Updated February 2010
Program Report for the
Preparation of Reading Education Professionals
International Reading Association (IRA)
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION
COVER SHEET
Institution:
Longwood University
State: Virginia
Date submitted: March, 2010
Name of Preparer: Jeannine R. Perry
Phone # 434-395-2469
Email: perryjr@longwood.edu
Program documented in this report:
Name of institution’s program (s):
Literacy & Culture
Grade levels for which candidates are being prepared:
PreK-12
Degree or award level: Master of Science
Is this program offered at more than one site? □ Yes
x No
If yes, list the sites at which the program is offered
Title of the state license for which candidates are prepared
Reading Specialist
Program report status:
X Initial Review
 Response to a Not Recognized Decision
 Response to National Recognition With Conditions
 Response to a Deferred Decision
Program Report Template—IRA
1
Updated February 2008
State licensure requirement for national recognition:
NCATE requires 80% of the program completers who have taken the test to pass the applicable state licensure test for the content
field, if the state has a testing requirement. Test information and data must be reported in Section III. Does your state require such
a test?
x Yes
□ No
2
Program Report Template--IRA
Updated February 2008
GENERAL DIRECTIONS
To complete a program report, institutions must provide evidence of meeting IRA standards based on data from 6-8 assessments. In their
entirety, the assessments and data required for submission in this report will answer the following questions:





Have candidates mastered the necessary knowledge for the subjects they will teach or the jobs they will perform?
Do candidates meet state licensure requirements?
Do candidates understand teaching and learning and can they plan their teaching or fulfill other professional education responsibilities?
Can candidates apply their knowledge in classrooms and schools?
Do candidates focus on student learning?
To that end, the program report form includes the following sections:
Section I. Context (See each question for character limit)
Provide general information on the program as specified by the directions for this section. Please attach a copy of the program of study and one
(if possible) attachment containing any charts, graphs, or tables.
Section II. List of Assessments (completion of chart)
Using the chart included in this report form, indicate the name, type, and administration point for each of the 6-8 assessments documented in this
report. (Note that Section IV of the report form lists examples of assessments that may be appropriate for each type of assessment that must be
documented in the program report.)
Section III. Relationship of Assessments to Standards (completion of chart)
Using the chart included in this report form, indicate which of the assessments listed in Section II provide evidence of meeting specific program
standards.
Section IV. Evidence for Meeting Standards (attachments of the assessment, scoring guide/criteria, and data tables plus a 2-page maximum
narrative for each of the 6-8 assessments)
Attach assessment documentation plus a narrative statement for each assessment as specified by the directions for this section. For each
assessment attach one (if possible) attachment that includes the 2-page narrative, assessment, scoring guide, and data table(s).
Section V. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance (12,000- character maximum narrative)
Describe how faculty are using the data from assessments to improve candidate performance and the program, as it relates to content
knowledge; pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions; and student learning.
Section VI. For Revised Reports Only
Program Report Template—IRA
3
Updated February 2008
Describe what changes or additions have been made in the report to address the standards that were not met in the original submission. List the
sections of the report you are resubmitting and the changes that have been made. Specific instructions for preparing a revised report are
available on the NCATE web site at http://www.ncate.org/institutions/process.asp?ch=4.
Format and page limits for narrative sections and attachments:
Narrative: Sections I, IV, and V include narrative sections based on specific directions and character limits. Character limits are based on singlespaced text using 12-point type.
Attachments: Sections I and IV include attachments. In general, attachments should be no longer than the equivalent of five text pages.
NOTE: The report should contain no more than 20 attachments.
 NCATE staff may require institutions to revise reports that do not follow directions on format and page limits. In addition, hyperlinks imbedded
in report documentation will not be read by reviewers and cannot be used as a means of providing additional information.
______________________________________________________
Program report information on the web: http://www.ncate.org/institutions/process.asp?ch=10.
To download report forms: http://www.ncate.org/institutions/programStandards.asp?ch=4.
Specific Instructions for IRA
Who Should Submit Program Reports:
 Graduate reading and/or literacy programs that lead to a Master’s degree. Programs must have a minimum of 24 credit hours
in reading and/or literacy and include an additional minimum of six credit hours of supervised clinical practica experiences.
Thus, Master’s programs in reading and/or literacy must have a minimum of 30 credit hours.
 Graduate programs that lead to a reading endorsement. Programs must have a minimum of 24 credits in reading and/or
literacy and include an additional minimum of six credits of supervised clinical practica experiences. Thus, graduate programs
that lead to a reading endorsement must have a minimum of 30 credit hours. If your program Course of Study does not
clearly identify six practica credits, but there is another course – or courses – that focus on supervised assessment and/or
teaching case studies or tutorials, you should explain how you meet this requirement in the context section. Supervision can
include personal observations, audio and/or videotaping, and feedback to written reports. Integrating field experiences into
multiple courses DOES NOT meet this requirement.
