NCATE/CAEP SELF-STUDY REPORT ADDENDUM
FEBRUARY 13, 2015
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 1
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.
1.3 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs)
No AFIs were cited as a result of the last accreditation visit.
1.4
Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard
1. The unit lacks sufficient evidence that candidates demonstrate knowledge,
skills, and professional dispositions based on its four interrelated principles of
equity, community, diversity, and excellence. (ITP)
Rationale: The Institutional Report evidenced how candidate knowledge,
skills, and professional dispositions are reviewed and evaluated within each
program, but there was little evidence to demonstrate how the EPP
collected data and evaluated the impact of knowledge, skills, and
professional dispositions on the four interrelated principles.
EPP Response: The alignment between the interrelated organizing principles
of Community, Diversity, Equity and Excellence and the INTASC standards are
outlined in the revised alignment chart, Exhibit i.5.c. The chart shows how
these principles are actualized in relation to the INTASC standards. Data will
be available during the onsite visit to further demonstrate the alignment of
these standards, our key assessments, and our conceptual framework.
We believe each of the four principles is not only interrelated but crucially
interdependent elements that in combination represent an organizational
framework through which teaching and learning unfold in SETH. As such,
these principles are most effective when combined with one another as
demonstrated in revised Exhibit i.5.c. In combination, they come to life as
professional commitments or dispositions, which are reflected in the
development of candidates knowledge systems, beliefs and practices.
Revised Exhibit i.5.c represents the alignment between the combined
interrelated organizational principles, candidate dispositions, key
assessments, and the INTASC and NCATE Standards. The chart also aligns key
assessments with the dispositions. Throughout the programs, reflection is the
primary tool used by candidates to engage in ongoing learning as reflective
practitioners.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 2
We believe that the development of candidates’ dispositional perspectives
and knowledge of each of the organizing principles is reflected across all 10
INTASC standards. Each candidate’s dispositions develop, shift and change
as their understanding and identities as teachers develop, shift and change.
This is evident throughout their teacher preparation program. As suggested
by Nelson (2015), we have the opportunity to inform and evaluate
candidates’ dispositional stances; in particular those stances dedicated to
the interrelated and interdependent principles of our conceptual framework.
Evaluation of the ongoing development of knowledge, beliefs, and practice
related to these organizing principles occurs throughout our teacher
preparation program.
2. The unit lacks sufficient evidence that candidates demonstrate an in-depth
knowledge of the content that they teach. (ADV)
Rationale: Rubrics for the knowledge standards in the M.Ed. in Curriculum
and Instruction require only limited knowledge.
EPP Response: Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included
in this review. See new Exhibit 1.4.a Advanced Program Exclusion Rationale.
3. The unit lacks sufficient evidence that candidates demonstrate in-depth
understanding of the content of their field and of the theories related to
pedagogy and learning. (ADV)
Rationale: Rubrics for the content pedagogy standards in the M.Ed. in
Curriculum and Instruction require only limited understanding.
EPP Response: Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included
in this review.
4. The unit lacks sufficient evidence that candidates demonstrate in-depth
professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. (ADV)
Rationale: Rubrics for the professional and pedagogical standards in the
M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction require only limited understanding.
EPP Response: Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included
in this review.
5. The unit lacks sufficient evidence that candidates thoroughly understand the
major concepts related to assessing student learning, regularly apply them in
their practice, and make data- driven decisions so that all students can
learn. (ADV)
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 3
Rationale: Rubrics for the professional and pedagogical standards in the
M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction require only limited understanding.
EPP Response: Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included
in this review.
6. The unit has not clearly identified the professional dispositions that are
expected of educators and that candidates must develop and
demonstrate. (ITP, ADV)
Rationale: No clear set of professional dispositions are outlined in the
IR section for that purpose, nor in the exhibits and assessments offered
for that purpose.
EPP Response: The dispositional framework for teacher candidates at
American University are reflected through our commitment outlined in our
conceptual framework. The beliefs we look for all candidates to demonstrate
in their student teaching and portfolio assessments are aligned directly to the
organizing principle of diversity, but also aligned to each of the principles of
the Conceptual Framework.
In combination the four interrelated organizing principles hold in place
particular professional dispositions. As mentioned previously, these principles
are also interdependent so that each one contributes to a stronger
foundation or framework when combined with the other principles. Revised
Exhibit i.5.c shows how different combinations of the four principles create
spaces for particular types of professional dispositions. For instance, principles
of excellence in combination with equity produces a disposition that centers
on a commitment to teaching practices that promote each learner’s growth
in the most informed way possible. This disposition includes valuing that all
learners need to be taught in ways that best support their diverse learning
needs and strengths. This stance also encompasses a belief in fairness and
ethics. This disposition encompasses a belief that content knowledge is not a
fixed body of facts but is complex, culturally situated, and ever evolving. This
perspective means a commitment to keeping abreast of new ideas and
understandings in the field.
Further at the intersection of excellence and equity is a commitment to work
toward every learner’s mastery of disciplinary content and skills. As part of this
work, teacher candidates value knowledge beyond their own content area
and values how such knowledge enhances student learning.
The revised Exhibit i.5.c also aligns examples of essential knowledge and skills
gained and examples of key assessments with the professional dispositions.
Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included in this review.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 4
1.5
Evidence for the BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
1. How are candidate knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions reviewed
and evaluated by the EPP based on its four interrelated principles of equity,
community, diversity, and excellence? (ITP, ADV)
EPP Response: During the onsite visits, the BOE team will have an opportunity
to validate the ways in which the EPP reviews and evaluates the interrelated
organizational principles through attending to the unit’s mission in our courses
and field experiences and through the ongoing assessment of candidate
progress as measured by key assessments. Please note that Advanced
Programs are no longer included in this review.
2. How have programs addressed the lack of aggregate data across multiple
standards in the SPA final reports, i.e., Elementary Education? (ITP)
EPP Response: The BOE team will be able review aggregate data that are
available in the most recent SPA reports (including Elementary Education).
Note that the Elementary Education program and the Secondary Math,
Science, and Social Studies program were nationally recognized and
available in AIMS as of February 1, 2015. Please see Exhibit 1.4.a with
updated program statuses.
3. The EPP has access to information on the employment status of
completers through completers’ self-reports. Are there other indicators
the unit can provide to demonstrate the teaching effectiveness of
completers? (ITP)
EPP Response: The BOE team will be able to interview program alumni
and discuss indicators of effectiveness with alumni and local school
administrators. Washington, DC’s Office of the State Superintendent of
Education (OSSE) is developing EPP profiles which will may provide test
score data which could be used to evaluate completers’ teaching
effectiveness.
4. How does the unit measure pedagogical content knowledge in the
secondary and other initial teacher preparation programs? (ITP)
EPP Response: During the onsite visit, the team will be able to validate that
the unit measures pedagogical content knowledge in the initial programs in
secondary and other initial programs through the following processes:
 elements of the final evaluation of student teaching or the FBPA
 portfolio assessments aligned to INTASC Standards 6, 7 & 8 for general
education and INTASC Standards 7 & 8 for special education
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 5

content-specific assessments as outlined in revised Exhibit 1.4.c. In this
document, we highlight in red the pedagogical content knowledge
assessment for each program.
5. How does the unit evaluate the integration of technology as an element to
support pedagogical content knowledge for teacher candidates? (ITP)
EPP Response: During the onsite visit, the team will be able to evaluate the
integration of technology through the following program activities:
 In the Uses of Technology in Education (EDU-519) course, required for
all elementary and secondary education candidates
 In Unit Plan key assessments for TESOL, Secondary Math and Science.
