candidates' understandings of the core value of Reflection and the organizing principles of Community,
Diversity, Equity and Excellence are evaluated using the 10 INTASC standards. We use INTASC to
organize the coursework, practica, and assessments in SETH. Within the specific presentation of the
INTASC standards at AU, candidates demonstrate the development of the conceptual framework in their
beliefs, knowledge and practice. In the fall of 2012, we transitioned to the new INTASC standards,
realigning our conceptual framework, as well as NCATE standards, Specialty Professional Association
(SPA) standards and state program standards. See Exhibits i.5.c and 2.4.a. for the alignment between and
among these sets of standards.
Development and Evolution of the Conceptual Framework
The main tenets of the conceptual framework were first developed in late 1990s. However, the
manuscript itself is fluid and exists on a shared drive where faculty are able to undertake ongoing
revisions and initiate discussions relative to the framework. The document reflects the School's core
commitments to Community, Diversity, Equity and Excellence, and includes connections to current
interests in educational opportunity and access to education for under-represented groups. All of the fulltime faculty members in the School have participated in the development of the conceptual framework,
either by reflecting on the tenets in their courses, or by adding to or revising the document as a result of
ongoing faculty discussions. A current version of the document is available in Exhibit i.5.c.
Candidate Proficiencies Aligned to Professional and State Standards
The District of Columbia's Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) has adopted the
INTASC standards as the state standards for professional education programs. NCATE and INTASC
standards outline the elements of what all teachers should know and be able to do, and have been
validated as the behaviors that result in positive outcomes for students when they are articulated into
specific knowledge, skills and beliefs. Therefore, the development of these behaviors, and how teacher
candidates are given the opportunity to reflect on those skills, can be found in the tools SETH uses to
help students continuously improve upon their practice. In each SETH assessment and rubric used in our
teacher education programs, one will note explicit indications of how candidates should enact each of the
standard behaviors of teachers. Alignment charts can be found in Exhibits i.5.c and 2.4.a.
6000 character limit
I.5 Exhibits
I.5.a Pages from catalogs and other printed documents describing general education, specialty/content studies, and
professional studies
I.5.b Examples of syllabi for professional education courses
I.5.c Conceptual framework(s)
I.5.d Findings of other national accreditation associations related to the preparation of education professionals (e.g.,
(Confidential) Page 5
ASHA, NASM, APA, CACREP)
I.5.e Updated institutional, program, and faculty information under institutional work space in AIMS
I.5.a Graduate Advanced Programs of Study
I.5.a Graduate Initial Programs of Study
I.5.a Undergraduate Initial Programs of Study
I.5.a Teacher Education Curriculum Diagram
I.5.a Links to Catalog and SETH Website
I.5.b Examples of Syllabi
I.5.c Conceptual Framework
I.5.c Alignment Chart for Conceptual Framework, INTASC and NCATE
I.5.a American University Self Study July 2014
See Attachment panel below.
II. Unit Standards and Movement Toward Target
Movement Toward Target
Please indicate the standard(s) on which the unit selected to demonstrate movement toward target:
Initial Advanced
Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions
Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
Standard 3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
Standard 4: Diversity
Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development
Standard 6: Governance and Resources
Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions
Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals know and
demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, pedagogical and
professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn.
Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.
1.1 Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions
What do candidate assessment data tell the unit about candidates' meeting professional, state, and
institutional standards and their impact on P-12 student learning? For programs not
nationally/state reviewed, summarize data from key assessments and discuss these results.
SETH uses a number of assessments to measure the progress of candidates toward meeting professional,
state and institutional standards. We use a series of key assessments in initial and advanced teacher
education programs to measure candidates' content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and
skills, professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, professional dispositions, and impact on
(Confidential) Page 6
student learning. Each professional education program has been, or is being, reviewed by its appropriate
specialty professional association, or by the DC state agency. The status of other SPA and state reviews
is ongoing; the most accurate information about the reviews is found in AIMs and Exhibit 1.4.a.
1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates
SETH currently uses four measures to assess initial candidate content knowledge: 1) completion of
content courses and/or transcript analysis; 2) performance on Praxis II tests for initial programs; 3)
assessments aligned with INTASC standards 4 & 5 for candidates' final evaluation of student teaching
or, in special education, the Field Based Performance Assessment (FBPA); and 4) candidate portfolios.
In advanced program, content related assessments are used in select courses and are aligned with
program-developed standards/learning outcomes. Copies of key assessments and scoring rubrics are
found in Exhibit 1.4.c.
Content Courses and Transcript Analysis: At the undergraduate level, all students at AU complete a
General Education program that provides an introduction to research and study in five areas: art;
philosophical studies; literature and world history; social studies and communication; and science. In
addition, undergraduates fulfill writing and mathematics requirements; candidates in undergraduate
programs in secondary education must meet all requirements of their undergraduate content degree.
Undergraduates satisfy this requirement through the obtaining the required undergraduate GPA.
At the graduate level in initial teacher education programs (including special education), candidates must
establish proof that they have a well-rounded undergraduate experience and have fulfilled general
education and teacher certification requirements through evaluation of their undergraduate transcripts.
Transcripts are analyzed in terms of degree requirements, specialty professional association content
standards in specific teaching fields, and DC certification requirements. Prior to program entry,
candidates undertake the transcript analysis and submissions are reviewed by the SETH education
program director. Assessment data required for the transcript analysis are presented in Exhibit 2.4.b. 67
to 100% of candidate met this requirement at entry-all candidates met this requirement before
completion.
Praxis II exams: As presented in AIMS, each program utilizes Praxis II exams aligned to the content
knowledge of the relevant area of licensure. These data are present in Standard 1 for each initial
program. As illustrated in these reports, 80% or more of the unit's program completers pass content
examinations in states that require licensure examinations.
Final Evaluation of Student Teaching Assessment or the FBPA: Supervisors complete assessments at the
conclusion of student teaching or internship. The assessments and data can be found in Exhibit 3.4.f. and
1.4.d. These assessments make use of a 5-pt scoring rubric and illustrate that across all general education
programs, candidate scores range from 4 to 5. The FBPA makes use of a 4-pt scale; scores for these
standards range from 3.2 to 4. These data indicate candidates have strong content knowledge and are
able to apply content knowledge to their teaching.
Portfolio Assessments: In Exhibit 1.4.d, data are presented for each initial program relative to candidate
performance on INTASC standards 4 (content) & 5 (application of content). Portfolio scores across all
programs, which use a 3-pt rubric, range from 2.25 to 2.71. For special education, data from assessments
1 and 2 demonstrate knowledge of special education content and principles; scores range from 2.27 to
2.31. For both general and special education, candidates are able to demonstrate knowledge of content
relative to their chosen program area.
At the advanced program level, content knowledge is evaluated through assessments that occur in three
courses in each track (Education Policy and Leadership or Literacy) and that are aligned with program
standards. Given that the Curriculum and Instruction program was only recently initiated, there are no
(Confidential) Page 7
data available.
1b. Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates
For initial programs, the unit currently uses two measures to assess candidates' pedagogical content
knowledge: 1) elements of the final evaluation of student teaching or the FBPA; and 2) portfolio
assessments aligned to INTASC Standards 6, 7 & 8 for general education and INTASC Standards 7 & 8
for special education. Through these assessments, candidates demonstrate knowledge and skills of
instructional practice, including assessment, planning for instruction, and instructional strategies. These
data are highlighted in green in Exhibit 1.4.d. In advanced programs, pedagogical content knowledge is
measured through assessments in two courses, EDU 683: Curriculum Design and EDU 525: Educational
Assessment.
Final Evaluation of Student Teaching Assessment or the FBPA: Items on this assessment directly align
to INTASC Standards 6, 7 and 8 (7, 8 for special education) and assess pedagogical and professional
knowledge and skills. Data from these assessments make use of a 5-pt rubric (Exhibit 1.4.d) and
illustrate that across programs scores range from 4.5 - 4.87. The FBPA uses a 4-pt scale; scores range
from 3.2 - 3.7. Findings indicate that in both general and special education, candidates demonstrate
acceptable levels of performance relative to pedagogical content knowledge and skills.
Portfolio Assessments: Portfolio assessments are submitted through the professional teaching portfolio
upon program completion. Through these assessments of INTASC Standards 6, 7, and 8, candidates
demonstrate knowledge and skills of instructional practice, including assessment, planning for
instruction, and instructional strategies. Data (Exhibit 1.4.d) indicate that candidates received scores of
2.5 - 2.78. In special education, scores aligned with standards 7 and 8 and ranged from 2.35 - 2.41 out of
3. For general and special education, candidates' scores meet established acceptable level of
performance.
At the advanced level, candidates' pedagogical content knowledge and skills are evaluated through
assessments that take place in two required courses, EDU 525 and 683. Assessments are presented in
Exhibit 1.4.c. There are no for advanced programs at this time.
1c. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates
The EPP currently uses two measures to assess candidates' pedagogical and professional knowledge and
skills in initial programs: 1) Final Evaluation of Student Teaching or the FPBA for INTASC 1, 2 & 3,
and 4 & 6 for special education; and 2) portfolio assessments. Data are presented in Exhibits 1.4.d.
Final Evaluation of Student Teaching Assessment or the FBPA: This assessment is completed by
supervisors at the conclusion of student teaching or internship. Items are directly aligned to INTASC
Standards 1, 2 & 3 and assess candidates' pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills. For
general teacher education programs, scores range from 4 to 5 on a 5-pt scale, and from 3.2 to 4 on a 4-pt
scale for special education. Data indicate that candidates demonstrate acceptable levels of performance
relative to professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills in the classroom.
Portfolio Assessments: The portfolio assessments of INTASC standards 1, 2 & 3 focus on candidate
knowledge and skills related to the learner and learning, and include learner development, learning
differences, and the learning environment. The performative artifacts collected via the portfolio allow
SETH faculty to evaluate candidate pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills; parallel
measures are used in both teacher and special education. Data indicate performance for each general
education program (Early Childhood, Elementary, K12, Secondary and TESOL). Portfolio scores, using
a 3-pt rubric, ranged from 2.55 - 2.87. For special education, scores ranged from 2.2 - 2.3. Candidates
represent their professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills through the portfolio. At the advanced
(Confidential) Page 8
level, candidates' pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills are assessed through an Action
Research project presented in Exhibit 1.4.c. in the EDU 610 course. There are no data available at this t.
1d. Student Learning for Teacher Candidates
The EPP uses the Impact of Student Learning (ISL) and the Curriculum Based Measurement for special
education to measure the effect of teacher candidates' classroom practice on P-12 student learning;
examples are presented in Exhibit 1.4.g. Assessments are implemented in methods coursework and
require candidates to conduct formative and summative assessments of P-12 learners. The advanced
program uses assessments in the internship (EDU 691 or 695) and capstone (EDU 687) courses-no data
are available.
1g. Professional Dispositions for All Candidates
The EPP uses qualitative measures to evaluate candidate disposition at program completion. For initial
programs, candidates undergo evaluation aligned to INTASC Standards 9 & 10, included in final
evaluation of student teaching/internship and portfolio assessment. Data from portfolio and field-based
assessments range from 2.25 to 2.61 out of 3, and demonstrate performance at acceptable levels. See
Exhibits 1.4.e and 1.4.d. Advanced program uses assessments in the internship (EDU 691/5) and
capstone (EDU 687) courses. There are no data avai
10000 character limit
1.2 Moving Toward Target or Continuous Improvement
Please respond to 1.2.a if this is the standard on which the unit is moving to the target level. If it is
not the standard on which you are moving to the target level, respond to 1.2.b.
1.2.a Standard on which the unit is moving to the target level
Describe areas of the standard at which the unit is currently performing at the target level for
each element of the standard.
Summarize activities and their impact on candidate performance and program quality that have
led to target level performance.
Discuss plans and timelines for attaining and/or sustaining target level performance as
articulated in this standard.
15000 character limit
1.2.b Continuous Improvement
Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement of
candidate performance and program quality.
Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as
articulated in this standard.
[Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement of candidate
performance and program quality.]
The unit makes use of ongoing processes to evaluate programs at the unit, program and student level in
(Confidential) Page 9
order to make informed decisions about activities and program changes. Given our goal to equip our
graduates with both breadth and depth in terms of knowledge, skills attitudes and the ability to make real
and lasting change in the lives of P12 learners, we regularly reflect on data from each of the decision
levels into order to engage in continuous improvement. More detail about our decision making process is
outlined in Standard 2 below.
The Educational Testing Service (ETS) now provides categorical data from the Praxis II assessments.