IRA National Recognition Decision Rules:
In order to gain national recognition, programs must meet all five standards. Not all components within an element need to
be addressed to meet the element.
Additional Assessment Types (beyond the first 6 required types) required by IRA:
4
Program Report Template--IRA
Updated February 2008
None. It is up to the institution to decide if it wants to submit 1-2 optional assessments to demonstrate how standards and
elements are being met.
It is strongly recommended that institutions submit assessments from a variety of courses that take place at various stages of
the program — from more than one transition point and course.
Other specific information required by IRA only:
In Section 1, Attachment A (Course of Study) institutions must provide documentation that the program includes:
 A minimum of 24 graduate level credit hours in reading and language arts and related courses
 An additional six credit hours of supervised clinical practica experiences (with explanation in the context section when
this information is not clear in the Course of Study.)
In states where institutions have two programs, such as B-6 and 5-12, separate program reports must be submitted for each
program — even if candidates take identical course work. Data analysis must focus on candidate performance at the specific
certification level.
Will this SPA accept grades:
All SPAs will accept course grades as one of the 6 to 8 key assessments. Instructions for documenting course grades has
been standardized for all SPAs. These instructions are on the NCATE web site on the Program Resources page at the
following URL:
http://www.ncate.org/institutions/resourcesNewPgm.asp?ch=90
Programs must address the 2003 standards and elements at the reading specialist/literacy coach level. These
standards and elements are delineated in the IRA publication Standards for Reading Professionals: Revised 2003
that is available for purchase at www.reading.org.
Other resources, including models of assessments and scoring guides, are available on the IRA web site at
http://www.reading.org/resources/community/ncate.html
Program Report Template—IRA
5
Updated February 2008
SECTION I—CONTEXT
Provide the following contextual information:
1. Description of any state or institutional policies that may influence the application of IRA standards. [Response limited to 4000
characters]
No University policies influence the application of the IRA standards.
According to the Regulations Governing the Review and Approval of Education Programs in Virginia-section 8VAC20-542-20,
effective September 21, 2007, each professional education program in Virginia is required to obtain and maintain national
accreditation. Programs preparing literacy specialists for Pre-K licensure in Virginia must ensure that candidates demonstrate the
following competencies—section 8VAC20-542-550:
1. Assessment and diagnostic teaching. The candidate shall:
6
Program Report Template--IRA
Updated February 2008
a. Demonstrate expertise in the use of formal and informal screening, diagnostic and progress monitoring assessment for language
proficiency, concepts of print, phoneme awareness, letter recognition, decoding, fluency, vocabulary, reading levels,
comprehension; and
b. Demonstrate expertise in the ability to use diagnostic data to tailor instruction for acceleration, intervention, remediation, and
flexible skill-level groupings.
2. Oral communication. The candidate shall:
a. Demonstrate expertise in the knowledge, skills, and processes necessary for teaching oral language (speaking and listening);
b. Demonstrate expertise in developing students' phonological awareness skills;
c. Demonstrate effective strategies for facilitating the learning of standard English by speakers of other languages and dialects;
d. Demonstrate an understanding of the unique needs of students with language differences and delays; and
e. Demonstrate the ability to promote creative thinking and expression, as through storytelling, drama, choral/oral reading, etc.
3. Reading/literature. The candidate shall:
a. Demonstrate expertise in explicit phonics instruction, including an understanding of sound/symbol relationships, syllables,
phonemes, morphemes, decoding skills, and word attack skills;
b. Demonstrate expertise in the morphology of English including inflections, prefixes, suffixes, roots, and word relationships;
c. Demonstrate expertise in strategies to increase vocabulary;
d. Demonstrate expertise in the structure of the English language, including and understanding of syntax, semantics, and
vocabulary development;
e. Demonstrate expertise in reading comprehension strategies, including a repertoire of questioning strategies, understanding the
dimensions of word meanings, teaching predicting, summarizing, clarifying, and associating the unknown with what is known;
f. Demonstrate expertise in the ability to teach strategies in literal, interpretive, critical, and evaluative comprehension;
g. Demonstrate the ability to develop comprehension skills in all content areas;
h. Demonstrate the ability to foster appreciation of a variety of literature; and
i. Understand the importance of promoting independent reading and reading reflectively by selecting quality literature, including
fiction and nonfiction, at appropriate reading levels.