NCTM and NSTA.
 Through the Task Analysis Assignment in Special Education
 Through the Early Childhood Lesson Plan Rubric and Content
Addendum in the ECE program.
6. How does the unit assess professional dispositions for all candidates? (ITP,
ADV)
EPP Response: During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be able to validate
the assessments of dispositions through key assessments as presented in
Exhibit i.5.c. Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included in
this review.
7. Data provided in the IR indicate that about 20 percent of program
completers are employed in an area for which they were prepared. What is
the cause of this low level in job placement?
EPP Response: The BOE team will have access to the Annual Report System
(available in AIMS), where these data are presented. These findings reflect a
low survey response, rather than actual placement data. (The EPP notes that
this information was from the AR rather than the IR).
8. Although the M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction was referenced in the IR as
a new program, 36 completers were reported in the 2014 Annual Report.
What do the data from assessments of the 36 completers reported in the
2014 Annual Report indicate about candidate, completer and program
performance? (ADV)
EPP Response: Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer
included in this review.
9. Which assessments are actually used to measure each element of NCATE
Standard 1 in the M.Ed. program? (ADV)
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 6
EPP Response: Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included
in this review.
10. What is the overall passing score requirement for each of the rubrics
provided in IR Exhibit 1.4.c? (ADV)
EPP Response: Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included
in this review.
11. Is there an instructional technology strand in the M.Ed. program? (ADV)
EPP Response: Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included
in this review.
12. How are advanced candidates involved in professional activities? (ADV)
EPP Response: Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included
in this review.
13. How do advanced candidates demonstrate their awareness of research and
policies? (ADV)
EPP Response: Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included
in this review.
14. How do advanced candidates use school and community resources to
support learning? (ADV)
EPP Response: Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included
in this review.
15. How does the unit evaluate advanced candidates’ values, attitudes, and
beliefs about fairness and all students’ ability to learn? (ADV)
EPP Response: Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included
in this review.
16. How does the unit assess ITP candidates’ ability to analyze research? (ITP)
EPP Response: The BOE team will be able to validate candidates’ ability to
analyze research through the requirement that all portfolio reflections for all
programs must include citations to relevant research
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 7
Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on applicant
qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to
evaluate and improve the performance of candidates, the unit, and its
programs.
2.3 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs)
No AFIs were cited as a result of the last accreditation visit.
2.4 Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard
1. Area of Concern: It is not apparent that assessment data are being collected
for all programs or for all key assessments.
Rationale: Data were not provided for all key assessments in all programs.
EPP Response: Data from key assessments for initial programs are collected
via GoEd. Please refer to Table 1: Key Assessment Data Collection and
Reporting in the new Exhibit 2.4.a. Assessment and Unit Operations for an
overview of all Key Assessments. This exhibit documents the processes and
procedures for collecting data and means for data review and analysis. The
BOE will be able to review reports from Key Assessment while on campus.
Data from the assessment system are also available in the SPA program
review system in AIMS. Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer
included in this review.
2. Area of Concern: It is not clear how the assessment system incorporates
the assessment of unit operations.
Rationale: The unit did not provide information or data on how the
assessment system includes the evaluation of unit operations.
EPP Response: Please refer to the Table 2: Unit Operations Assessments and
Reporting, in the new Exhibit 2.4.a. Assessment and Unit Operations for an
overview of systems for Unit Operations. This chart shows the assessments and
reporting mechanism used in the EPP assessment system. The BOE team will
be able to validate data used for unit operations evaluation and assessment
during the onsite visit.
3. Area of Concern (3): The professional community is not involved in the
development and evaluation of the assessment system. Area of Concern (5)
is also address in this section: There is no evidence of the systematic use of
data for program improvement.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 8
Rationale (3): No evidence was provided that the unit involves the
professional community in the development and evaluation of its assessment
system regularly and systematically.
Rationale (5): Although performance data are collected in programs, the
EPP does not appear to systematically analyze and evaluate those data for
program and EPP improvement. Changes reported in the IR are not based
on data.
EPP Response: The professional community, including the full-time and parttime faculty in SETH, faculty in other units of the college/university, clinical
faculty supervisors, supervisor leads, method leads, cooperating teachers,
partner school leaders, candidates and program alumni and others involved
in professional education, are the authors of program assessments, help to
develop program assessments and regularly evaluate the ways in which the
assessment system is used. Below is an explanation of how the professional
community is involved in the development and evaluation of the assessment
system. Please also refer to the Table 1: Key Assessment Data Collection and
Reporting in the new Exhibit 2.4.a. Assessment and Unit Operations.
The assessments presented in the new Exhibit 2.4.a. Assessment and Unit
Operations in Table 1: Key Assessment Data Collection and Reporting are
monitored for the individual candidate after each implementation and
correspond to Level III – Courses, Candidates and Field Experiences in the
Assessment Analysis Structure on page 6 of the original Exhibit 2.4.a. EPP
Program and Assessment System Guide.
The faculty member or clinical faculty supervisor implementing the
assessment is responsible for the inputting the assessment results into GoEd for
each the candidate. The Field Placement Coordinator is responsible for
monitoring the assessment results into GoEd by the cooperating teacher.
The director of teacher education, director of special education, supervisor
leads, method leads and/or the field placement coordinator are then
responsible for verifying that these assessments are completed for each
individual candidate before he or she moves to the next decision point.
The professional community is involved in the creation of these assessments.
For example, all assessments submitted through the SPA Program Review
process have been created by faculty members in that content area in
consultation with the director of teacher education or director of special
education. As these assessments are implemented in the methods courses,
method leads faculty members ensure the completion of the assessments
and that score results are entered into GoEd. The director of teacher
education or director of special education discusses with the methods leads
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 9
faculty and the clinical supervisor lead any changes recommended by
faculty implementing the assessments. These changes are then discussed in
the Annual Review meetings in June, which is included in Exhibit 2.4.a
Examples of Data Use for Improvement.
The supervisor and clinical leads monitor the implementation and continued
development of the assessments implemented in the practicum and student
teaching field experience. The supervisor leads, director of teacher
education and field experience coordinator review the following programlevel surveys and assessment data in order to collect feedback from the
professional community (candidates, cooperating teachers and university
supervisors) on program implementation and effectiveness of the
assessments.
 3.4.d Candidate Exit Survey
 3.4.d Cooperating Teacher Program Evaluation Survey
 3.4.d University Supervisor Evaluation Survey
 3.4.f Student Teaching Course Rubric
The results of these surveys are discussed at the Annual Review meetings in
June. The director of teacher education presents recommendations to the
teacher education committee and the dean after these meetings. A similar
process takes place in June for the special education program with the
director of special education, special education tenured faculty, clinical
supervisor leads, and supervisors.
The new Exhibit 2.4.a Examples of Data Use for Improvement provides an
example of a set of program changes that were made based on the input of
the professional community. This exhibit includes the meeting agenda, data
that were review reviewed for program improvement and results of those
changes.
After this meeting the director of teacher education recommended to the
dean, the Teacher Education Committee and presented at the Faculty
Council Meeting the following program changes:
 Recommendation: Student Teaching Rubric Assessment should also be
used as the Practicum Final Evaluation and the Mid-Term Evaluation of
Student Teaching. The faculty, supervisor leads and methods leads
needed additional opportunities for data collection to document
candidate progress over time in field experiences.