The EPP has evaluated these data, and although we find no consistent trends in the Praxis II subcategories, we are able to present these data to SPAs and track data for state approved programs.
Transcript reviews are now completed prior to program admission. This ensures that students with
significant deficits are counseled out before beginning the programs. These changes are described in
Exhibit 2.4.g.
Since our previous submission, SETH has narrowed our assessment of the Impact on Student Learning
and is moving this process to the methods courses. This had improved the quality of candidate
preparation relative to working with P12 learners and better prepares candidates to focus on student
outcomes in student teaching. In addition, we developed a Student Teaching Course Rubric in Fall 2012
that provides for ongoing evaluation of candidate growth relative to professionalism, preparedness,
instruction, learning environment and classroom culture. Initial implementation of the rubric indicates
that it is an effective tool by which the EPP can measure candidate development over the student
teaching semester.
Based on feedback from the SPAs, SETH made significant adjustments to program assessments,
strengthening their alignment to content standards. These changes are described in Exhibit 2.4.g. In
addition, the EPP shifted assessments from the unit level to the program level. Assessments are now also
connected to specific content in foundational and methods courses, rather than conducted upon program
completion. This change allows the EPP to make student-level adjustments in programs of study or
placements, while also allowing program faculty the ability to refine course assessments to be more
cohesive in nature.
[Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as articulated
in this standard.]
Assessments for SETH's initial education programs are comprehensive and consistently applied.
However, to ensure that SETH is continuously assessing and improving all of its programs, we intend to
begin implementing assessments in AY 2014-15 for advanced programs. Data from these assessments
will be evaluated based on the systems described in Standard 2. Data from the initial implementation of
some of these assessments will be available for the on-site review
Across all programs, processes to collect data are constantly in refinement. Currently some programs are
under review by SPAs; these reviews may result in SETH refining current assessment processes. In
addition, we continue to improve data collection processes and to increase inter-rater reliability.
10000 character limit
1.3 Areas for Improvement Cited in the Action Report from the Previous Accreditation Review
Summarize activities, processes, and outcomes in addressing each of the AFIs cited for the initial
and/or advanced program levels under this standard. [12,000 characters]
(Confidential) Page 10
12000 character limit
1.4 Exhibits for Standard 1
1.4.a State program review documents and state findings (Some of these documents may be available in AIMS.)
1.4.b Title II reports submitted to the state for the previous three years
1.4.c Key assessments and scoring guides used for assessing candidate learning against professional and state
standards as well as proficiencies identified in the unit's conceptual framework (Some of this information may
be accessible for nationally recognized programs in AIMS. Cross reference as appropriate.)
1.4.d Aggregate data on key assessments, including proficiencies identified in the unit's conceptual framework (Data
should be disaggregated by program and level regardless of location or method of delivery.)
1.4.e Key assessments and scoring guides used for assessing professional dispositions, including fairness and the
belief that all students can learn
1.4.f Aggregate data on key assessments of candidates' professional dispositions (Data should be disaggregated by
program and level regardless of location or method of delivery.)
1.4.g Examples of candidates' assessment and analysis of P-12 student learning
1.4.h Examples of candidates' work (e.g., portfolios at different proficiency levels) from programs across the unit
1.4.i Aggregate data on follow-up studies of graduates
1.4.j Aggregate data on employer feedback on graduates
1.4.k Data collected by state and/or national agencies on performance of educator preparation programs and the
effectiveness of their graduates in classrooms and schools, including student achievement data, when available
1.4.a List of Programs and Review Status July 2014 Programs
1.4.a Health & PE State Report July 2008
1.4.a MAT K12 Arts Key Assessment Report and Data
1.4.a MAT K12 Health and PE Key Assessment Report and Data
1.4.b 2010-2011 Title II Report Card
1.4.b 2011-2012 Title II Report Card
1.4.b 2012-2013 Title II Report Card
1.4.c Advanced Program Key Assessments
1.4.c Teacher Education Portfolio Requirements
1.4.c Special Education Portfolio Requirements
1.4.c Other Key Assessments and Scoring Guides for Candidate Learning
1.4.d Final Evaluation of Student Teaching Data - Undergraduate Initial
1.4.d Final Evaluation of Student Teaching Data - Graduate Initial
1.4.d FBPA Data- Special Education
1.4.d Portfolio Data - Undergraduate Initial
1.4.d Portfolio Data - Graduate Initial
1.4.d Special Education Portfolio Data
1.4.f Aggregate data on key assessments of candidates’ professional dispositions
1.4.g Curriculum Based Management - Needs Improvement
1.4.g Curriculum Based Management - Strong
1.4.g Examples of Candidates’ Assessment and Analysis of P-12 Learning Explanation
1.4.g Impact of Student Learning Elementary Education Example
(Confidential) Page 11
1.4.g Impact of Student Learning Math Example
1.4.g Impact of Student Learning Science (Biology) Example
1.4.g Impact of Student Learning Social Studies Example
1.4.g Impact of Student Learning Studio Art Example
1.4.g Elementary Education ISL Rubric and Data
1.4.g Foreign Lanaguage ISL Rubric and Data
1.4.g K12 TESOL ISL Rubric and Data
1.4.g K12 ISL Rubric
1.4.g Secondary English ISL Rubric and Data
1.4.g Secondary Math ISL Rubric and Data
1.4.g Secondary Science ISL Rubric and Data
1.4.g Secondary Social Studies ISL Rubric and Data
1.4.h Professional Teaching Portfolio Examples
1.4.i Alumni Survey System
1.4.i End-of-Semester Student Survey Data
See Attachment panel below.
Standard 2. Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant qualifications,
the candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its
programs.
2.1 Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
How does the unit use its assessment system to improve candidate performance, program quality
and unit operations?
2a. Assessment System
SETH's program and assessment management system allows the EPP to operationalize the conceptual
framework's organizing principles of Community, Diversity, Equity, and Excellence and the EPP's
professional commitments of Knowledge, Beliefs, Practice, and Reflection. For initial programs, the
INTASC standards guide the system's multiple assessments and the EPP's key assessments align to state
or SPA standards. Assessments for advanced programs align to learning outcomes identified by program
faculty.
The EPP's system includes comprehensive and integrated assessment and evaluation measures that begin
prior to initial program admission. Assessments are both formative and summative and provide the EPP
and its professional community with developmental and ongoing data about candidates, programs, and
overall EPP performance. These data inform candidate advisory actions and program improvement
decisions.
Initial and advanced program faculty and staff make decisions about candidate performance based on
multiple assessments at key decision points. Decision points for initial Programs are (1) Program
Admission (2) Student Teaching Entry (3) Student Teaching Completion (4) Program Completion and
(Confidential) Page 12
(5) Employment and Performance Follow-up. Decision points for advanced programs are (1) Program
Admission (2) Advancement to Candidacy (3) Program Completion and (4) Employment and
Performance Follow-up. Details of each assessment at each decision point can be found the Assessment
Guide in Exhibit 2.4.a.
The EPP employs several strategies to ensure all assessment procedures are fair, accurate, consistent and
free of bias. First, key assessments are aligned with institutional, state, national, and professional
standards (Exhibit 2.4.a), ensuring that candidates are measured against recognized standards and the
organizing principles and professional commitments of the unit's conceptual framework. This
transparency allows candidates to reasonably predict evaluators' expectations. Second, all faculty, both
clinical faculty and cooperating teachers, participate in at least one training session regarding overall
responsibilities and assessment tools. Third, the unit has developed rubrics for assessments, provided to
candidates and evaluators. Fourth, the unit has developed policies for decision point assessments that
allow candidates to reflect upon work they have completed and resubmit components that do not meet
expectations or re-take a practical component.
The EPP relies on its professional community to evaluate the capacity and effectiveness of its
assessment system, including full-time and part-time faculty, clinical faculty supervisors, supervisor
leads, method leads, cooperating teachers, partner school leaders and program alumni. Supervisor and
methods leads (Exhibit 3.4.d:Clinical Experience Personnel Chart) provide support to the Director of the
Office of Teacher Education, ensuring a link between the cooperating teacher, the student, the faculty,
and program staff. Leads use assessments to monitor candidate progress and ensure data are available to
make decisions about candidate progression through Practicum and Student Teaching. Leads meet with
the Director of the Office of Teacher Education formally three times per year (Aug., Jan., June), and
informally as needed to discuss candidate progress, provide feedback regarding practicum and student
teaching, report experiences of cooperating teachers and other school personnel, and discuss the quality
of assessment data. Supervisor leads also work with individual supervisors to provide mentoring and
feedback to candidates. This lead structure was implemented in Fall 2012. The Special Education
Program has a similar process between the Director of the Special Education Program, faculty, clinical
faculty supervisors, cooperating teachers and school leaders. The faculty of the Curriculum and
Instruction program are currently developing its professional community, which includes leaders from
partner organizations and internship placement sites.
The directors of initial and advanced programs work closely with faculty to ensure the effective design
and implementation of key assessments. Each assessment includes a rubric or scoring guide, which
indicates acceptable levels of performance, and opportunities for resubmission. Given the cycle of SPA
resubmissions for the EPP, the utility and validity of data produced through key assessments has mostly
occurred during the rejoinder process. Relevant feedback from SPA review is applied to the assessments
of initial programs reviewed by the state. Advanced program assessments are reviewed by peer faculty
through AU's Learning Outcomes process required for Middle States accreditation.
2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation
The EPP uses a customized, web-based assessment and program management system called GoEd
(goed.american.edu), which is continuously maintained and regularly improved upon to meet the needs
of faculty, staff, candidates and the professional community. Candidates in all programs enter the system
as prospects and maintain access after graduation.
GoEd allows access to data from the University's official database, including contact information, course
and schedule information, and grades. GoEd imports data directly from the ETS Praxis system. Access
to a candidate's account can be granted to internal users such as faculty, as well as external users such as
cooperating teachers.
(Confidential) Page 13
GoEd provides regular, comprehensive data on program quality, unit operations, and candidate
performance at each decision point for initial and advanced programs. Candidates have access to
assessment rubrics and evaluative feedback. Each semester, candidates and faculty complete assessments
in the system. Users access the system to provide evaluative feedback about their experiences and about
the effectiveness of assessments. All data can be aggregated, summarized, and reported. Data can be
disaggregated by program and across time periods.
Data collected in GoEd are regularly and systematically compiled, aggregated, summarized, analyzed,
and reported internally and externally to improve candidate performance, program quality, and EPP
operations. GoEd data are used in conjunction with data from the AU Office of Institutional Research to
complete SPA reports, PEDS reports, Title II reports, CAEP Annual Reports and Learning Outcomes
required by Middle States. Internally, data is reviewed to monitor candidate progress and program
effectiveness. See Exhibit 2.4.a for the 3-level Assessment Analysis Structure of Data Review and
Analysis, also described in Section 2c.
AU has a Policy on Student Academic Grievances that covers undergraduate and graduate students (see
Exhibit 2.4.e). The policy prescribes a 4-step process that includes review by an annually appointed EPP
grievance committee. The Dean holds the official grievance files, as well as a file of informal
complaints. GoEd also has an area for staff to track communication with an individual candidate, which
allows all involved staff to have a full understanding of actions taken regarding a candidate. Candidates
may access these comments upon request.
2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement
The EPP employs a 3-level assessment analysis structure to ensure data from assessments are reviewed
and analyzed regularly for program improvement (Exhibit 2.4.a). For initial programs, LEVEL I data are
reviewed each semester by faculty, clinical faculty, cooperating teachers and the Director of the Office
of Teacher Education. These data are collected from course assessments, field experiences, student
teaching, and developmental portfolio tasks. Faculty and clinical faculty supervisors submit data and
review results to ensure candidates' successful program continuation. Faculty may also use results to
adjust instruction in a course or adjust how they approach supervisory tasks. If a faculty or clinical
faculty member has evidence that an assessment may need to be adjusted in order to gain more evidence
of student performance or to better align with standards, they bring these suggestions to the methods
leads or supervisory leads who present this information to the Office of Teacher Education or the
Director of the Special Education Program. During June supervisor lead meetings, data from key
assessments are discussed. If there are compelling findings, decisions about program or assessment
adjustments are proposed. The program director then reviews these changes with the Dean and they
determine if changes to courses or non-key assessments should be made. The teacher education
committee provides guidance about changes that affect an entire program or a key assessment. The
Director of the Special Education Program follows a similar process with faculty members, supervisor
leads and the special education committee.