4. Writing. The candidate shall:
a. Demonstrate expertise in the knowledge, skills, and processes necessary for teaching writing, including the domains of
composing, written expression, and usage and mechanics and the writing process of planning, drafting, revising, editing, and
sharing;
b. Demonstrate expertise in systematic spelling instruction, including awareness of the purpose and limitations of "invented
spelling," orthographic patterns, and strategies for promoting generalization of spelling study to writing; and
Program Report Template—IRA
7
Updated February 2008
c. Demonstrate expertise to teach the writing process: plan draft, revise, edit,
and share in the narrative, descriptive, and explanative modes.
5. Technology. The candidate shall demonstrate expertise in their use of technology for both process and product as they work to
guide students with reading, writing, and research.
6. Leadership and specialization. The candidate shall:
a. Demonstrate an understanding of child psychology, including personality and learning behaviors;
b. Demonstrate an understanding of the needs of high achieving students and of strategies to challenge them at appropriate levels;
c. Demonstrate an understanding of the significance of cultural contexts upon language;
d. Demonstrate an understanding of varying degrees of learning disabilities;
e. Demonstrate expertise with educational measurement and evaluation including validity, reliability, and normative comparisons
in test design and selections;
f. Demonstrate expertise to interpret grade equivalents, percentile ranks, normal curve equivalents, and standards scores;
g. Demonstrate the ability to instruct and advise teachers in the skills necessary to differentiate reading instruction for both low
and high achieving readers;
h. Demonstrate the ability to organize and supervise the reading program within the classroom, school, or division;
i. Demonstrate effective communication skills in working with a variety of groups, including parents, teachers, administrators,
community leaders, etc.; and
j. Demonstrate knowledge of current research and exemplary practices in English/reading.
These competencies align with those of the International Reading Association (IRA) Standards for Reading Professionals (Rev.
2003) for Reading Specialist / Literacy Coach Candidates.
Additionally, Licensure for School Personnel---section 8VAC20-22-620, effective September 21, 2007, present the following
endorsement requirements for Reading Specialist Endorsement:
The candidate must have completed an approved graduate-level reading specialist approved preparation program (master's degree
required) that includes course experiences of at least 30 semester hours of graduate coursework in the competencies for the
endorsement, as well as a practicum experience in the diagnosis and remediation of reading difficulties. The individual also must
have at least three years of successful classroom teaching experience in which the teaching of reading was an important
responsibility.
2. Description of the field and clinical experiences required for the program, including the number of hours for early field
experiences and the number of hours/weeks for student teaching or internships. [Response limited to 8000 characters]
8
Program Report Template--IRA
Updated February 2008
Each course in the program has field based requirements including lesson delivery, case studies, observations of students and/or
teachers, interviews and other assignments that require time in the educational environment.
Candidates enrolled in the graduate program in Literacy and Culture are also required to take three separate courses that are
specifically field based. The curriculum centers around a three tiered arrangement that is sequential in nature.
The first tier includes EDUC 526: Classroom Based Literacy Assessment (3 credits), whereby candidates are given a thorough
grounding in literacy assessment in preparation for EDUC 626: Practicum I - Analysis & Instruction in Literacy (3 credits). In EDUC
526, candidates learn the criteria for selecting and administrating assessment instruments. Based on the information obtained from the
assessments, candidates learn how to interpret and evaluate these scores. They are given numerous examples of case studies and
learn how to approach the diagnosis logically. Ideally, candidates work with the student they will instruct during the EDUC 626
Practicum I experience.
As the second tier of specific field experience, EDUC 626: Practicum I - Analysis & Instruction in Literacy (3 credits) requires a
minimum of 30 clock hours working with an individual student who has special needs in literacy. At this point, candidates are well
versed in diagnosis and remediation and have the background needed to implement the information in a practicum. Candidates
conduct a thorough diagnosis of a child and develop a remediation plan based on their findings. Throughout this process, the
candidates meet with their supervising faculty member in their class settings to discuss and interpret their test results and to brainstorm
alternative pathways to success. Additionally, during Practicum I, the university instructor visits each candidate in their current
classroom setting for guidance, constructive feedback, and support. An extensive case study is the final outcome of this practicum
experience.
The third tier incorporates EDUC 646, Practicum II - Leadership in Literacy (3 credits) in conjunction with EDUC 645 Developing
Leaders in Literacy (3 credits). In recognition of the growing need for coaching and leadership skills in the field of literacy education,
in addition to those required for diagnosis and remediation, this practicum and course focus on multiple leadership aspects.
Candidates build on their knowledge base to evaluate school-wide diagnostic data as well as discuss how to support classroom
teachers and paraprofessionals in areas such as instructional approaches, curriculum materials, assessment instruments, grouping
practices, and technology and effective professional development. In Practicum II, candidates spent a minimum of 15 clock hours in a
school setting. A professional portfolio, documenting the candidates’ demonstration of all IRA standards and program objectives, is
the final outcome of this practicum experience.