Outcome: The Student Teaching Rubric Assessment is being used as
the Practicum Final Evaluation and the Mid-Term Evaluation of Student
Teaching beginning in Fall 2014
 Recommendation: In the Cooperating Teacher Survey, Cooperating
teachers requested that they include a timeline framework for
practicum and student teaching the was specific to each program
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 10


Outcome: These timelines were developed and added to the 20142015 Field Experience Handbook – see new Exhibit 2.4.a. Field
Experience Handbook August 2014-2015, pages 20-21.
Recommendation: The cooperating teachers, faculty, and supervisor
leads indicated a need to be able to identify teacher candidates who
may need remediation, intervention or additional support to
successfully complete the professional requirements for their program
of study in Teacher Education.
Outcome: A new Concerns Process was created and implemented –
see new Exhibit 2.4.a. Field Experience Handbook August 2014-2015
pages 43-44.
Recommendation: Faculty and supervisors expressed a need to voice
opinion on all candidates applying for the undergraduate programs.
The Teacher Education Committee reviewed and proposed changes
to the Undergraduate SETH Application form and asked for the
revisions to be reviewed at the June 2014 Annual Review meeting.
Outcome: Suggestions were made by the professional community at
this meeting and returned to the Teacher Education committee for
approval. The new application form was implemented in Fall 2014 - see
Exhibit 2.4.b Undergraduate Application to SETH.
The involvement of the professional community has been ever-present in the
assessment system through faculty development of key assessments since
2003. In addition, as evidenced in the NCATE Annual Reports, cooperating
teachers and university supervisors provide evaluative feedback to the
candidates and help to develop assessments and improve the assessment
system throughout the program (AR 2012) including the professional teaching
portfolio (AR 2010), the lesson plan analysis and implementation (AR 2009)
and the final evaluation of student teaching content addendums (AU 2009).
However, given the lengthy SPA rejoinder and assessment approval process,
the 2012 transition to a new director of teacher education, and the relatively
new positions of the supervisor leads and method leads (beginning in Fall
2012), the June 2014 Annual Review Meeting operationalized the regular and
systematic development and evaluation of these assessments in the system.
This annual meeting is scheduled again for June 2015 and will be led by the
director of teacher education and attended by members of the professional
community including: supervisor leads (Susan Stewart and Debbie Kleinbord,
the methods leads (Susan Jaffe and Julie Sara Boyd who is also the director
of teacher education) and Amy Simonson, field placement coordinator. The
director of the special education program, Sarah Irvine Belson, will hold a
similar meeting with the clinical supervisor lead, Jennifer Durham, and special
education faculty.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 11
In addition to this annual meeting, the director of teacher education and the
director of special education will design and implement an annual internal
program review system with the approval of the teacher education
committee. This system is under development is projected to be in place in
AY 2016-2017 and piloted in AU 2015-2016 in order to provide enough 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 among candidate assessment
performance, candidate program success and program completer success
in the classroom.
4. Alumni and employer follow-up surveys are not conducted on a regular or
systematic basis.
Rationale: The unit did not provide evidence related to regularly and
systematically conducted graduate and employer follow-up surveys.
EPP Response: The EPP conducts two surveys, the Candidate Exit Survey and
the Teacher Education Post-Graduation Plans survey in June and August of
each academic year, respectively. These self-report surveys provide
information about candidates plans relative to employment and provides
feedback on the program. The unit also implemented a new alumni
management and evaluation system in Fall 2014. The director of teacher
education, the director of special education, the associate dean, and
project development staff developed the Alumni Follow-up Survey, which
was conducted in October 2014 through the GoEd survey module. Alumni of
all teacher education initial programs from Summer 2008 – Summer 2014
received the survey.
The survey results for the alumni survey can be reviewed through the GoEd
survey module and will be available for review at the onsite visit. The
information from the survey will also populate into individual candidate
accounts in the new alumni section of GoEd. In Spring/Summer 2015, the
director of teacher education will work with the GoEd developer to finalize
this functionality and create reports for review by the professional
community. The Alumni Follow-up Survey will continue to be conducted and
reviewed regularly and systematically in October each year to all program
completers. The results of the alumni survey can be accessed through GoEd
during the onsite visit.
5. Area of Concern: There is no evidence of the systematic use of data for
program improvement.
EPP Response: See Area of Concern #3.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 12
2.5 Evidence for the BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
1. GoEd is the repository for the majority of assessment data. Where are the
rest of the data?
More information about the systems can be found in the new Exhibit
2.4.a Assessment and Program Management Systems. During the onsite
visit, the BOE team will be provided with a full tour of these systems.
2. Who is the manager of GoEd? Who run analyses?
GoEd is co-managed by:
 Director of the Office of Teacher Education
 Director of Project Development and Community Outreach
 Operations Coordinator
 Graduate Programs Coordinator
These staff members and faculty who are program directors run analysis
reports. The Dean approves all changes recommended for the system.
An external developer makes approved changes, maintains the system
and is a liaison with AU’s Office of Information Technology. During the
onsite visit, the BOE team will be provided with a full tour of GoEd.
3. How are data used for program improvement?
During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be able to validate how data are
used for program improvement. Also see Area for Concern #5 above.
4. How and when are data shared with stakeholders?
During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be able to validate how data are
shared with stakeholders. Also see Area for Concern #3 above.
5. How do GoEd and the Colleague-Datatel interface and work together?
American University's Ellucian Colleague system stores its information nightly in
an Oracle data warehouse. The SETH GoEd system often needs to make use
of information that is only stored in Colleague, such as GPA, course
registration, or course grades. In those instances, GoEd makes an immediate
request to special data views in the Oracle data-warehouse to retrieve the
information and then display it to the authenticated and authorized goEd
user. None of this information is stored locally in GoEd: each database
request is made on an as-needed basis so that the information displayed is
the latest version in the data warehouse.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 13
More information can be found in the new 2.4.a Assessment and Program
Management Systems. During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be provided
with a full tour of GoEd.
6. How does GoEd display number/percentage of candidates at each
performance level?
During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be provided with a full tour of
GoEd. Including the ability to run data reports.
7. Can the unit produce a sample report run in Go-Ed?
During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be provided with a full tour of GoEd,
and be able to run sample reports as needed.
8. Can the unit provide evidence for training faculty on fairness, accuracy, and
consistency and elimination of bias regarding key assessments? (e.g., minutes
or agenda of training session)
During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be able to validate the ways in
which the EPP works to eliminate bias and increase fairness, accuracy,
consistency and inter-rater reliability in key assessments through agenda and
handouts from meetings with faculty and training materials.
9. What performance data or other evidence of orientation for candidates and
training on assessments can be provided to substantiate that this is done?
During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be provided with candidate training
materials and data from a GoEd report that tracks if candidates attend
portfolio trainings.
10. How are key assessments scored in cases when candidates resubmit their
work? (Which grade – original or the rescored – is included in the final data
analysis?)
As described in the instructions for key assessments, each key assessment
rubric has a required score and a score when the assessment needs to be
resubmitted. It is the responsibility of the reviewer in the cases of course
assignments and practicum and student teaching tasks to ensure this
resubmission takes place. The final score is then recorded. In the case of the
final portfolio, the reviewer lets the director of teacher education or special
education know when a score of 1 is given. The director then assigns a third
reader. If both reviewers give “1s”, the director asks the candidate to
resubmit the portfolio entry.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 14
11. The team will check at the onsite visit if key assessments include all relevant
InTASC, SPA, and conceptual framework standards.