The Dean, Director of the Office of Teacher Education, and faculty leaders who compile SPA and state
reports review LEVEL II data annually or biannually. Level II data include data from program
assessments, allowing a formal opportunity for the Dean and directors to review aggregated program
data with faculty leaders. Given the rejoinder process, each program has been reviewed approximately
every two years. Since Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 SPA submissions, two programs have been nationally
recognized. We expect the remaining programs to become fully nationally recognized in the next year. A
proposed process for internal review is outlined in Section 2c in Moving Toward Target and will begin
in Fall 2016.
The Dean and Directors review data at the EPP level (LEVEL III) annually for initial programs. This
analysis occurs during the compilation of external reports, including PEDS reports, Title II reports,
(Confidential) Page 14
CAEP Annual Reports and the Learning Outcomes report required by Middle States. Advanced program
data are reviewed annually through the Learning Outcomes report.
10000 character limit
2.2 Moving Toward Target or Continuous Improvement
Please respond to 2.2.a if this is the standard on which the unit is moving to the target level. If it is
not the standard on which you are moving to the target level, respond to 2.2.b.
2.2.a Standard on which the unit is moving to the target level
Describe areas of the standard at which the unit is currently performing at the target level for
each element of the standard.
Summarize activities and their impact on candidate performance and program quality that have
led to target level performance.
Discuss plans and timelines for attaining and/or sustaining target level performance as
articulated in this standard.
In order to describe work undertaken to move to the Target Level, excerpts from the "target"• rubrics of
NCATE Standard 2 are cited in [brackets] below along with specific examples of evidence to show that
the EPP is moving to the Target Level or present a timeline for moving toward target.
2a. Assessment System
[The unit, with the involvement of its professional community, is regularly evaluating the capacity and
effectiveness of its assessment system, which reflects the conceptual framework and incorporates
candidate proficiencies outlined in professional and state standards.]
The EPP's professional community, including full-time and part-time faculty, clinical faculty
supervisors, supervisor leads, method leads, cooperating teachers, partner school principals, and
program alumni each have a role in the assessment system, which reflects the conceptual framework
principles of Community, Diversity, Equity and Excellence as well as the INTASC and SPA standards,
and standards designed for advanced programs in curriculum and instruction. Evaluation of the system
and assessments by these stakeholders occurs at three levels described in Exhibit 2.4.a.
In AY 2013-2014, the EPP systematized the participation of alumni and school leaders in the assessment
system by developing and implementing alumni and employment surveys. The EPP is also assisting the
state in its efforts to develop an educator database that tracks the performance of candidates licensed in
DC. The advanced program in curriculum and instruction is building its professional community, which
includes school leaders, alumni and leaders in policy organizations.
[The unit regularly examines the validity and utility of the data produced through assessments and
makes modifications to keep abreast of changes in assessment technology and in professional
standards.]
The EPP collects data that are meaningful, valid, and useful in measuring candidate performance and
uses these data for program improvement. Each key assessment includes a rubric, which indicates the
acceptable level of candidate performance. For initial programs, the validity and utility of data produced
has been proven during SPA or state review and rejoinder process. As SETH programs continue to
receive national recognition and are externally reviewed less frequently, the Director of the Office of
Teacher Education and the Director of Special Education will design and implement a biannual internal
program review system. This system is projected to be in place in AY 16-17 in order to provide enough
(Confidential) Page 15
time for SPA and state review feedback, revised assessment implementation and effective system design.
This process will ultimately include the review of evidence regarding the relationship between candidate
performance assessments to candidate program success to graduate success in the classroom (see below).
A similar process will be adopted by the advanced programs in AY 17-18.
[Decisions about candidate performance are based on multiple assessments....Data show a strong
relationship of performance assessments to candidate success throughout their programs and later in
classrooms or schools.]
The EPP has operated with an assessment system with multiple assessments occurring at multiple
decision points since 2006 for initial programs, and began to implement this process in 2014 for
advanced programs. Decision point details are provided in Exhibit 2.4.a.
SPA and state review data show a strong relationship between performance assessment outcomes and
candidate program success. Faculty and program directors regularly use assessment data to follow
individual candidates and monitor areas for improvement. For example, if a candidate performs poorly
on the unit-plan key assessment in a methods class, the faculty member and director will alert the clinical
faculty supervisor to provide additional support in lesson and unit planning during field experience.
Confirmation of the expected growth occurs in the final evaluation of student teaching and professional
teaching portfolio assessments.
The employment and performance follow-up decision point has been recently added and will be the
focus of the work of the directors of SETH's initial and advanced programs in AY 14-15. An
employment and performance follow-up survey for all programs is being designed and will be
implemented in Fall 2014. The Director of the Office of Teacher Education is also providing feedback to
the state about the State's Educator Preparation Program system, which is currently being designed for
operation in 2015. This system will provide performance data about program graduates. Assessments at
each decision point for advanced programs are being implemented and tested in AY 14-15.
[The unit conducts thorough studies to establish fairness, accuracy, and consistency of its assessment
procedures and unit operations. It also makes changes in its practices consistent with the results of these
studies.]
In the past two years the EPP has taken the following measures to ensure fairness, accuracy and
consistency in its assessment procedures and unit operations:
·Updated all assessments in initial programs to the new 2011 INTASC standards, most notably the
Professional Teaching Portfolio and Final Evaluation of Student Teaching. It is important to the EPP that
programs reflect the education field's new understanding about student learning, research, common core
standards, and teaching practice.
·Aligned key assessments in initial programs more closely to the individual SPA standards as suggested
by SPA reviewers. The EPP emphasizes the importance of candidate knowledge of their discipline; these
aligned assessments provide an opportunity to specifically measure knowledge, skills and dispositions
defined by specialty associations.
·Updated rubrics for key assessments, including those used to assess candidate performance at the
completion of student teaching. Rubrics were updated with guidance of supervisor leads, methods leads
and the Teacher Education Committee. Faculty and cooperating teachers who use assessments were retrained.
·Ensure that multiple reviewers complete the key assessments. For example, the Final Evaluation of
Student Teaching and the Lesson Plan Analysis are both completed by the candidate, cooperating
teacher and clinical supervisor who discuss assessment results and how results might differ among
evaluators. In addition, two clinical faculty members score the professional teaching portfolio. This
ensures a consensus regarding a candidate's mastery of the INTASC standards. Currently, a third
(Confidential) Page 16
evaluator is employed if scores differ by more than 10 points.
Many of these new assessments and rubrics are still being implemented for the first time and data are
currently being collected. The program directors will review at least two implementations of these
assessments with the supervisor leads, methods leads and teacher education or special education
committee in order to determine if they are valid and providing useful data to assess candidate
performance. During assessment reviews, these stakeholders will review the range of scores provided to
each candidate to ensure training for evaluators is resulting in accurate and fair assessments. These
studies will occur in June 2015. As assessments for the advanced programs are implemented, the
Director and faculty will employ many of these same techniques to ensure assessments are fair, accurate
and consistent.
2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation
SETH's assessment system provides regular and comprehensive data on program quality, unit
operations, and candidate performance at key program stages, extending beyond the first year of
completers' practice. Assessment data from candidates, graduates, faculty, and other members of the
professional community are based on multiple assessments from both internal and external sources that
are systematically collected.
In 2010, the EPP invested in upgrading and expanding its web-based, customized assessment system.
The Dean approved a vendor change to the GoEd system, which provides for more robust portfolio,
assessment, and reporting capabilities. In 2012 GoEd expanded to include new modules to track
prospective candidates, monitor candidate advising, track faculty appointments, add a separate portfolio
for the Special Education program, and update the Teacher Education portfolio system to include the
new INTASC standards. Key assessments continue to be implemented and scored through GoEd by
faculty, clinical faculty supervisors, cooperating teachers, and candidates. The system allows
cooperating teachers and clinical faculty supervisors access to real-time assessment data about
candidates and provides candidates a place to track their performance at each decision point in the
program. In addition, GoEd has a robust reporting system that allows assessment data to be aggregated
and disaggregated in many ways: across semesters, by programs, by traditional and alternative route, etc.
Three important changes to the system have improved candidate quality and overall unit operations.
·Prospective Candidates: The prospective student module allows unit staff to track correspondence with
candidates. This allows staff and faculty to review the transcript analysis of candidates before program
admission and to notify them as early as possible if they have any content deficiencies. A candidate can
then work with program advisors to create a plan to eliminate content deficiencies. This process has
increased the number of candidates admitted without content deficiencies.
·Candidate Advising: Program advisors use the system to track candidate advising. During the initial
advising session, advisors are able to outline the entire program of study with candidates online. Any
staff member who communicates with a candidate enters advising notes, including candidate complaints
and resolutions. This system provides increased program transparency to candidates and staff members.
These changes have helped integrate GoEd into all EPP processes and allows the EPP to better track
student progress through their programs.
·Key Assessments: As the EPP receives national recognition from the SPA and state review process, key
assessments are updated in the GoEd system. Entering all SPA assessments into GoEd allows staff to
hold faculty accountable for completing required assessments. Candidates are also more aware of the
importance of content and discipline-specific assessments.
·Faculty System: A new faculty module was created to collect syllabi, faculty CVs, adjunct faculty rate
information, and results of student evaluations of faculty teaching. Adjunct faculty members also use the
system for re-appointment evaluations.
In AY 14-15, the EPP will turn its attention to expanding GoEd to include information about candidates
(Confidential) Page 17
in their first year of practice. A new alumni section is under development and will be operational by Fall
2014. This section will collect employment data about candidates. Candidate surveys will be collected
and these data, when appropriate, will be linked to a candidate's alumni account.
In addition, in AY 14-15 and 15-16, the EPP will add the advanced programs key assessments to the
GoEd system, train candidates how to use these assessments, train faculty how to use the system to score
these assessments, and review the data from the assessments.
[These data are regularly and systematically compiled, aggregated, summarized, analyzed, and reported
publicly for the purpose of improving candidate performance, program quality, and unit operations.]
Standard 2 Section 2c. above and Exhibit 2.4.a. explain the three-level system for using data to improve
candidate performance, program quality and EPP operations. In the past year a related change to the EPP
includes the creation of the new positions of Methods Leads and Supervisor Leads, and their required
use of assessment data. These new leadership positions review data with the Director of the Office of
Teacher Education and the Director of the Special Education Program and propose program changes
when evidence indicates change is recommended.
As the advanced program assessments are added to the system, full-time faculty in those programs will
follow the same framework to review data and propose program changes as necessary.
[The unit has a system for effectively maintaining records of formal candidate complaints and their
resolution.]
The EPP will continue to follow the official AU Policy on Student Academic Grievances.
[The unit is developing and testing different information technologies to improve its assessment system.]
SETH budgets resources for the GoEd system to be maintained by an external developer and upgraded
when needed. The Dean approves all decisions regarding changes to the system based on overall EPP
benefit and specific program requirements. The Director of the Office of Teacher Education and
program development staff regularly attend national conferences (AACTE, CAEP, AERA, ISTE) to stay
abreast of current trends in teacher education, including new technologies that may enhance the unit's
assessment system. Currently the EPP is focusing on system enhancements related to the collection of
employment and employment performance data from alumni.
2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement
[The unit has fully developed evaluations and continuously searches for stronger relationships in the
evaluations, revising both the underlying data systems and analytic techniques as necessary. The
unit...systematically studies the effects of any changes to assure that programs are strengthened without
adverse consequences.]
Many of the changes made during the last three years to assessments have been to the assessment
procedures or rubrics. These changes were made based on SPA reviewer feedback, peer review
feedback, or feedback from faculty and supervisors implementing assessments. As programs receive
national recognition and assessments are implemented multiple times, the EPP will have additional data
available to study the effects of these assessment changes on the programs, and on candidates'
performance after graduation. Please see Exhibit 2.4.g. for changes made in the past three years.
In the next year the Director of the Office of Teacher Education will work with faculty leads and special
education faculty to design a monitoring system focused on changes to assessments and assessment
processes. This group's primary goal will be to monitor the effect of changes made to assessments and
(Confidential) Page 18
improvements relative to candidate outcomes.
[Candidates and faculty review data on their performance regularly and develop plans for improvement
based on the data.]
Through the three levels of the Assessment Analysis Structure described earlier, program stakeholders
analyze data each semester, annually and biannually. Plans for improvement are developed based on
those data reviewed.
15000 character limit
2.2.b Continuous Improvement
Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement of
candidate performance and program quality.
Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as
articulated in this standard.
