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