During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be provided with access to all key
assessments for this validation. See revised Exhibit i.5.c for more information
on the alignment between these standards.
12. How many provisional and probationary semesters can one
applicant/candidate be granted?
The following policies are from the Graduate Regulations.
Provisional Admission and Academic Warning, Academic Probation and
Academic Dismissal
http://www.american.edu/provost/grad/grad-rules-and-regulations.cfm
The following policies are from the Undergraduate Regulations.
Academic Probation and Dismissal
http://www.american.edu/provost/undergrad/undergrad-rules-andregulations.cfm
13. What are the procedures and timeline for assessing dispositions?
During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be able to validate the procedures
and timeline for the assessment of candidate dispositions through key
assessments as presented in Exhibit i.5.c.
14. The team will examine examples of candidate complaints and their
resolutions at the onsite as (indicated in Exhibit 2.4.f).
During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be provided with examples of
candidate complaints and resolutions.
15. Exhibit 2.4.g lists changes made on the program and EPP levels. These
changes seem to be made as a response to external measures, such as SPA
requirements. Can the unit provide examples of changes made as a
response to performance data analyses that were shared with stakeholders?
For instance, what program improvement or changes are anticipated upon
the analysis of the 36 M.Ed. completers reported in the 2014 Annual Report?
The BOE team will be able to validate the information presented in the new
2.4.a Examples of Data Use for Improvement as presented in Area for
Concern #5 above.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 15
16. What performance data or other evidence can the unit provide for verifying
the involvement of the professional community in the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the assessment system (e.g., meeting minutes)?
The BOE team will be able to validate the information presented in Table 1:
Key Assessment Data Collection and Reporting in the new Exhibit 2.4.a.
Assessment and Unit Operations and 2.4.a Examples of Data Use for
Improvement as presented in Area for Concern #3 above.
17. How were the M.Ed. program assessments provided in the IR developed? For
instance, was the professional community involved in setting minimum
passing scores in the scoring guides?
Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included in this review.
18. What activities and outcomes demonstrate that the unit has been engaged
in continuous improvement of the M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction through
the most recent iteration of the program (with the 36 completers in spring
2014)?
Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included in this review.
19. Can the unit provide performance data for the most recent academic year
(after the IR was submitted)?
During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be provided with data from the most
recent academic year.
20. Can the unit describe the (formal) process by which faculty and program
directors regularly use assessment data to follow individual candidates and
monitor areas for improvement?
The BOE team will be able to validate the information in Exhibit 2.4.a.
Assessment and Unit Operations during the onsite visit.
21. Can the unit provide examples of follow-up survey instruments for all
programs (alumni and employer) implemented in F14? When will data be
available from these surveys?
The BOE team will be able to validate the information during the onsite visit –
see Area of Concern #4 above.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 16
22. Can the unit provide examples of key assessments for advanced programs
(implemented and tested in AY 14-15)?
Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included in this review.
23. Can the unit provide examples of data analyses completed by SETH and the
use of data for program improvement?
The BOE team will be able to validate the information in 2.4.a Examples of
Data Use for Improvement during the onsite visit as described in Area of
Concern #5 above.
24. Please provide records of formal candidate complaints and documentation
of their resolution (at the onsite visit).
During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be provided with examples of
candidate complaints and resolutions.
25. Can the unit describe changes it has implemented to improve the
effectiveness of the unit assessment system (not key assessments)?
During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be provided with evidence of
changes it has implemented to improve the effectiveness of the unit
assessment system. Please also see Table 2: Unit Operations Assessments and
Reporting in Exhibit 2.4.a Assessments and Unit Operations.
26. Can the unit provide examples of the changes that were made in key
assessments based on feedback from clinical faculty?
The BOE team will be able to validate the information in 2.4.a Examples of
Data Use for Improvement during the onsite visit
27. The IR states that the EPP will add the advanced program key assessments to
the GoEd system, soon. How were data collected in the advanced programs
up until now?
Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included in this review.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 17
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.
3.3 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs)
3.3.b What AFIs are continued from last visit?
AFI Number & Text
1. The unit does not assure that
mentor teachers provide regular
and continuing support for
alternative route candidates.
Apply to
AFI Rationale
ITP
It was unclear whether or not there
are still alternative route
candidates. This AFI was not
clearly addressed in the evidence
for Standard 3.
EPP Response: The unit no longer has any alternative route candidates or
programs.
2. The unit’s partners are not
ITP
It was unclear whether or not there
involved in the evaluation of field
are still alternative route
experiences and clinical
candidates. This AFI was not
practices of alternative route
clearly addressed in the evidence
candidates.
for Standard 3.
EPP Response: The unit no longer has any alternative route candidates or
programs.
3.4 Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard
None
3.5 Evidence for the BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
1. Please explain what clinical experiences are required for each program. (Ex.
Chart detailing the clinical experiences [practicum and student teaching or
internships] for each program [e.g., number of hours and weeks]).
EPP Response: Exhibit 3.4.e has been updated with the correct hours and is
linked to the appropriate field experience handbooks. The BOE team will be
able to review field experience handbooks during the onsite visit to further
validate the program requirements.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 18
2. What clinical practices are required of the advanced program(s)?
(Ex. Clinical handbook for advanced program.)
EPP Response: Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included
in this review.
3. What assessments and related data for measuring candidate impact on P12 student learning is available for all programs and what do the data
indicate?
EPP Response: All candidates in initial programs complete an Impact of
Student Learning (ISL) assessment, which is designed to measure any effects
on P-12 student learning. These activities involve administering a preassessment, analyzing the data and changing instruction based on the data
and finally, administering a post-assessment and looking at the final data. The
elementary and secondary teacher candidates complete the assessment in
the methods courses; this is also a SPA assessment. The K12 teacher
candidates complete this in the portfolio. All data is collected in GoEd.
Historically, the Impact of Student Learning assessment was a component of
all teacher candidates’ portfolios and not connected to a course, however
the data showed that students were struggling with some aspects of this
assessment in all initial programs. As this is such an integral part of a teacher
responsibility, the assessment in now incorporated into the methods courses.
Note that the ISL activity in special education is referred to as the Curriculum
Based Measurement (CBM) project.
Exhibit 1.4.g provides scoring rubric, data and examples of the Impact of
Student Learning. We analyze the data in the SPA reports. For the K12
programs, the data shows that our students at the acceptable and
distinguished lessons.
4. What are the requirements for peer interactions during field experiences
and clinical practices for all programs?
EPP Response: Teacher candidates interact with their peers on all required
field experiences and student teaching. Undergraduates have four required
field and clinical experiences: EDU 321 Introduction to Field Experience, EDU
492 Service Learning in Education, Practicum and Student Teaching (EDU 499
Student Teaching Seminar). Graduate students have two required field and
clinical experiences: Practicum and Student Teaching (EDU 699 Student
Teaching Seminar). In special education, candidates take the EDU 792
Internship course and participate in the Intern Seminar. We describe the peer
interactions below:
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 19

In EDU 321 Field Experience in Education: Observation and Analysis,
teacher candidates are required to attend class, as well as attend six site
visits to observe diverse school settings in the DC metropolitan area. There
are eight class sessions on-campus and six school visits during the
semester. There are structured peer interactions planned for every oncampus class (see Exhibit 3.4.d). Focused round table discussions are used
to debrief after every school site visit. Teacher candidates are asked to
reflect on the school visit through a pre-determined lens. For example,
after the Langley High School visit, teacher candidates have a round
table discussion on their observations related to Presenting
Information/Clarity, Objectives, and Essential Questions. Teacher
candidates complete readings and a reflection on the round table topics.