10000 character limit
2.3 Areas for Improvement Cited in the Action Report from the Previous Accreditation Review
Summarize activities, processes, and outcomes in addressing each of the AFIs cited for the initial
and/or advanced program levels under this standard.
12000 character limit
2.4 Exhibits for Standard 2
2.4.a Description of the unit's assessment system including the requirements and key assessments used at transition
points
2.4.b Admission criteria and data from key assessments used for entry to programs
2.4.c Policies, procedures, and practices for ensuring that key assessments of candidate performance and
evaluations of program quality and unit operations are fair, accurate, consistent, and free of bias
2.4.d Policies, procedures, and practices for ensuring that data are regularly collected, compiled, aggregated,
summarized, analyzed, and used for continuous improvement
2.4.e Policies, procedures and practices for managing candidate complaints
2.4.f File of candidate complaints and the unit's responses and resolutions (This information should be available
during the onsite visit)
2.4.g Examples of significant changes made to courses, programs, and the unit in response to data gathered from
the assessment system
2.4.a EPP Program and Assessment System Guide
2.4.b Admission Criteria
2.4.b Program Admission Assessment Data
2.4.c Policies, Procedures, Practices for Assessments (fair-accurate-bias)
(Confidential) Page 19
2.4.d University and EPP Policies, Practices and Procedures for Data
2.4.e Policy-on-Student-Academic-Grievances
2.4.f Candidate Complaints and Unit Responses
2.4.g Examples of Changes Made
See Attachment panel below.
Standard 3. Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
The unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical
practice so that teacher candidates and other school professionals develop and demonstrate the
knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn.
3.1 Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
How does the unit work with the school partners to deliver field experiences and clinical practice to
enable candidates to develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions to help all students
learn?
Glossary
·Practicum = Field Experience Semester before Student Teaching
·Any field experience that is not Practicum will be outlined in detail.
·Student Teaching = Clinical Practice
·Supervisor = Clinical faculty
Element 3a. Collaboration...
Candidates in initial and advanced programs are placed in District of Columbia/Maryland/Virginia
(DMV) area schools. The education canvas of the DMV area is vast and varied and our candidates
experience diverse field and clinical experiences as a result of AU's location in this area. SETH's Field
Placement Coordinator and Director of the Office of Teacher Education, in partnership with local school
districts, coordinate all practicum and student teaching placements for initial undergraduate and graduate
programs. Principals and cooperating teachers are actively involved in the determination of field
placements. Once candidates indicate their preferences for practicum or student teaching placement in
GoEd (Exhibit 4.4.i), principals are contacted and placements are discussed. There is regular
communication with principals regarding placement of candidates at their schools. Through a
collaborative process, candidates are matched with cooperating teachers. In Maryland and Virginia
schools, county placement coordinators are responsible for setting up student teacher placements; SETH
coordinates with these personnel before contacting principals. The Director of the Office of Teacher
Education visits every placement while candidates are student teaching.
The EPP has written agreements with local school systems (Exhibit 3.4.a), as well as written criteria for
the selection of school faculty and cooperating teachers (Exhibit 3.4.c).
SETH regularly submits and is awarded grants and contracts that formalize partnerships with other
organizations. One example is our Lab2Class grant, which aims to increase the number of highly
qualified science and math teachers in high-needs schools in DC, and is funded by the Toyota USA
Foundation and the National Science Foundation (NSF). More information is provided in Exhibit 3.4.a.
Candidates enrolled in advanced programs undertake an internship aligned with their program
(Confidential) Page 20
concentration (education policy or literacy) and complete 6 credits of field experiences through the EDU
691 or 695 courses. Placements for the advanced MEd Educational Leadership or Literacy program are
made jointly by the program coordinator and the partner school contact.
Element 3b. Design, Implementation, & Evaluation...
Throughout initial undergraduate and graduate programs, candidates develop knowledge, skills, and
dispositions in multiple field-based settings in the DMV (Exhibit 3.4.b). The diversity of these schools
enables candidates to complete field experiences in both urban and suburban schools. In addition to
diverse locations, candidates also experience multiple grade levels. At a minimum, candidates in
elementary education must complete field experiences in a lower level classroom (1st - 3rd grade) and an
upper level classroom (4th - 6th grade). Candidates in secondary education must complete field
experiences at middle school and high school levels. Candidates in the K-12 education program must
choose two experiences between the elementary, middle, and high school levels.
Descriptions of these field experiences and clinical practice in undergraduate and graduate programs
follow. Further descriptions can be found in Exhibit 3.4.e.
Field and Clinical Experiences in Initial Programs
The unit's undergraduate teacher education programs are designed to transition candidates from observer
to practitioner. Early field experiences occur during sophomore and junior years. During sophomore
year, candidates complete a 20-hour observation course, EDU 321: Field Experience in Teacher
Education. This course includes weekly observations in diverse classroom settings where students reflect
on a selected dimension of teaching and learning. Junior year, candidates complete EDU 492: Service
Learning in Teacher Education. This course includes a 40-hour field-based experience. These syllabi are
provided in Exhibit I.5.b.
During senior year, candidates complete Practicum and Student Teaching. Practicum is completed in
conjunction with methods coursework during the first semester of senior year. This field-based
experience involves observation, small group instruction, and limited large group instruction. These
methods courses provide candidates the opportunity to develop instructional units, which they test during
field placements. Practicum placement includes 2 classroom days/week throughout the semester, totaling
approximately 210 hours. Elementary practicum also complete an additional week in the classroom at
the end of the semester.
Student teaching is completed during the candidates' final semester. This culminating experience is a 2
days/week placement lasting 14 weeks and totaling at least 400 hours in a classroom setting. During
student teaching, candidates prepare lesson plans, attend parent conferences, participate in professional
development workshops, provide direct instruction to students, and conduct assessments of student
performance. Candidates "take over" the classroom for at least two weeks.
Candidates enrolled in the unit's graduate certificate and Master of Arts in Teaching programs complete
practicum and student teaching as defined above for undergraduate programs. This typically occurs
during the last two semesters of the program.
Candidates in the graduate program in special education undertake a year-long internship at the Lab
School of Washington and other DC public and private school placements. This internship allows
candidates to develop in-depth experience in remedial and diagnostic special education in a selfcontained school for students with learning disabilities. During the internship, which takes place over the
entire K-12 school year, candidates also undertake weekly observations of classrooms outside their
placement classrooms (including the arts, club, and science classrooms) and conduct site visits to local
DC public and public charter special education classrooms.
(Confidential) Page 21
Field and Clinical Experiences in Advanced Programs
Candidates in advanced programs complete a 6-credit internship aligned with their concentration.
Candidates in education policy undertake an internship focused on building pedagogical and professional
knowledge of local, state and federal policy; candidates in literacy undertake an internship designed to
build pedagogical and professional knowledge as it relates to literacy broadly. Candidates in literacy are
required to undertake a more focused internship in order to receive the Reading Specialist endorsement
offered by DC.
For both initial and advanced programs, SETH values the expertise of its many partners and regularly
organizes sessions to discuss program components with them. We believe that collaboration with
partners is the key to effective and successful field-based experiences. After each semester of Student
Teaching, SETH faculty, cooperating teachers, and candidates evaluate the teacher education program
and clinical experience (Exhibit 3.4.d). Information from written evaluations of programs and verbal
feedback is used to guide the design and delivery of future field and clinical experiences.
Element 3c. Candidates' Development and Demonstration...
SETH aims to support candidates throughout every stage of their program in order to ensure that they
develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to help all students learn. As discussed
previously, faculty use multiple assessment strategies to monitor and assess the degree to which this
occurs. Below are examples of strategies used to ensure that candidates develop the resources they need
to be successful in the classroom:
·Observations: Supervisors regularly observe candidates' teaching skills during field experience and
clinical practice, ensuring they receive feedback within classroom settings at multiple points. Time for
reflection and feedback occurs between candidates and supervisors before and after each observation.
Candidates must share lessons with supervisors prior to teaching, and meet with supervisors following
taught lessons. Observations are documented.
·Lesson Planning Evaluations: Supervisors complete evaluations of candidates' lesson planning and
teaching skills. Evaluations and data are found in GoEd and include:
—•Lesson Plan Analysis and Implementation Form
—•Final Evaluation of Practicum Students
—•Midterm Evaluation of Student Teachers
—•Student Teaching Final Evaluation Form or FBPA
—•Student Teaching Final Evaluation Content Addendum Form
—•Student Teaching Course Rubric
Forms are located in Exhibit 3.4.f.
Candidate Reflection: Candidates reflect throughout field experiences and clinical practice. Examples
include:
o Candidates must schedule to reflect with assigned supervisors during pre- and post-conference
observation meetings of taught lessons. Discussion includes strengths, areas of growth, and how their
instruction influenced student learning.
o Candidate portfolios provide another platform to reflect on beliefs and practices to help all students
learn. There are 20 entries in the portfolio (2/INTASC standard). Each entry includes individual
reflection where candidates comment on the artifact, how it relates to the INTASC standard, and how the
candidate would change the artifact or teaching experience to ensure that all students learn.
o Candidates discuss and reflect on field-based experiences during the student teaching seminar. Each
week candidates reflect on classroom experiences and explore educational beliefs and practices,
culminating with a critical reflection document or case study analysis.
Through these strategies, SETH faculty help candidates develop, evaluate, and reflect on the knowledge,
(Confidential) Page 22
skills, and dispositions that are essential to helping all students learn.
10000 character limit
3.2 Moving Toward Target or Continuous Improvement
Please respond to 3.2.a if this is the standard on which the unit is moving to the target level. If it is
not the standard on which you are moving to the target level, respond to 3.2.b.
3.2.a Standard on which the unit is moving to the target level
Describe areas of the standard at which the unit is currently performing at the target level for
each element of the standard.
Summarize activities and their impact on candidate performance and program quality that have
led to target level performance.
Discuss plans and timelines for attaining and/or sustaining target level performance as
articulated in this standard.
In order to describe work undertaken to move to the Target Level, excerpts from the "target" rubrics of
NCATE Standard 3 are cited in [brackets] below along with specific examples of evidence to show that
the EPP is moving to the Target Level or present a timeline for moving toward target.
Element 3a. Collaboration...
[Both unit and school-based faculty are involved in designing, implementing, and evaluating the unit's
conceptual framework and the school program.]
* Faculty from SETH, the College of Arts & Sciences, supervisors, cooperating teachers, and principals
all have a voice in the design, delivery, and evaluation of field experiences and clinical practice in
SETH's teacher education programs. School-based faculty make decisions on Practicum and Student
Teaching placements and provide valuable feedback to the program each semester.
[They each participate in the unit's and the school partners' professional development activities and
instructional programs for candidates and for children.]
* All candidates in initial programs attend both school and district professional development during
Practicum and Student Teaching.
* Cooperating teachers who are highly rated by their school, district and the EPP's evaluation system are
invited to be guest speakers in classes and eventually adjunct instructors.
* Partner schools are invited to colloquium. SETH has also recently started to invite P-12 stakeholders
to school events such as the Larissa Gerstel Critical Literacy Symposium and Educational Policy &
Leadership Symposium.
[The unit and its school partners share expertise and integrate resources to support candidate learning.
They jointly determine the specific placements of student teachers and interns for other professional
roles to maximize the learning experience for candidates and P12 students.]
* The curriculum coordinator at the Lab School of Washington serves as an in-residence faculty member
with SETH and as an on-site supervisor, assisting with placements and liaising with cooperating
teachers and the EPP to discuss candidates' experiences, learning, and any modifications required. This
faculty member teaches the assessment course in the special education program and works with
prospective students to facilitate placements at the Lab School and site visits to other schools with
inclusion models for K12 students with learning disabilities.
* The EPP has a dedicated Field Experience Coordinator whose primary responsibility is to coordinate
(Confidential) Page 23
field experience and clinical practice placements with the P12 stakeholders. This position also evaluates
survey data at the end of each academic year and makes changes to placements as necessary. The Field
Experience Coordinator also meets with P12 partners each year to obtain feedback and discuss strategies
for strengthening field experiences and the academic preparation of our candidates. The creation of this
position has led to increased student satisfaction with placements, which in turn has maximized the
learning experience for candidates and P12 students (Exhibit 1.4.i)
* Cooperating teachers provide feedback through written evaluations completed at the conclusion of
practicum or student teaching. Cooperating teachers also provide verbal feedback to clinical supervisors
during required conferences.
Element 3b. Design, Implementation, & Evaluation...
[Field experiences allow candidates to apply and reflect on their content, professional, and pedagogical
knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions in a variety of settings with students and adults.]