For instance, prior to the Langley High School visit, teacher candidates
read The Skillful Teacher chapter on Clarity and prior to the post-field visit
on-campus class students read and reflect on The Skillful Teacher sections
on Essential Questions and Objectives and Checks for Understanding.
Teacher candidates also take part in paired work and other activities,
such as Gallery Walks, KWL charts with discussion, discussions based on
video clips, etc., during every on-campus class session. The syllabus for
EDU 321 can be accessed in GoEd during the team visit.

In EDU 492 Service Learning in Education, teacher candidates are
required to complete at least 40 hours of service learning in a school or
school-based organization. The class meets three times during the
semester. During the second meeting, candidates present a vision board
to the class that discusses the service learning placement and the
education course it connects to through five objectives or questions.
Depending on the enrollment of the class, the vision boards are either
given presentation style or as a gallery walk where candidates look for
common themes and other relations to the projects. During the last class,
candidates present a final display of their field experience that represents
the realized experience and how it related to the five objectives or
questions. Candidates interact during the final presentations and discuss
how these service learning projects promote them as a teacher and how
it will help them in their next phase of field experiences. The syllabus for
EDU 492 can be accessed in GoEd during the team visit.

The Practicum Seminar is a weekly discussion group that meets during the
practicum semester. It was created in response to students’ request that
they wanted a time to interact with other practicum teacher candidates
outside of methods courses. Practicum Seminar is not a required course,
but attendance is encouraged. Teacher candidates are introduced to a
variety of topics specific to the practicum experience, as well as relevant
teaching and educational issues. Students are encouraged to attend four
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 20
seminars during the semester. The syllabus for the Fall 2014 Practicum
Seminar is located in Exhibit 3.4.d Practicum Seminar Peer Interactions.

The student teaching seminar (EDU 499/699) is the culminating required
peer interaction in clinical experience. The syllabi can be can be
accessed in GoEd during the team visit. During this seminar, which meets
weekly, teacher candidates reflect in an on-line journal. The journal entries
serve as a discussion entry each week and peers interact through the
class on topics that range from Parent Involvement to Deceptive
Classrooms to Diversity in the classroom. The seminar also has several
panels from local administrators and P12 stakeholders that discuss
interviews and resume as well as social issues (e.g., bullying) that teachers
face.

The purpose of the Intern Weekly Seminar (EDU 792) in the Special
Education program is to scaffold the growth of teaching interns within
their classroom practices during their internship experiences. Seminars will
cover a variety of topics that will help to build, strengthen, and extend the
knowledge and skills that interns are developing through coursework and
classroom experiences. While some topics have been pre-selected, many
of the topics will be decided based upon the needs of interns and
supervising teachers as the semester unfolds. This may include content
specific strategy instruction, behavior management strategies, use of
data in instructional decisions, IEP development, use of technology,
working with diverse students, working in inclusive classrooms, and
cooperative teaching skills.
Faculty of the above courses will be available during interviews and school
site visits.
5. What are the requirements for clinical staff interactions and feedback for
the advanced program?
EPP Response: Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included
in this review.
6. How does the unit assure each candidate with field experiences with diverse
students for both ITP and ADV programs?
EPP Response: All teacher candidates must have either their practicum or
student teaching experience in a school in the District of Columbia. Our
candidates must also be placed in different grade level spans for practicum
and student teaching. For example, an elementary education major must
work in either grades 1-3 or grades 4-6. The candidates are asked to choose
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 21
the grade level they are most interested in teaching for the student teaching
placement. This way they will accrue the most experience with the grade
level they hope to teach upon graduation. They are informed about the
nuances of the placement options through a face-to-face meeting that
occurs in February of each year (or for new graduate students, during their
initial advising session) and also submit the Practicum and Student Teaching
Placement Preference form through GoEd to indicate their preferences. This
form has been tailored with drop down menus to help the candidate record
accurate data. These data are used by the Field Placement Coordinator to
help match the candidate with their area of interest.
We amended our data in Exhibit 3.4.b to reflect accurate percentages for
practicum and student teaching placements. Additionally, we updated
Exhibit 4.4.f to include data on the five areas of diversity: racial/ethnic,
linguistic (ELL), gender, socioeconomic (Title I) and exceptionalities. In the
future, we plan on having our teacher candidates gather classroom data
using a Classroom Scan form during the first week of their placements. This
form will disaggregate the data among the five areas of diversity outlined
by NCATE and ensure that our candidates are getting experience and
exposure to a truly diverse population.
Please note that Advanced Programs are no longer included in this review.
7. How are the professional community partners involved in the design of field
experiences and clinical practice?
EPP Response: Aside from the feedback that we receive each semester using
the Cooperating Teacher Evaluation form and conversations that we have
with P-12 administrators who place teacher candidates and completers
(who the BOE team will interview on March 1), we also allow our professional
community partners (the full-time and part-time faculty in SETH, faculty in
other units of the college/university, clinical faculty supervisors, supervisor
leads, method leads, cooperating teachers, partner school leaders,
candidates and program alumni and others involved in professional
education) to play a key role in the design the practicum and student
teaching experiences. In our 3.4.e Field Experience Handbook, we give a
framework for the 14 weeks of practicum of page 13 and the 14 weeks of
student teaching on page 20, which is based on feedback from the
professional community. However, this is only a shell that we ask to be
individualized for each teacher candidate. The cooperating teacher and
teacher candidate take the lead on designing the experience and work with
the supervisor to ensure all requirements for practicum and student teaching
are completed. This process can be validated during the conversations with
cooperating teachers on March 1 and at the school visits on March 2.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 22
8. Please explain the collaborative decision-making process for making
candidate placements for initial and advanced programs.
EPP Response: We updated Element 3a Collaboration between Unit and
School Partners in Exhibit. 3.4.a and bolded our additions to explain the
collaboration that the EPP does with our P-12 stakeholders. This collaboration
can be further validated onsite when interviewing the unit’s Placement
Coordinator, Dr. Amy Simonsen, and in interviews with P-12 administration.
9. How are licensure and experience of school-based clinical faculty assured
for each candidate placement? (Ex. Chart aligning licensure and experience
of school-based clinical faculty with candidate placements.)
EPP Response: We updated Exhibit 5.4.a to include licensure and P-12
experience for our clinical faculty.
10. Can the unit provide more information to support its progress toward
attaining the target of the standard? What collaborative activities take place
between the unit and cooperating teachers? Are CTs provided with any
professional development? How are field experiences for advanced
candidates coordinated? By whom?
EPP Response: In September 2012, we conducted a survey for cooperating
teachers asking the best venue to provide training. The responses in this
survey, which are available for review during the onsite visit, leaned toward a
video training rather than in-person training. We made a cooperating
teacher training video in GoEd (which can be viewed onsite). However, the
video was not the best replacement for an interactive training where
cooperating teachers could ask questions and receive individualized
support. We entrust our supervisors to train the cooperating teachers during
the initial meeting in the semester, which happens during the first two weeks
of each semester. This has been generally successful and we are looking to
provide more collaboration with the cooperating teachers. The Director of
Teacher Education piloted one-on-one meetings with the Lab2Class and
Math for America cooperating teachers. In these meetings, where the
Director would go to the Cooperating Teacher’s classroom, the Director
would share the expectations of the semester and would then brainstorm
with the Cooperating Teacher specific strategies and school resources that
would aid in the development of the teacher candidate. This model is
extremely successful but not extremely efficient. We are looking at ways to
streamline this and considering having the Placement Coordinator and
Supervisor Leads go to our most utilized schools for practicum and student
teaching and collaborate with those teachers.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 23
Cooperating teacher and supervisors have multiple meetings each semester,
at least three per semester, and collaborate during those meetings. Any
information that can affect the unit is then communicated to the Supervisor
Leads. This process can be validated on pages 9 and 15 of the 3.4.e Field
Experience Handbook and onsite interviews with the cooperating teachers
and supervisors.
The master teachers (cooperating teachers or CT) in the special education
program also play a collaborative role in the implementation and evaluation
of our special education program. In the fall, the master teachers meet with
the clinical supervisor lead and the director of the program to discuss
processes and procedures for intern evaluation and share informal systems of
evaluation. Special education master teacher will be available for interview
during school site visits.
Some of our cooperating teachers eventually become adjunct faculty.
During the onsite visit, the BOE team will have the opportunity to meet two
adjunct faculty members from DCPS’s Deal Middle School who began as
Cooperating Teachers and also review agendas and notes from meetings
and trainings.
During the onsite visit, the team will be able to validate some of the
professional development opportunities available to cooperating teachers.
Examples include: 1) Learning Circle courses (when funds are available), 2)
Invitation to unit symposiums such as the Larissa Symposium on Critical
Literacy, and 3) 50% course discounts for all AU courses DC teachers. One
area of growth is continuing to provide more opportunities for the
cooperating teachers and doing a better job of advertising the opportunities
out there.
Another area of growth for our unit is creating professional development
opportunities for our clinical faculty. The clinical faculty, given their
appointments as adjunct faculty, have access to any professional
development activities offered by American University. However, we are
researching ways to find professional development that would fit our budget
on the trends in education. Two professional development topics looking for
August 2015 are 1) the PARCC assessments and 2) flipping the classroom.
11. What evidence demonstrates that candidates are proficient in using information
technology to support teaching and learning during clinical practice?
EPP Response: Many of our SPA assessments that are administered during
student teaching have technology components. For example, the Unit Plans
in both the Secondary Math Methods and Secondary Science Methods
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 24
courses have specific technology areas in their rubrics. We fully expect our
students to be proficient in using information technology in the classrooms
and all of our methods classes focus on this use of technology during their
development. However, an area of growth for the unit is providing evidence
of the use of information technology during student teaching. Starting in Fall
2015, we will be requiring one of the twenty artifacts of the professional
teaching portfolio to exhibit how the candidate uses information technology
to support teaching and learning.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 25
Standard 4: Diversity
The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and provides
experiences for candidates to acquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills,
and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments
indicate that candidates can demonstrate and apply proficiencies related to
diversity. Experiences provided for candidates include working with diverse
populations, including higher education and P-12 school faculty, candidates,
and students in P-12 schools.
4.3 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs)
No AFIs were cited as a result of the last accreditation visit.
4.4 Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard
None
4.5 Evidence for the BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
1. What diversity performance assessments are in place for candidates?
EPP Response: As discussed in Standard 1, diversity is one of our dispositional
themes and can be found in our key assessments. Diversity is represented in
five elements, as defined by NCATE: 1) racial/ethnic, 2) linguistic (ELL), 3)
gender, 4) socioeconomic (Title I) and 5) exceptionalities. Teacher
candidates are assessed on diversity during practicum and student teaching
experiences using the following forms:
 3.4.f Observation Form
 3.4.f Final Evaluation of Practicum Students / 3.4.f Midterm Evaluation of
Student Teachers / 3.4.f Student Teaching Course Rubric
 3.4.f Student Teaching Evaluation Form
 3.4.f Lesson Plan Analysis and Implementation Form (Procedures
Section)
 3.4.f Field-Based Performance Assessment (FBPA) – Special Education
All of these forms are accessed through GoEd and data is collected in GoEd
each semester. The forms can be accessed through the links above as well
as during the on-site visit.
The Professional Teaching Portfolio also captures diversity in student teaching
through the entries for InTASC Standard 2: Learning Differences. The
Professional Teaching Portfolio is accessible through GoEd and examples will
be available in GoEd during the on-site visit.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 26
There are also diversity class assignments in classes. Revised Exhibit 4.4.b
highlights diversity assessments at the course level.
2. When and how are candidate’s teaching dispositions evaluated?
EPP Response: As discussed in Standard 1 and illustrated in the revised Exhibit
i.5.c, the dispositional framework for teacher candidates at American
University are reflected through our commitment outlined in our conceptual
framework and measured through the program’s key assessments. In
addition, we present data on all candidates’ dispositions as they are aligned
to INTASC standards 9 and 10 in the Exhibits presented related to NCATE
Standard 1 in Exhibit 1.4.d, which demonstrate candidates’ dispositions in
student teaching and portfolio assessments.
3. What artifacts (sample assignments, reflection journals, digital portfolios, unit
plans, and rubrics) are collected to address candidate performance for this
standard?
EPP Response: During the visit, the BOE will have access to GoEd to review
the key assessments as they relate to diversity. This includes but is not limited
to the professional teaching portfolio, practicum/student teaching forms,
and content-specific unit plans. The BOE will have access to class
assignments as related to this standard and the Student Teaching Seminar
(EDU 499/699) online reflection journals that focus on diversity.
4. What evidence has the unit collected describing the impact of the Center for
Diversity and Inclusion (CDI) on the recruitment/retention of diverse faculty
and EPP candidates?
EPP Response: The CDI works with the Office of Campus Life on initiatives to
recruit and retain students. The current initiative is the recruitment and
retention on undergraduate student. In 2011 – 2012, the undergraduate
marketing and enrollment task force reported out on these initiatives and
data surrounding creating a culture of inclusivity (Exhibit 4.4.c).
In April 1, 2013, President Kerwin sent a memo to campus outlining the final
Strategic Plan objectives for the next two years. In this memo, included a
section that called for action to Reflect and Value Diversity:
 Maintain current high retention levels (89.4 percent) of
underrepresented minority and Pell-eligible first-year students and
maintain retention within two percent of retention levels for all first-year
students.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 27






Offer new pedagogical workshops for faculty related to improving
diversity and inclusion.
Focus strategic enrollment management strategies at the graduate
level on underrepresented minorities.
Provide a dedicated full-time professional housed at AU Central
providing customized university information to enrolled veterans.
Provide financial support for study abroad and internship experiences
to high achieving low-income students.
Establish priorities for universal design projects to enhance the inclusion
of students, faculty, and staff with disabilities in campus activities and
events.
Continue to improve climate for diversity and inclusion for staff.
5. What feedback does the unit have from cooperating teachers about
candidates’ effectiveness in meeting proficiencies related to this standard?
EPP Response:
 At the candidate evaluation level, the cooperating teachers fill out the
3.4.f Observation Form, 3.4.f Final Evaluation of Practicum Students, 3.4.f
Midterm Evaluation of Student Teachers, 3.4.f Student Teaching Course
Rubric, 3.4.f Student Teaching Evaluation Form and the 3.4.f Lesson Plan
3.4.f Analysis and Implementation Form (Procedures Section). All of these
forms ask for candidates’ effectiveness in meeting proficiencies related to
diversity.