* Candidates are required to participate in diverse Practicum and Student Teaching experiences. This
includes grade-levels (as discussed above) and settings. At least one of these experiences must be in DC.
Additionally, candidates are encouraged to diversify the school type to experience at least two of the
following: traditional public, public charter, independent, parochial, and private progressive schools.
* A recent major change in initial programs was moving Practicum from one day/week to two days/week
for all Secondary and K12 programs. This occurred during AY 2013-2014.
[Both field experiences and clinical practice extend the unit's conceptual framework into practice
through modeling by supervisor and well-designed opportunities to learn through doing. During clinical
practice, candidate learning is integrated into the school program and into teaching practice. Candidates
observe and are observed by others.]
Field experiences bridge the gap between theory and practice and provide ample opportunity for
candidates to reflect on personal beliefs and practices. The aim is for candidates to understand the
relationship between the program and the unit's conceptual framework, and for faculty to assist
candidates in developing dispositions and beliefs that support the unit's mission. Faculty strive to ensure
that our teacher education programs are recognized for their preparation of teachers who understand and
model a commitment to excellence, equity, community, and diversity - four key components of SETH's
conceptual framework.
* The EPP has created a structure to maximize learning through doing in both Practicum and Student
Teaching. This design begins with a support structure that gives candidates consistent feedback. The
Clinical Experience Personnel Chart is provided in Exhibit 3.4.d; our model includes Supervisor Leads,
Methods Leads, Supervisors and Cooperating Teachers. This model was implemented in Fall 2013.
* Students take methods courses in the final year of the teaching program, during Practicum and Student
Teaching. These courses develop knowledge of effective instruction, specific to the content in which the
teacher candidates are obtaining licensure. The model is described on pages 4-5 of the Clinical
Experience Personnel Chart in Exhibit 3.4.d.
* Another well-designed component of Practicum and Student Teaching is the role of the supervisors,
cooperating teachers and candidates. In the Field Experience Handbook (Exhibit 3.4.e), pages 9-10
outline the expectations of these three roles during Practicum and pages 14-15 outline the expectations
during Student Teaching. Note that candidates must complete four observations each semester for a total
of eight observations. Two of eight observations are by the candidate's cooperating teacher. The other six
are typically chosen by the university supervisor or cooperating teacher based on the needs of the
candidate. This allows the candidate to observe best practices for areas of growth.
[They interact with teachers, families of students, administrators, college or university supervisors, and
other interns about their practice regularly and continually. They reflect on and can justify their own
practice. Candidates are members of instructional teams in the school and are active participants in
(Confidential) Page 24
professional decisions. They are involved in a variety of school-based activities directed at the
improvement of teaching and learning, such as collaborative projects with peers, using information
technology, and engaging in service learning.]
* Candidates meet with university supervisors regularly. Appendix B in the Field Experience Handbook
(Exhibit 3.4.e) is a sample Practicum and Student Teaching timeline. During Practicum, candidates meet
with their supervisors every 3-4 weeks. During Student Teaching, candidates meet with their supervisors
every 2-3 weeks.
* Candidates complete a Parent Conference Assessment. This assessment was initiated in Spring 2013 as
a response to SPA form feedback; data collection in GoEd started in Fall 2014. The Parent Conference
Assessment and Rubric is provided in Exhibit 3.4.g.
* Candidates must be active participants in their placements, beyond the classroom. The Student
Teaching Rubric, Section IV Professional Responsibility, assesses this factor and candidates must show
evidence of participation beyond the classroom in the Professional Teaching Portfolio under INTASC
Standards 9 and 10.
* Candidates are required to reflect on their Practicum during post-observation meetings, in their
Professional Teaching Portfolio where reflection is a component of each of twenty entries, and during
the Student Teaching Seminar where they complete an Undergraduate Critical Reflection Paper or a
Graduate Case Study. See the Student Teaching Seminar Rubric in Exhibit 3.4.f.
* Undergraduate candidates complete a Service Learning course. The syllabus for this course is in
Exhibit I.5.b.
Candidates in advanced programs for teachers participate in field experiences that require them to
critique and synthesize educational theory related to classroom practice based on their own applied
research. Candidates in programs for other school professionals participate in field experiences and
clinical practice that require them to design, implement, and evaluate projects related to the roles for
which they are preparing. These projects are theoretically based, involve research and technology, and
have real-world application in the candidates' field placement setting. More details about the internship
requirements and assessments for advanced programs can be found in the internship syllabus for the
Curriculum and Instruction programs (Exhibit 1.4.c).
Element 3c. Candidates' Development and Demonstration...
[Candidates work collaboratively with other candidates and supervisor to critique and reflect on each
others' practice and their effects on student learning with the goal of improving practice.]
* The Impact of Student Learning (ISL) is an assessment completed during Practicum and Student
Teaching that is designed to measure the effect of candidates' instruction. For the ISL, the teacher
candidate is required to use pre- and post-assessment data and their instructional planning skills to
demonstrate student learning within their Practicum and Student Teaching classrooms. A reflection
about the pre- and post- assessments and instructional plan is also required. The ISL rubric and data can
be found in Assessment 5 in the SPA reports. For any program without a SPA, the rubric and data for
ISL can be found in GoEd. After evaluating SPA feedback that discussed the lack of content in the ISL
assessment and rubric, the EPP shifted ISL from a portfolio requirement to a methods requirement in
Fall 2013 and Spring 2014.
[Field experiences and clinical practice facilitate candidates' exploration of their knowledge, skills, and
professional dispositions related to all students.]
During Practicum and Student Teaching experiences, forms are designed for clinical supervisors,
cooperating teachers and candidates to document the candidate's exploration of their knowledge, skills,
and professional dispositions related to all students. These forms are found in Exhibit 3.4.f and include
sample excerpts below. Data from these forms are located in GoEd.
* Observation Form
(Confidential) Page 25
o Teacher candidate uses supplementary materials and/or technologies effectively to ensure relevance
and accessibility for all learners.
o Teacher candidate differentiates instruction to meet particular learner differences or needs in each area
of development: cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional and physical.
o Teacher candidate includes ways to make content accessible for English Language Learners.
o Teacher candidate brings multiple perspectives to the discussion of content, including attention to the
learners' personal, family and community experiences and cultural norms.
* Midterm Evaluation of Student Teachers
o Student intern displays knowledge of age appropriate student developmental characteristics
(emotional, social and intellectual).
o Various approaches to learning and different cultural backgrounds are incorporated in lesson.
* Lesson Plan Analysis and Implementation Form
o Completed during Practicum and Student Teaching to evaluate lesson plan as a written document and
how it is implemented in the classroom.
o Revised in Summer 2013 based on evaluations from faculty members, candidates, cooperating
teachers, and supervisors to differentiate between lesson plan and lesson plan implementation.
o Revised form has proven effective for evaluating candidates' lesson planning skills. Excerpts from the
rubric include:
* Essential questions exemplify instructional goals and methods of inquiry for multiple cognitive levels
* Instructional strategies promote active engagement of all learners; critical thinking and problem
solving skills are differentiated to support learners of differing backgrounds, learning styles and needs
[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 in classrooms and schools.]
During Practicum and Student Teaching experiences, forms are designed for clinical supervisors,
cooperating teachers, and candidates to document the candidate's demonstration of knowledge, skills,
and professional dispositions related to all students. These forms are found in Exhibit 3.4.g and include
selected excerpts below:
* Final Evaluation of Practicum Students
o Student intern displays knowledge of age appropriate student developmental characteristics
(emotional, social and intellectual).
o Student intern incorporates various approaches to learning and different cultural backgrounds in
lesson.
* Final Evaluation Form for Student Teaching
o Knowledge of Characteristics of Age Group: Teacher creates developmentally appropriate instruction.
o Suitability for Diverse Students: Teacher differentiates instruction to meet particular learner
differences or needs in each area of development (cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional and physical).
o Knowledge of Students' Interests and Cultural Heritage: Teacher brings multiple perspectives to the
discussion of content, including attention to learners' personal, family and community experiences and
cultural norms.
o Developmentally Appropriate Planning: Teacher individually and collaboratively selects and creates
developmentally appropriate learning experiences guided by curriculum goals and content standards.
o Differentiation: Teacher chooses appropriate strategies, materials, and accommodations to differentiate
instruction for individuals and groups of learners.
* Student Teaching Course Rubric
o Lesson Plans - Created lesson plans that target all learners and comprehensively encompass what
occurs during the lesson, from both the teaching and learning perspectives
o Developmentally Appropriate Delivered instruction that was intellectually, socially and emotionally
(Confidential) Page 26
appropriate
o Differentiation - Demonstrated differentiation for exceptional learners and those with diverse cultural
backgrounds
o Active Engagement in Learning - Connected content to student's background knowledge
15000 character limit
3.2.b Continuous Improvement
Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement of
candidate performance and program quality.
Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as
articulated in this standard.
10000 character limit
3.3 Areas for Improvement Cited in the Action Report from the Previous Accreditation Review
Summarize activities, processes, and outcomes in addressing each of the AFIs cited for the initial
and/or advanced program levels under this standard.
The unit was asked to consider two Areas for Improvement (AFI) at our last visit in 2007. Each of the
AFIs and the changes the unit continues to refine are described below.
• The unit does not assure that mentor teachers provide regular and continuing support for alternative
route candidates.
• The unit's partners are not involved in the evaluation of field experiences and clinical practices of
alternative route candidates.
The unit continues to address both areas for improvement for Standard 3 over the course of the past
academic year. While our last cohort of alternative route candidates completed the program in the
summer of 2013, we want to ensure that all candidates are receiving regular support from both the
cooperating teachers and university supervisors during their final semesters. Relative to mentoring, we
continue to work with candidates in alternative route programs in the District of Columbia Public
Schools (DCPS) and the DC Public Charter Schools, we make better use of our university supervisors,
and have retained teachers at several of our placement sites to serve as "cooperating teachers" for these
teachers. In this case, the cooperating teachers served as a mentor to the alternative route candidate in
his or her classroom. In addition, all candidates in our alternative preparation programs are receive a
second year of supervision by an American University clinical faculty member.
12000 character limit
3.4 Exhibits for Standard 3
3.4.a Examples across programs of collaborative activities between unit and P-12 schools to support the design,
implementation, and evaluation of field experiences and clinical practice, including memoranda of
understanding
3.4.b Aggregate data on candidate placement in field experiences and clinical practice (Data should be disaggregated
by program and level regardless of location or method of delivery)
(Confidential) Page 27
3.4.c Criteria for the selection of clinical faculty, which includes both higher education and P–12 school faculty
3.4.d Examples of support and evaluation of clinical faculty across programs
3.4.e Guidelines/ handbooks on field experiences and clinical practice for candidates, and clinical faculty, including
support provided by the unit and opportunities for feedback and reflection
3.4.f Assessment instruments and scoring guides used for and data collected from field experiences and clinical
practice for all programs, including use of technology for teaching and learning (These assessments may be
included in program review documents or the exhibits for Standard 1. Cross reference as appropriate.)
3.4.g Aggregate data on candidates entering and exiting from clinical practice for all programs (These assessments
may be included in program review documents or the exhibits for Standard 1. Cross reference as appropriate.)
3.4.a DCPS Reference Letter
3.4.a Fairfax Placement Instructions
3.4.a Lab2Class Grant Information
3.4.a MCPS PDS MOU DRAFT
3.4.a MOU_Lab_School
3.4.b 2013-14 Candidate Placements for Practicum and Student Teaching
3.4.c Field Experience Handbook August 2013-2014 (refer to page 7)
3.4.c Special_Education_Handbook 2013-2014 (refer to page 33)
3.4.c University Supervisor Job Description
3.4.d Clinical Experience Personnel Chart.pdf
3.4.d Cooperating Teacher Program Evaluation Form
3.4.d Student Teacher Candidate Exit Survey
3.4.d University Supervisor Survey - Spring 2014
3.4.e Field and Clinical Experience Overview Table.pdf
3.4.e Field Experience Handbook August 2013-2014
3.4.e Lab2Class.MfA Field Experience Handbook 2013-2014
3.4.e Special_Education_Handbook 2013-2014
3.4.f Advanced Program Internship_evaluation_form
3.4.f FBPA Assessment
3.4.f Lesson Plan Anaylsis and Implementation Form and Rubric
3.4.f Midterm Evaluation of Student Teachers
3.4.f Observation Form
3.4.f Parent Conference Assessment
3.4.f Practicum Final Evaluation
3.4.f Student Teaching Evaluations for all Programs
3.4.f Student Teaching Final Evaluation Content Addendum
3.4.f Student Teaching Final Evaluation
3.4.f Student Teaching Rubric and Data
3.4.g Entry and Exit Assessments and Data
See Attachment panel below.
Standard 4. Diversity
(Confidential) Page 28
4.1 Diversity
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?
4a: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experiences
Diversity is a guiding principle within SETH's conceptual framework. From the outset, we work with
candidates to develop theorized teaching practices by providing them theoretical models focused on
understanding notions of diversity that take into account issues such as access, privilege, disadvantage,
and domination in children who are English language learners and who have exceptionalities. These
models for diversity include design aspects where candidates explore what it would mean to re-design or
create equitable spaces for teaching and learning that best support the diverse abilities of young learners,
and the vast linguistic and cultural differences, which comprise the classroom community. SETH
candidates do not only read and talk about issues of diversity, they also "live" what it means to be a
student in a classroom where their own linguistic and cultural differences are respected and valued.
Throughout their teacher education programs, candidates have multiple opportunities to engage as
reflective practitioners. Some of the tools they use in reflecting include journaling, engaging in research
in the community, conducting observations of learners in classrooms, and unpacking their own
experiences as young learners. In combination, these experiences provide a rich data source, that when
analyzed, helps our candidates understand what it means to make informed decisions as classroom
teachers.
Inherent in the conceptual framework is the requirement that candidates continuously reflect on their
teaching to ensure that they develop effective strategies for working with diverse learners. More
specifically, with respect to diversity, candidates are expected to:
- Examine policies, practices, and discourses that advantage some individuals and groups while
disadvantaging others;
- Examine policies, practices, and discourses that limit individuals' opportunities and group's full
participation in schooling and in society;
- Practice reflective habits of mind which promote democratic classrooms; and
- Understand that a democratic and equitable society is a necessary condition for supporting diversity.
These proficiencies are developed through academic coursework and field experiences. Although
diversity is an overarching framework for every education course, the courses presented in Exhibit 4.4.b.
are specifically designed to enable candidates to develop awareness and understanding of working with
diverse learners and to develop the aforementioned proficiencies. For example for initial programs in
EDU 205/521 students study diversity in schooling, in EDU 321/EDU 492/Practicum/Student Teaching
provide candidates with a broad diversity in field placements, EDU 541/545 expose candidates to
accommodations to address diversity in Student Learning based on disability and or language
background, EDU 609, and overview of pedagogical approaches with a focus on diverse learners. In
advanced programs, candidates consider and are assessed on knowledge and skills related to diversity
particularly through assessments that take place in three courses, EDU-683 and EDU-525 and EDU-691.
(Confidential) Page 29
The primary means for evaluating and assessing candidates' understanding of what it means to live in a
diverse world and teach from a critical socio-cultural or diverse perspective are completed during field
experiences. These assessments provide evidence regarding a candidate's proficiency in diversity issues,
as well as their ability to differentiate instruction for diverse learners. For example, when planning and
implementing lessons, candidates are required to provide evidence for differentiating instruction to
support learners of differing backgrounds, learning styles, and needs. These skills are assessed using the
Final Evaluation of Student Teaching, Student Teaching Course Rubric and the FBPA, which can be
found in Exhibits 1.4.d. and 3.4.f. Data from these items, aligned with INTASC standard 2 (3 for special
ed), range from 4.2 to 5 (3.2 to 3.8 for special education). These data indicate to the EPP that candidates
are performing at expected levels of performance.
Another tool that measures candidates' ability to work with diverse learners and create inclusive
classroom settings is the portfolio assessment aligned with INTASC Standard 2. Data from the portfolio
assessments can be found in Exhibit 1.4.d. and scores range from 2.1 to 2.6 for both general and special
education candidates. Candidates' scores indicate acceptable levels of performance.
Data for advanced candidates is not available at the time of this writing.
4b: Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty.
SETH provides candidates with the opportunity to work with diverse faculty. We actively recruit and
retain diverse faculty to support candidates in university classrooms and in field-based settings, as is
presented in the faculty demographics chart in Exhibit 6.4.a. SETH faculty hold myriad life experiences
working with students from diverse cultural backgrounds and students with exceptionalities. Data on
faculty demographics are presented in Exhibit 4.4.d. There are 32 faculty who work in initial programs
only, five who work in advanced programs, and six who work in both. Of these 43 faculty, 6 are black or
African American, 1 is Hispanic, and 11 self-report as "other". The unit strives to provide candidates
with the opportunity to work with faculty from diverse backgrounds. Approximately 25% of the unit's
faculty are members of a minority group. This compares with a university-wide minority faculty
population of almost 20 %. In addition, over 90% of the teachers in the District of Columbia Public
Schools are members of a minority group. Candidates have the opportunity to work with diverse faculty
within the unit, and to work with racially diverse school-based faculty. Not atypical of schools of
education or P12 schools, the proportion of females among SETH's faculty is 75%.
4c: Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates
Candidates have ample opportunity to interact with other diverse candidates in SETH and in the
university. As indicated in Exhibit 4.4.e, candidates in both initial and advanced program are of diverse
ethnic and racial backgrounds. Of those candidates who indicate their ethnic backgrounds,
approximately 32% in initial program and 38% of advanced candidates are from minority backgrounds.
Through academic coursework and field experiences, candidates are encouraged to reflect on the
organizing principles of SETH's conceptual framework (i.e., diversity, equity, community, and
excellence) with peers both inside and outside of university classroom settings. The recruiting practices
of the University, presented 4.4.h., provide guidance on how the EPP works to recruit a diverse pool of
candidates.
4d: Experiences Working with Diverse Students in P-12 Schools
In addition to enabling candidates to work with diverse faculty and diverse peers, SETH also strives to
provide candidates with ample opportunities to work with diverse students in P-12 schools. Through
field-based teaching experiences, candidates are encouraged to explore the rich diversity of students
throughout the DMV area. Candidates work with diverse students in both public and charter elementary
and secondary school settings whose experiences are different from their own. Three years of data about
the ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic characteristics of students in the unit's primary partner schools are
(Confidential) Page 30
detailed in Exhibit 4.4.f. These data indicate a wide variety of ethnic diversity and broad representation
of children with disabilities and English language learners. The placement preference form, found in
Exhibit 4.4.i., helps candidates select diverse field placements.
10000 character limit
4.2 Moving Toward Target or Continuous Improvement
Please respond to 4.2.a if this is the standard on which the unit is moving to the target level. If it is
not the standard on which you are moving to the target level, respond to 4.2.b.
4.2.a Standard on which the unit is moving to the target level
Describe areas of the standard at which the unit is currently performing at the target level for
each element of the standard.
Summarize activities and their impact on candidate performance and program quality that have
led to target level performance.
Discuss plans and timelines for attaining and/or sustaining target level performance as
articulated in this standard.
15000 character limit
4.2.b Continuous Improvement
Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement of
candidate performance and program quality.
Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as
articulated in this standard.
4a. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experiences
As mentioned above, diversity is a key element to our conceptual framework. SETH faculty and staff
continue to strive to create more opportunities for candidates to work with diverse faculty, other diverse
candidates and in diverse field placements. We push our candidates to take diverse learners into
consideration as they work in the array of field-based placements available. As described in Standard 3,
the education canvas of the DMV area is vast and varied; our candidates experience diverse field and
clinical experiences as a result of AU's location. Field experience placements are monitored by the
Office of Teacher Education; the Director of the Office of Teacher Education and the Field Placement
Coordinator review field experience placement forms for each candidate prior to making field and
clinical experience placements. These processes are designed to ensure that all candidates have
completed a range of diverse experiences either prior to or during student teaching. In the special
education program, SETH is striving to create more sustained diverse placements in order for candidates
to experience a broader range of students with learning differences and English language learners. SETH
has started a bilingual education program that will influence candidate learning relative to English
language learners; this program is under review by the Office of the State Superintendent of Education
(OSSE).
4b. Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty and 4c: Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates
Recent hires and outreach have expanded the breadth and depth of diversity among faculty and
(Confidential) Page 31
candidates in both initial and advanced programs. Targeted recruiting efforts across campus are designed
to increase diversity among faculty and candidates in teacher education. For example, SETH works with
the Center for Diversity and Inclusion, created as a part of AU's 2008 Strategic Plan (presented in
Exhibit 4.4.h.). The Center works to achieve Transformational Goal #5, which states that "American
University embraces diversity in its broadest sense, including diversity of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation, age, religion, nationality, disability, socioeconomic standing, and intellectual viewpoint. The
university views diversity as an essential component of the educational experience of our students and an
important indicator of our success in adapting to the dramatic demographic shifts that will occur in the
decades ahead." The mission of the Center for Diversity and Inclusion (CDI) is to advance AU's
commitment to respecting & valuing diversity by serving as a resource and liaison for students, staff, and
faculty on issues of equity through education, outreach, and advocacy. To achieve this mission, the
Center is dedicated to:
- Enhancing LGBTQ, multicultural, first generation, and women's experiences on campus;
- Promoting student retention, graduation, and academic achievement;
- Collaborating with campus partners, in particular those that work with international students, students
with disabilities and students with active religious affiliations to create a safe, supportive & empowering
community for all, regardless of identity.
In addition, SETH partners with The New Teacher Project, City Year, and Teach for America to recruit
alumni of their programs as candidates for our advanced programs. These organizations also value
diversity and help SETH recruit diverse, high-quality candidates who are already committed to, and have
experience working with, students in urban schools.
4d: Experiences Working with Diverse Students in P-12 Schools
Experiences working with diverse sets of schools, from those that are majority minority to those with a
broader ethnic and cultural demographic, can help candidates confront issues of diversity that affect
teaching and student learning. These experiences aid candidates in developing strategies for improving
student learning and candidates' effectiveness as teachers. SETH's special education program influences
the general education program through overlapping faculty workloads; this focus on learner diversity,
and instructional approaches such as Response to Intervention (RtI), ensures all candidates develop skills
to work with children with language and cognitive disabilities.
10000 character limit
4.3 Areas for Improvement Cited in the Action Report from the Previous Accreditation Review
Summarize activities, processes, and outcomes in addressing each of the AFIs cited for the initial
and/or advanced program levels under this standard.
12000 characterl limit
4.4 Exhibits for Standard 4
4.4.a Aggregate data on proficiencies related to diversity that candidates are expected to demonstrate through
working with students from diverse groups in classrooms and schools, including impact on student learning
4.4.b Curriculum components and experiences that address diversity proficiencies (This might be a matrix that shows
diversity components in required courses.)
4.4.c Assessment instruments and scoring guides related to candidates meeting diversity proficiencies, including
impact on student learning (These assessments may be included in program review documents or the exhibits
(Confidential) Page 32
for Standard 1. Cross reference as appropriate.)
4.4.d Data table on faculty demographics (see Appendix A for an example)
4.4.e Data table on candidates demographics (see Appendix B for an example)
4.4.f Data table on demographics of P-12 students in schools used for clinical practice (see Appendix C for an
example)
4.4.g Policies and practices, including good faith efforts, for recruiting and retaining diverse faculty
4.4.h Policies and practices, including good faith efforts, for recruiting and retaining diverse candidates
4.4.i Policies, procedures, and practices that support candidates working with P-12 students from diverse groups
4.4.a Cross Reference Sheet
4.4.b Diversity Curriculum Components and Experiences
4.4.c Assessment instruments, scoring guides, and data related to candidates meeting diversity proficiencies
4.4.d Diversity of Professional Education Faculty
4.4.e Diversity of Candidates in Professional Education
4.4.f Data on P-12 Student Demographics
4.4.g Affirmative Action Compliance Form
4.4.g Affirmative Action Policy Statement
4.4.g Best Practices for Recruitment
4.4.g Faculty Search Guidelines
4.4.g Lawful and Unlawful Questions
4.4.h Policies and Practices for Candidates
4.4.i Practicum and Student Teaching Placement Preference Forms
See Attachment panel below.
Standard 5. Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development
Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching,
including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance; they also
collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systematically evaluates faculty
performance and facilitates professional development.
5.1 Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development
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?
American University attracts outstanding full-time and part-time faculty. Located in the center of urban
and suburban school systems in the DMV area, SETH recruits qualified full-time professional education
faculty with rich experiences in administrative and instructional positions in varied school systems. Fulltime faculty members are active scholars who have contemporary experience in P-12 classrooms. Many
EPP adjunct faculty are retired or current principals, teachers, or persons who bring a wealth of K-12
experience to their teaching and/or supervisory work with the unit's teacher education candidates.