At the program level, we don’t ask for feedback on this standard
specifically but we plan to include this in our recommendations to add to
the 3.4.d Cooperating Teacher Program Evaluation form, as this would be
valuable feedback.
6. Which diversity courses are required for each program?
EPP Response: We have updated Exhibit 4.4.b to show which of these courses
are for what program and whether they are required.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 28
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.
5.3 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs)
No AFIs were cited as a result of the last accreditation visit.
5.4 Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard
1. Faculty qualifications do not indicate experience in the fields that they
teach.
Rationale: Limited information on faculty course assignments in available and
data provided demonstrates that faculty members are teaching courses outside
of their area of scholarship or professional experience.
EPP Response: The exhibits presented in the original IR included data from all
faculty who are members of the full-time, affiliate, and adjunct faculty in SETH,
not only members of the EPP faculty. A newly revised Exhibit 5.4.a is presented
that illustrates the qualifications of faculty associated with the EPP only
(including full time, clinical and adjunct). The revised exhibit includes each
faculty members highest degree, assignment (course or clinical supervision),
scholarship, teaching experiences, and any teaching licenses. This exhibit
includes only faculty who teach courses for the teacher education and special
education programs.
2. Professional development of EPP faculty is unrelated to evaluations.
Rationale: Evaluations or sample evaluations are not provided. Professional
development appears to overlap with scholarship or research activities and
does not serve the needs of the EPP or further the knowledge of the faculty in
contemporary issues in education.
EPP Response: The evaluation process for full-time and adjunct faculty is
included in the new Exhibit 5.4.f Faculty Evaluation Systems for PD. Full-time
faculty complete an comprehensive annual review that examines the faculty
members’ contributions to teaching, research, and service and provides
feedback to assist with the faculty members’ teaching activities. Adjunct faculty
evaluations are aligned with our union contract and also afford the opportunity
to provide feedback relative to teaching and service. Information about the fulltime and adjunct faculty annual reviews are also included in the new Exhibit
2.4.a. Assessment and Unit Operations.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 29
Samples of faculty evaluations and the professional development (PD) activities
for full-time and adjunct faculty members will presented to the BOE team for
review onsite. As the evaluations include personal information, onsite review is
preferred by the EPP. We will also present the onsite team with examples of the
PD opportunities afforded to individual faculty based on evaluations. PD
activities that are based on evaluations of faculty include mentoring related to
SET scores, workshops (such as Common Core training for full-time and adjunct
faculty), travel to teaching conferences, and technology training.
5.5 Evidence for the BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
1. Who are the current professional faculty, clinical faculty and adjunct faculty?
EPP Response: The BOE team will be able to make use of the revised Exhibit 5.4.a
to determine who are the professional EPP faculty. Faculty will be available for
interviews on the evening of March 1 and during the day on March 2. Resumes
of all faculty members are also available in our Goed system.
2. What are the course assignments for professional faculty, clinical faculty and
adjunct faculty over the past three years? EPP Response: The data presented in revised Exhibits 5.4.a and 6.4.h will be able
to be validated via our schedule of classes and via the GoEd system.
3. How does the unit assure appropriate PK-12 experiences and qualifications
for clinical faculty and adjunct faculty? EPP Response: The BOE team will be able to make use of the revised Exhibit 5.4.a
and our GoEd system to validate the qualifications of clinical and adjunct
faculty. The adjunct faculty will be available for interviews on the evening of
March 1. Resumes of all faculty members are also available in our GoEd system.
4. What are the qualifications for EPP faculty teaching courses outside of their
documented areas of scholarship? EPP Response: The team will have the opportunity to validate the data
presented in Exhibit 6.4.h and review course assignments in order to confirm
faculty not teaching outside of their documented areas of scholarship.
5. What scholarship have professional education faculty undertaken in the past
three years? EPP Response: The BOE team will be able to make use of the revised Exhibit 5.4.a
and our GoEd system to validate the data presented on faculty scholarship.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 30
6. What performance data can the unit share to verify evaluations for
professional faculty, clinical faculty and adjunct Faculty? EPP Response: Sample evaluations will be available onsite so that the BOE team
can validate the evaluation process.
7. What P-12 teaching experiences or licensures are held by EPP faculty? EPP Response: The BOE team will be able to make use of the revised Exhibit 5.4.a
and our GoEd system to validate the teaching experiences and licenses of the
EPP faculty. The team will be able to interview the faculty on the evening of
March 1 and on March 2. Also, CVs are available via the GoEd system.
8. What, if any professional development has been provided in the areas of
educational technology in partner districts? EPP Response: Cooperating teachers receive ongoing professional
development to support the mentoring of student teachers and interns. Also,
local teaching faculty are invited to events on campus, including the Larissa
Gerstel Critical Literacy Symposium, the Healthy School Act Conference, the
Bilingual Education / Heritage Language conference, and other events.
Information about the events and attendees will be available onsite.
9. How do EPP faculty modeling a variety of instructional methods? EPP Response: All faculty members are evaluated on the use of a variety of
instructional methods through the Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET). The SET
form is available in new Exhibit 5.4.f. Faculty members are also observed in their
teaching, and a sample of our faculty teaching observation form is available in
the new Exhibit 5.4.f. In addition, the BOE team will have access to syllabi
through GoEd and are able to interview faculty on the evening of March 1 and
during the day on March 2. The team will also be able to visit any course to
observe the use of a variety of teaching methods.
10. How do EPP faculty aligning instructional strategies and expectations to
prepare candidates for employment in a variety state policies and school
settings? EPP Response: The BOE team will be able to evaluate how syllabi include
instructional strategies that align to in a variety state policies and school settings.
This can be further validated when interviewing faculty during the visit.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 31
11. What are some examples of professional development undertaken by
adjunct faculty? EPP Response: The BOE team will be able review the professional development
opportunities undertaken by adjunct faculty during the onsite visit.
12. What are the criteria for selection of P-12 faculty used for field experiences
and mentoring of student teachers or internships? EPP Response: The BOE team will be able to validate the criteria used in Exhibit
3.4.c during interviews of cooperating teachers.
13. How does the unit ensure that professional development is related to faculty
evaluations? EPP Response: The BOE team will be able to validate during the onsite visit the
alignment between faculty evaluations and the professional development
activities. Interviews with faculty on March 1 and 2 may also assist in the
validation of this item.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 32
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.
6.3 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs)
6.3.b What AFIs are continued from last visit?
AFI Number & Text
Apply to
AFI Rationale
1. The unit has limited evidence
Insufficient evidence was presented
that unit governance groups,
to merit the removal of this AFI. The
councils, and committees
ITP
IR states that meetings take place
identified in the unit’s Bylaws
but provided limited examples of
take formal action on matters
formal actions taken.
that fall under their stated areas
of responsibility.
EPP Response: Documentation from the actions taken by committees listed in
the SETH bylaws can be found in the minutes from meetings, faculty actions by
the Rank and Tenure, Teacher Education, and Curriculum Committees. These
include actions ranging from promotion and tenure to a formal structural and
budgetary action to our design of “supervisor leads” and “methods leads”
positions.
2. The formal process in place
does not assure that changes to
Insufficient evidence was presented
College of Arts and Sciences
to merit the removal of this AFI. The
(CAS) courses, which affect the
IR says that meetings take place but
ITP
curriculum of teacher
it is not clear if SETH has appropriate
preparation programs in the unit,
autonomy from the CAS to make
are made with the authority of
programmatic decisions necessary.
the unit.