5a: Qualified Faculty
(Confidential) Page 33
SETH faculty are a diverse group of individuals with varied school-based experiences and expertise in
professional education programs. Because SETH encourages excellence in teaching, scholarship, and
service pertaining to local, national, and international communities, our faculty provide candidates with
the knowledge and guidance required to become exemplary teachers.
SETH employs 24 full-time faculty members, 15 of whom are involved in our professional education
programs. Additionally, five full-time faculty, with appointments outside of SETH, have taught and/or
supervised candidates in professional education programs. 94% of these faculty have terminal degrees in
their teaching field. SETH also employs 55 professional education faculty with an adjunct appointment.
28 of these faculty both taught courses and supervised clinical placements, while 27 exclusively
supervised clinical placements. All university supervisors have the licenses, doctorates, and/or
exceptional expertise required for teaching or clinical supervision in professional education programs.
Qualifications of faculty for the 2013-2014 academic year can be found in AIMS and in Exhibits 5.4.a
and 5.4.b. Information relative to supervisor and cooperating teacher qualifications can be found in
Exhibit 3.4.c.
5b: Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching
The unit is dedicated to providing candidates with the theoretical and practical tools required to be
effective classroom teachers. More specifically, SETH faculty engage candidates in content and
experiences that prepare them to be reflective and knowledgeable with the beliefs and professional
commitments defined in SETH's conceptual framework. The teaching practices of SETH faculty
immerse candidates in a thorough analysis of content and pedagogy that provides field-based
experiences and helps develop an in-depth understanding of the roles of community, diversity, equity,
and excellence as organizing principles. Further, SETH faculty integrate various technologies to engage
candidates in content and understand the importance of evaluating said technologies to maximize
effectiveness.
Candidates evaluate faculty by completing the Standard Evaluation of Teaching (SET). Exhibit 5.4.f.
presents aggregated student evaluation data for all EDU course taught between Spring 2013 and Spring
2014. Data illustrates that by SETH professional education faculty members are highly rated and SETH
courses are perceived as useful and worthwhile.
5c: Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship
Under the new strategic plan, AU expectations for scholarly impact have notably increased. According
to a recent AU Faculty Activity Reporting System (FARS) report, faculty members published
approximately 55 books, 300 articles, and 150 book chapters during 2010 - 2012. All units place weight
on discipline-specific scholarly productivity in tenure-and-promotion decisions. Requirements for
scholarship are outlined in faculty manuals, presented in Exhibit 6.4.a. Moreover, scholarship is heavily
weighed when considering the reappointment of pre-tenured faculty. Scholarly output is also an
important factor in the annual merit evaluations of full-time faculty.
Recognizing the linkage between scholarship and teaching, AU employs faculty who are actively
involved in creativity and research, thereby engaging students' passion for learning. As a whole, there is
a breadth of scholarship and inspiration among the unit's professional education faculty. As indicated by
the data in Exhibit 5.4.d, SETH education faculty have published 33 journal articles and 18 book
chapters, produced 77 conference presentations, and written 22 grant proposals over the past five years.
5d: Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service
Members of the professional education faculty can serve on the SETH Faculty Council, the CAS
Educational Policy Committee, and in a myriad of other ways, including ventures outside of the
university. By nature, teacher education programs are collaborative; faculty and candidates in the unit
rely on faculty across campus to assist in developing knowledge in programs and projects that involve
(Confidential) Page 34
interdisciplinary study. Most of the service endeavors pursued by professional education faculty directly
benefit the teachers and students in the public schools in the DMV area. For example, the Institute for
Innovation in Education (the IIE) in SETH prepares an annual report for the office of the president on
the work that AU faculty, staff and students do in DC schools. Examples of EPP and faculty service can
be found in Exhibit 5.4.d.
5e. Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance
The university regularly conducts faculty teaching evaluations to enhance the competence and
intellectual vitality of its programs. Full-time faculty members are evaluated annually during the merit
review process (Exhibit 6.4.a). Faculty must submit annual reports concerning teaching, scholarship and
service endeavors, which are reviewed by teaching unit committees. Recommendations for pay increases
begin with these committees and proceed up through the administration to the Board of Trustees. Thus,
annual evaluation of faculty directly impacts faculty compensation.
To be appointed and subsequently re-appointed, adjunct faculty participate in a review process mandated
by the Service Employees International Union Collective Bargaining Agreement (Exhibit 5.4.f). Adjunct
appointments last three years. Consideration for re-appointment involves the review of Student
Evaluations of Teaching, observation of the adjunct's instruction, and approval by the SETH Dean, CAS
Dean, and the CAS Dean of Academic Affairs. Adjuncts also must submit syllabi each time they teach
and an updated vitae annually. Information about the evaluation system and a sample faculty evaluation
submission (through GoEd) can be found in 5.4.c.
5f. Unit Facilitation of Professional Development
Based on needs identified in faculty evaluations, AU provides opportunities for the development of new
knowledge and skills related to the conceptual framework, performance assessments, diversity,
technology, and other emerging practices. SETH uses numerous strategies, policies and procedures that
provide professional education faculty with ongoing professional development. These strategies include:
implementing workshops, providing program management system training sessions, supporting
participation in professional organizations, and providing travel funds for professional development at
international, national, and regional conferences. Examples are presented in Exhibit 5.4.g. In addition,
AU offers resources through the Center for Teaching, Research and Learning (CTRL). Established in
1989, CTRL hosts an annual conference on teaching and learning (Ann Ferren Conference on Teaching,
Research and Learning) and provides additional professional development resources.
10000 character limit
5.2 Moving Toward Target or Continuous Improvement
Please respond to 5.2.a if this is the standard on which the unit is moving to the target level. If it is
not the standard on which you are moving to the target level, respond to 5.2.b.
5.2.a Standard on which the unit is moving to the target level
Describe areas of the standard at which the unit is currently performing at the target level for
each element of the standard.
Summarize activities and their impact on candidate performance and program quality that have
led to target level performance.
Discuss plans and timelines for attaining and/or sustaining target level performance as
articulated in this standard.
(Confidential) Page 35
15000 character limit
5.2.b Continuous Improvement
Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement of
candidate performance and program quality.
Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as
articulated in this standard.
Over the past three years, AU has worked to provide more systematic and consistent support and
evaluation systems for non-tenure line, full-time faculty (known as term faculty), as well as adjunct
faculty. Term faculty guidelines for promotion were developed in 2011, and are included in the Faculty
Manual and SETH guidelines (Exhibit 6.4.a). These guidelines continue to be developed and refined.
The adjunct faculty at AU unionized in 2013; the union agreement (presented in Exhibit 5.4.f) requires
regular evaluation of adjunct faculty. SETH is working to develop tools to support evaluation processes
and procedures, such as classroom observation tools that can be used with in-person and online classes.
Like other universities, AU continues to develop online educational opportunities. While just a handful
of teacher education courses are offered online, we strive to engage in the development and use of
technology that will enable the creation of authentic learning environments in the online classroom.
Several members of the SETH faculty engage in online teaching and study the pedagogical approaches
used in the online classroom. Faculty publications and presentations are provided in Exhibit 5.4.d.
In addition, SETH is uniquely positioned to study the internationalization of teacher education, an area
of growing interest. With grant support from the Longview Foundation, we developed training kits to
help faculty consider international issues as they relate to domestic teacher preparation. Given AU's long
history in international studies, this is an opportunity to provide leadership in this area.
All of these activities directly impact candidate performance. As faculty bring scholarly and practical
experiences to courses and field placement, the quality and meaningfulness of feedback to candidates is
strengthened. Faculty experience and knowledge of evidenced-based practices are directly applicable to
candidate development. For example, faculty knowledge of classroom technology enables candidates to
bring meaningful uses of social media and interactive whiteboard to clinical placements. Faculty
knowledge of the varied systems of educational evaluation, from teacher evaluation systems to datadashboards for teachers, enriches candidate knowledge and skills related to data-based decision-making.
Founded in 2010 and housed in SETH, AU's Institute for Innovation in Education (IIE), an
interdisciplinary organization committed to conducting, administering, and disseminating educational
research and research-informed professional development initiatives, supports faculty research. The
institute's researchers undertake studies of education policy and education reform, health and nutrition
programming and research, learning technologies, and research on learning disabilities and
neuropsychology. The Institute's mission is to bring together a wide-ranging set of methodological and
analytical approaches to the study of educational policies and practices. Examples of the type of work
undertaken by the IIE are presented in Exhibit 5.4.d and will be available to the Board of Examiners
(BOE) team at the site visit.
10000 character limit
5.3 Areas for Improvement Cited in the Action Report from the Previous Accreditation Review
Summarize activities, processes, and outcomes in addressing each of the AFIs cited for the initial
and/or advanced program levels under this standard.
(Confidential) Page 36
12000 character limit
Exhibit 5.4.a - Data table on qualifications of professional education faculty. This table can be
compiled below from data submitted in the Manage Faculity section of AIMS or compiled in Excel,
Word, or another format and uploaded as an exhibit.
5.4 Exhibits for Standard 5
5.4.a Data table on qualifications of professional education faculty (This table can be compiled in the online template
from data submitted for national program reviews or compiled in Excel, Word, or another format and uploaded
as an exhibit. See Appendix D for an example.)
5.4.b Data table on qualifications of clinical faculty (i.e., P-12 school professionals and professional education faculty
responsible for instruction, supervision, and/or assessment of candidates during field experiences and clinical
practice)
5.4.c Policies and practices to assure clinical faculty meet unit expectations
5.4.d Policies, expectations, and samples of faculty scholarly activities
5.4.e Summary of faculty service and collaborative activities in schools (e.g., collaborative project with school faculty,
teacher professional development, and addressing the needs of low performing schools) and with the
professional community (e.g., grants, evaluations, task force participation, provision of professional
development, offering courses, etc.)
5.4.f Policies, procedures, and practices for faculty evaluation (including promotion and tenure) and summaries of
the results in areas of teaching, scholarship and service
5.4.g Policies, procedures, and practices for professional development and summaries of the results
5.4.a Data on Professional Education Qualifications
5.4.b Clinical Faculty Qualifications
5.4.c Policies and Practices to Meet Expectations Reference Sheet
5.4.d Samples of Faculty Scholar Activities
5.4.d SETH-Faculty-Promotion-Guidelines
5.4.e Samples of Faculty Service and P12 Collaboration
5.4.e. IIE Service Report
5.4.f Grad and Undergrad Aggregate SETs_Spring 2010 to Spring 2014
5.4.f SETH Adjunct Evaluation Memo
5.4.f Union Agreement MEMORANDUM
5.4.g Samples of Faculty Professional Development and Affiliations
See Attachment panel below.
Standard 6. Unit Governance and Resources
The unit has the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources, including
information technology resources, for the preparation of candidates to meet professional, state, and
institutional standards.
6.1 Unit Governance and Resources
(Confidential) Page 37
How do the unit's governance system and resources contribute to adequately preparing candidates
to meet professional, state, and institutional standards?
6.a: Unit Governance and Resources
SETH is the EPP at AU and has the leadership and authority to plan, deliver, and operate coherent
programs of study for teacher education candidates. The Dean of SETH is the head of the unit and
oversees all faculty, staff and programs to ensure that candidates are prepared to be successful teachers.
The Dean is assisted by the Director of the Office of Teacher Education and serves as the primary
certification officer for the university in its relationship with local school systems, particularly the DC
Public Schools and the Office of the State Superintendent of Education. The full-time faculty in SETH
are ultimately responsible for the university's teacher education programs, and are intimately involved in
the design, implementation and assessment of the programs. This includes curriculum changes,
admission of candidates, placement in clinical, field and internship settings, assessment of candidate
competencies, certification of program completers, and recommendation for licensure. Day-to-day
governance and management of the unit's programs is officially vested in several individuals and groups,
including the Dean of the School, SETH's Faculty Council, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences
(CAS), the CAS Educational Policy Committee, the Faculty Senate, the Dean of Academic Affairs and
the University Provost. In addition, faculty, staff, and students in SETH participate in different levels of
governance through their membership on university-wide, college-specific, or student representative
bodies, committees, and councils. See Exhibit 6.4.b for the organizational chart. SETH's recruiting and
admission practices are provided in Exhibits 6.4.c, d, & e. Students have access to faculty advisors and
staff who support their preparation, which is comprehensively documented through our program and
assessment and management system, goed.american.edu.
6b. Unit Budget
The College of Arts and Sciences, as prescribed by the University Budget Office, allocates sufficient
financial resources to its various units, including SETH. SETH has budgetary authority and support for
initial and advanced teacher education programs, including funding for the supervision of field
experiences and maintenance of candidate records. The best examples of this are found in the materials
available to the BOE team in the Office of the Associate Dean for Budget and Finance in CAS, which
include detailed data about the comparative measures in CAS. CAS allocates an equitable number of
teaching fellowships and assistantships for deserving students in SETH. Research and other areas of
support are provided by graduate students, who are awarded fellowships and assistantships based on
academic merit, by CAS and SETH. During AY 2013-2014, SETH received 23 graduate fellowships,
with awards that included tuition of 18 credits per year and $9000 stipends, as well as smaller awards.
Graduate students are also eligible for federal work-study awards for up to 20 hours/week. Students are
assigned teaching assistant, research, or service duties to support faculty, based on the students'
academic endeavors and past professional experience, and in a manner mindful of enriching the students'
academic experience at AU. In addition, SETH houses a number of grants and contracts that generate
funds to support instruction and support activities, either directly or through indirect cost recoveries.
Using the indirect overhead charged on grants, SETH has created a scholarship fund for graduate
students while supporting additional professional development and research activities for faculty and
candidates.
6c: Personnel
In SETH, a regular teaching load for a research active, full-time, tenure-line faculty member is on
average four 3-credit hour courses during an academic year. Term faculty typically teach a total of six 3credit hour courses per year, with no more than 9 credit hours per semester. Specific teaching loads for
SETH faculty are determined by a number of factors, including a faculty member's responsibilities and
his or her unique and diverse experiences. A description of these factors can be found in the AU Faculty
Manual and SETH evaluation criteria in Exhibit 6.4.a. The teaching loads and workload reports are
reported in Exhibit 6.4.h. Class limits are determined with the CAS Deans Office and differ for elective,
(Confidential) Page 38
general education, undergraduate requirements, and graduate elective and required courses. Full and
part-time clinical faculty supervise student teachers, with no more than 4 candidates supervised in any
given semester. SETH's clinical supervision workload model is presented in exhibit 3.4.d.
In addition to course load, SETH faculty keep regular office hours for student advising as outlined in the
manuals in Exhibit 6.4.a. Beyond these responsibilities, faculty who advise in teacher education
programs are members of the SETH Undergraduate and Teacher Education Committee. All faculty in
SETH serve on other committees in SETH, the University Senate, or in CAS; most faculty members are
also involved in service to the community as well as to the University. Exhibit 5.4.e provides details
regarding SETH faculty service activities. Professional development and technology training for faculty
is supported by the Center for Teaching, Research and Learning. Links to these materials can be found in
Exhibit 6.4.j.
AU's facilities as of fall 2013 comprise almost 4,000,000 square feet of area, in 54 on-campus buildings
and several off-campus buildings. The facilities are comprehensive and represent typical university uses.
They include 140 instructional spaces, libraries, a student center, athletic and recreation facilities, a
theatre, an art museum, and many other specialized facilities. In addition to new facilities, there have
also been adaptations of existing facilities to meet the university's evolving needs. New research labs for
biology and behavioral neuroscience have been created in existing buildings to support the increased
emphasis on research and science education. Faculty offices have been added to support the significant
growth in faculty over the last five years. The main offices of SETH are in Gray Hall, with additional
offices and space in the Mary Graydon Center, which was renovated in the spring of 2014 to
accommodate SETH faculty and staff. In addition to offices of 24 faculty and 12 staff members, Gray
Hall also includes two multi-purpose classrooms controlled by SETH (one is shared with the Math
Department), a conference room, and adequate storage space.
University classes, including those in professional education, meet across the universities campus in a
variety of the 16 buildings with classroom facilities. Assignment of classrooms is made according to the
demands of the courses, faculty needs, and student needs. Many University classroom facilities are new,
including a large number of classrooms with audio-visual and computer-aided technology. The majority
of classrooms are equipped with permanent faculty podiums, overhead projectors, and internet access.
6e. Unit Resources including Technology
Faculty and candidates in SETH's teacher education programs have access to a substantial array of
university resources to support their activities, particularly in the University Library, the Center for
Teaching, Research & Learning, the Office of Institutional Assessment, and the Office of Information
Technology.
Resources in the University's Office of Information Technology
A major challenge faced by institutions like AU is the demand and cost of technology. Information
technology (IT) resources have improved significantly in the past few years in direct response to the
growing demand for technological infrastructure and services. In 2008, a multiyear strategic roadmap
was outlined for IT, which is included in Exhibit 6.4.i. The roadmap targeted building out key
infrastructure and competencies, focusing on systems, processes, and people. Since then, numerous key
processes have been instituted internally, such as change management, asset management, project
management, service management, incident management, and problem management. Much of the
infrastructure has been consolidated and standardized, resulting in a more stable and manageable
architecture. Legacy systems have been replaced with industry-recognized enterprise-level systems. The
campus now has adopted many new enterprise systems, including a robust content management system,
a portal, a collaboration platform, enhanced administrative and student information systems, a business
intelligence platform, an integrated messaging system, a storage area network, a firewall, and a network
access control system.
(Confidential) Page 39
Resources in the University Library
The University Library provides reference support, orientation, instruction, and research assistance to
meet the information and technology needs of students. In recent years the library has expanded its
online tutorials and provides laptops and other technology for students working in the library. Reference
support is available online through live chat for students outside the library. The library is open 24 hours
a day with staff support available until midnight Sunday through Thursday evenings and until 9 p.m. on
Fridays and Saturdays. Surveys of library use from midnight to 8 a.m. reveal the popularity of these
hours for student academic study. Student satisfaction with library service is consistently positive and in
the 2013 Campus Climate Survey, the university library received excellent or good ratings from
undergraduates. The education and teacher education collections are selected by faculty, in collaboration
with a full-time faculty librarian, Alex Hodges, an education subject specialist. Mr. Hodges is the
Curriculum Materials and Education Librarian for Reference and Instruction and a tenured faculty
member in the library with an affiliate appointment in SETH.
10000 character limit
6.2 Moving Toward Target or Continuous Improvement
Please respond to 6.2.a if this is the standard on which the unit is moving to the target level. If it is
not the standard on which you are moving to the target level, respond to 6.2.b.
6.2.a Standard on which the unit is moving to the target level
Describe areas of the standard at which the unit is currently performing at the target level for
each element of the standard.
Summarize activities and their impact on candidate performance and program quality that have
led to target level performance.
Discuss plans and timelines for attaining and/or sustaining target level performance as
articulated in this standard.
15000 character limit
6.2.b Continuous Improvement
Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement of
candidate performance and program quality.
Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as
articulated in this standard.
Over the past two years, the EPP has developed new structures of leadership to support candidate field
and clinical experiences. The position of supervisor lead was created for both the teacher and special
education programs. The supervisor leads meet formally with the Director of the Office of Teacher
Education or the Director of the Special Education Program to review candidate field placement data
and survey findings. Additional information relative to these processes is provided in Standard 2.
These new leadership structures enable SETH to provide more support of candidates in field and clinical
placements and greater access to both academic and career advising. The collaboration among the
(Confidential) Page 40
supervisor leads, program faculty and the EPP leadership (the Director of the Office of Teacher
Education and the Dean) had improved the delivery and depth of support for teacher education
candidates.
Given SETH's successful receipt of grant funding from the NSF, US Department of Education and other
groups, we have been able to provide budgetary allocations that not only support high-quality work
within the unit and with our school partners, but also provide us the opportunity to make continuous
education more affordable to candidates in initial and advanced programs.
In addition, the AU Library received an endowment to support the Curriculum Materials Center (CMC)
and the Larissa Gerstel Critical Literacy Collection, managed by the education librarian, Alex Hodges.
The CMC collections support the curriculum of SETH. Publications within the CMC collections include:
textbooks (K-12), curriculum frameworks, lesson plans, juvenile literature (children's and young adult),
manipulatives, computer software, DVDs and VHS videos. The Larissa Gerstel Critical Literacy
Collection is housed in the CMC. The Center is used by students, children, parents and the community
and gives them a safe, comfortable space for reading multicultural books that deal with critical literacy
and issues of social justice and equity.
10000 character limit
6.3 Areas for Improvement Cited in the Action Report from the Previous Accreditation Review
Summarize activities, processes, and outcomes in addressing each of the AFIs cited for the initial
and/or advanced program levels under this standard.
The unit was asked to consider three Areas for Improvement (AFI) at our last visit in 2007. Each of the
AFIs and the changes the unit continues to refine are described below.
1. The unit has limited evidence that unit governance groups, councils, and committees identified in the
unit's Bylaws take formal action on matters that fall under their stated areas of responsibility.
The teacher education committee takes formal action on changes to our programs and the special
education faculty convene to make changes to the special education program. This year, the committee,
along with the new Director who serves as the convener, has met to discuss curricular changes. Key
members of the committee served as writers for SPA reports. For example, the teacher education
committee and the special education faculty meet at the end of each semester to review quantitative and
qualitative data from candidates in order to make changes to the programs and handbooks.
2. The formal process in place does not assure that changes to College of Arts and Sciences (CAS)
courses, which affect the curriculum of teacher preparation programs in the unit, are made with the
authority of the unit.
The Dean of the unit serves on the Chairs, Deans and Directors committee of the CAS. It is through this
committee that we are able to engage our colleagues throughout Arts and Sciences in the support of our
unit. There is time set apart during a CDD meeting each year when the chairs of each department review
any planned curricular changes that may affect the teacher education programs. During the 2013-2014
AY, SETH undertook a number of curricular changes to teacher education programs after refining the
programs based on unit data. This included changes to the TESOL Certificate and MAT programs
(based on SPA feedback), modifying the Curriculum and Instruction Literacy Program to allow
candidates to apply for a reading specialist license and course changes to the Early Childhood Certificate
and MAT Program to better align to NAEYC standards.
(Confidential) Page 41
3. The unit lacks an official avenue whereby members of the professional educational community
participate in program design, implementation, and evaluation of the unit and its programs.
Community members continue to participate in the development and refinement of our programs
through their work as supervisors of student teachers, cooperating teachers and as advisers to our
alternative route programs. SETH considers various levels of individuals to serve as stakeholders in our
program design and delivery, including alumni, cooperating teachers, school administrators and local
families. In order to evaluate the quality of our programs, SETH conducts regular surveys of these
stakeholders, and reviews these responses, along with data from program findings to make programlevel decisions. Examples of these assessments can be found in Exhibit 3.4.d.
12000 character limit
6.4 Exhibits for Standard 6
6.4.a Policies, procedures, and practices for governance and operations of the unit
6.4.b Organizational chart and/or description of the unit governance structure and its relationship to institutional
governance structure
6.4.c Policies, procedures, and practices for candidate services such as counseling and advising
6.4.d Policies, procedures, and practices for candidate recruitment and admission, and accessibility to candidates and
the education community
6.4.e Academic calendars, catalogs, unit publications, grading policies, and unit advertising
6.4.f Unit budget, with provisions for assessment, technology, professional development, and support for offcampus, distance learning, and alternative route programs when applicable
6.4.g Budgets of comparable units with clinical components on campus or similar units at other campuses
6.4.h Policies, procedures, and practices for faculty workload and summary of faculty workload
6.4.i Policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that all candidates have access to physical and/or virtual
classrooms, computer labs, curriculum resources, and library resources that support teaching and learning
6.4.j Policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that all candidates access have to distance learning including
support services and resources, if applicable
6.4.a Academic Affairs Faculty Manual- Term
6.4.a AU Faculty Manual
6.4.a SETH Adjunct Manual 2013-2014_Final
6.4.a SETH_Bylaws
6.4.a SETH_Faculty_Handbook_2013-2014
6.4.a SETH-Term-Faculty-Promotion-Guidelines
6.4.b American University Organization Chart
6.4.b SETH (EPP) Organization Chart
6.4.c Graduate Student handbook 2013-2014
6.4.c Information about American University
6.4.d Graduate Assistant Manual Updated
6.4.d Prospect Workflow
6.4.d Recruitment Workflow
6.4.e Academic Catalog and Calendar Links
6.4.f SETH Budget_FY_2012-2014
6.4.g On-Site Location of Comparable Units
(Confidential) Page 42
6.4.h CAS Office Hours Policy 2010
6.4.h Faculty Workload 2011-2014
6.4.i Technology and Library Links
6.4.j Policies, Procedures and Practices for Distant Learning
See Attachment panel below.
Please click "Next"
This is the end of the report. Please click "Next" to proceed.