EPP Response: Evidence of the EPP autonomy and authority is present. For
example, curriculum changes made include the development of the bilingual
education program and changes to the catalog to require the Praxis Core.
Documentation of EPC’s process for looking at effect on SETH curriculum can be
found in the College’s templates for Minor and Major changes, which require
the unit proposing the change to describe “affects” on other unit). In addition,
the Colleges’ EPC Committee Chair and Dean of Arts and Sciences have
recommended a policy change to have SETH hold a permanent membership
on the EPC.
3. The unit lacks an official
Insufficient evidence was presented
avenue whereby members of
to merit removal of this AFI. Aside
the professional educational
ITP
from surveys and data, limited or no
community participate in
information was provided regarding
program design,
the role of community participants
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 33
AFI Number & Text
implementation, and evaluation
of the unit and its programs.
Apply to
AFI Rationale
and P-12 collaborators in program
design, implementation and
evaluation.
EPP Response: The unit makes use of cooperating teacher surveys, and there is a
key role of district personnel in making placement decisions. This will be
validated during interviews and in Exhibit 3.4.a.
6.4 Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard
1. There is a lack of evidence regarding involvement of P-12 practitioners and
other members of the professional community in program design,
implementation and evaluation of unit programs.
Rationale: This is different from the AFI in that it goes further than stating that an
avenue/mechanism does not exist and questions whether sufficient
participation takes place with all stakeholders.
EPP Response: The involvement of the P-12 community and the professional
community (which includes full-time and part-time faculty in SETH, faculty in
other units of the college/university, clinical faculty supervisors, supervisor leads,
method leads, cooperating teachers, partner school leaders, candidates and
program alumni and others involved in professional education) are valuable to
the professional education program. In particular, the cooperating teachers
and intern supervisors in our teacher education programs play a key role in the
development, implementation and evaluation of candidates, program
assessments, and program design. For example, teachers from The Lab School
provide recommendations on the structure of observations of interns (special
education student teachers) and those recommendations are used in the
program each year. A number of adjunct faculty and clinical supervisors are
also members of the P-12 community and are members of program review
committees and work directly with candidates.
The members of the EPP faculty (full and part-time) are the authors of the
program assessments, and are deeply involved in the implementation and
evaluation of the EPP’s programs and candidates. Members of the faculty in the
College of Arts and Sciences are also key members of the program
implementation as they assist us in the design and evaluation of our programs
(such as the role of the faculty of the department of Mathematics and Statistics
in the design and delivery of our Math for America program).
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 34
Candidates also play a role in the design and evaluation of our programs given
the feedback we receive from them in exit interviews and in their final
professional teaching portfolios. Documentation of these activities is evidenced
in Exhibit 2.4.a Assessments and Unit Operations in our processes and
procedures and will be available for review onsite.
2. The level of unit resources for professional development and scholarship
opportunities, aside from technology is unclear. This includes collaborative
work in P-12 schools.
Rationale: The unit states in the IR that opportunities exist for technology
training, professional development, and scholarship but limited examples
were provided that definitively demonstrate examples. Additionally, very few,
if any, examples of collaborative P-12 work was provided.
EPP Response: The unit provides significant professional development
opportunities to both fulltime and adjunct faculty, including clinical
supervisors. Examples of professional development activities and collaborative
work with the P-12 community are documented in faculty evaluations and will
be available onsite. Professional development is also informed by faculty
evaluations, as described in Exhibit 5.4.f. Faculty Evaluation Systems for PD. In
addition, the adjunct faculty at American University are members of a union
(Service Employees International Union, Local 500) which mandates that
adjunct faculty have access to regular evaluations and a professional
development fund. The union contract can be found here. Examples of
professional development activities for full-time and adjunct faculty will be
available onsite.
6.5 Evidence for the BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
1. What specific examples presented in the IR and beyond that demonstrate a
clear level of authority and autonomy of the unit that is sufficient to remove
the AFI? EPP Response: During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be able to validate
that the EPP has the autonomy to administer field experiences, programs and
program administration within the EPP’s authority. Team members will be able
to review procedures for field placements with Amy Simonsen, Field
Placement Coordinator, meet with the SETH Curriculum Committee members,
and meet with Peter Starr, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and
Ximena Varela, Chair of the College of Arts and Science’s Education Policy
Committee (EPC) who will be able to describe the process of curricular
changes to exemplify the authority and autonomy of the EPP.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 35
2. What specific examples of P-12 and community collaboration and
mechanisms for that collaboration related to program design,
implementation, and evaluation are presented? EPP Response: The results of the involvement of the P-12 community can be
validated through interviews with stakeholders and through review of our
procedural documents, such as the Student Teaching Handbook. As an
example, we will provide notes from meetings with cooperating teachers
where these stakeholders designed and shared feedback systems for interns.
3. What are the data driven decisions made related to stakeholder
participation and surveys mentioned in IR 6.3.3 explanation of AFI #3 and
how do they improve the program? EPP Response: During the onsite visit, the BOE will be able to review examples
of the assessments listed in Exhibit 3.4.f and how recommendations from
stakeholders are used to improve programs.
4. Is there a clear breakdown of scholarship, professional development and
engagement of P-12 collaboration? EPP Response: The EPP will be able to interview faculty and members of our
P-12 community to discuss the engagement as it relates to scholarship and
professional development.
5. How do budget totals compare to comparable units and what evidence
proves budget adequacy? EPP Response: During the on-site visit, the team members can meet with
Gamze Zeytinci, Associate Dean for Budget in the College of Arts and
Sciences. She is able to provide comparative budgets for programs and
personnel to support the activities of the EPP.
6. What are concrete examples of community involvement and changes
related to program design, implementation and evaluation? EPP Response: The BOE team will have access to examples of community
involvement and changes related to program design, implementation and
evaluation in Exhibit 2.4.a Examples of Data Use for Improvement and which
can be validated during the onsite visit through interviews.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 36
7. What formal actions were taken by governance groups, councils, and
committees?
EPP Response: The BOE team will be able the validate the curricular changes
approved by the EPC, outcomes of Rank and Tenure decisions, and other
actions during the onsite visit such as the creation of supervisor, clinical, and
methods leads.
8. How do formal processes assure appropriate autonomy that provides the unit
authority to function and change according to unit needs? EPP Response: During the onsite visit, the BOE team will be able to validate
the degree to which the unit has the autonomy to manage the activities
related to the day to day function of the unit and the policies and
procedures we follow to complete those activities.
9. What governance and advisory committees exist, and what are their charges
and membership? Is membership of any of these groups inclusive of the P12 community? How
often do they meet? EPP Response: The BOE team will have the opportunity to review our Bylaws
and committee membership presented in the self-study as Exhibit 6.4.a,
meet with members of the SETH Curriculum Committee and also with the
chair of the College of Arts and Sciences EPC committee to discuss oversight
of our curriculum.
10. What evidence can be used to verify meetings of governance and advisory
committees over
the past three years through at least spring 2014? EPP Response: The BOE team will be able to validate evidence of changes
to curriculum, Rank and Tenure decisions, and program changes through
review of meeting agendas, meeting notes, committee memos and
recommendations, and the university catalog.
NCATE/CAEP Self-Study Report Addendum – American University 2-13-15
Page 37