Three faculty members and one adjunct in the graduate Literacy program teach these courses serving as instructors, mentors, and
supervisors. In addition to face-to-face interaction, technology is used to provide an alternative venue for reflection, discussion,
feedback and response.
Program Report Template—IRA
9
Updated February 2008
3. Description of the criteria for admission, retention, and exit from the program, including required GPAs and minimum grade
requirements for the content courses accepted by the program. [Response limited to 4000 characters]
Admission:
Admission to the literacy and culture graduate program is based on the following criteria, which are the standard criteria for
admission to graduate study at Longwood University (From http://www.longwood.edu/graduatestudies/application.shtml ):





Graduate of a four-year regionally accredited college or university.
A minimum, overall undergraduate GPA of 2.75 (on a 4.0 scale) OR a minimum mean score on 2 out of 3 parts (verbal,
quantitative, analytical writing) of the General GRE test OR a GPA of 3.5 on 6 hours of Longwood graduate courses that are
part of the degree program to which the applicant is applying taken as a non-degree registrant within the last 12 months.
500 word or more personal essay in which you discuss your reasons for seeking graduate education.
Two recommendations related to your competence and effectiveness in your academic and professional work.
Valid Virginia teaching license or equivalent from another state, if applying to one of the Education degree or licensure
programs that require a teaching license as a prerequisite. .
In addition to these standard criteria, applicants are required to have a minimum of two years teaching experience under a full-time
teaching contract and the capacity to work directly with students in an educational setting as they proceed through the program.
Admission to the literacy and culture licensure [endorsement only] program has the additional requirements that the applicant hold
a Master’s degree and three years teaching experience in which reading education was a responsibility under a full-time teaching
contract.
Retention:
Candidates in the program must abide by the academic regulations established for graduate education by the University regarding
academic warning and dismissal (From http://www.longwood.edu/graduatestudies/catalog2007/Regulations.htm )
At the end of each semester, the Office of Graduate and Extended Studies will review the cumulative grade point average (GPA) of all
degree-seeking and licensure graduate students and will identify those students whose cumulative GPA has fallen below 3.0 after a
minimum of six graduate credit hours. Students whose cumulative GPA falls below 3.0 will be sent a letter advising them that they
have been placed on academic warning and have until the end of the next term (in which they are enrolled in graduate classes at
Longwood) to raise their cumulative GPA to a 3.0 or higher. Failure to raise the cumulative GPA to a 3.0 or higher will result in the
student’s dismissal from the Longwood graduate program. Under extenuating circumstances, appeals for exceptions to this academic
10
Program Report Template--IRA
Updated February 2008
policy may be presented to the Graduate Faculty Petitions Committee. Students must contact the Office of Graduate and Extended
Studies for information and deadlines for submitting an appeal.
Exit from the Program:
Candidates in the program must abide by the academic regulations established for graduate education by the University regarding
program completion (From http://www.longwood.edu/graduatestudies/catalog2007/Regulations.htm )
Graduate Licensure track:
1. Maintain a minimum cumulative grade point average of 3.0.
2. File an Application for Graduate Licensure no later than the completion of 21 credit hours and prior to enrollment in the final
semester of course work. (Applications are available in the Office of Graduate and Extended Studies.)
3. Complete the number of credit hours required for a specific licensure program (24).
4. Complete all program licensure requirements within five years from the term of Admission.
Master of Science in Education track:
1. Maintain a minimum cumulative grade point average of 3.0.
2. File an Application for Graduate Degree no later than the completion of 24 credit hours and prior to enrollment in the final
semester of course work. (Applications are available in the Office of Graduate and Extended Studies.)
3. Complete the number of credit hours required for a specific degree program (36).
4. Complete the comprehensive examination.
5. Complete all program requirements within five years from the term of admission.
4. Description of the relationship1 of the program to the unit’s conceptual framework. [Response limited to 4000 characters]
Our goal is to prepare Reading Specialist/ Literacy Coach candidates who developed a solid foundational knowledge in Literacy, as
well as the ability to use a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, methods, and curriculum materials to support literacy
instruction. We feel every literacy teacher candidate should have the ability to use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan
and evaluate effective literacy instruction, be able to create a literate environment, and understand the importance of professional
development.
The following presents Longwood University’s conceptual framework and aligns these standards with those of the IRA. The course
1
The response should describe the program’s conceptual framework and indicate how it reflects the unit’s conceptual framework
Program Report Template—IRA
11
Updated February 2008
work in which these standards are specifically addresses are then presented.
Longwood University Conceptual Framework Standards
Correlated Program Courses
1. Content Knowledge LU Educational Professionals possess an extensive working knowledge
of the content of their profession and are able to deliver or assist in delivery of content in a
manner that is consistent with best professional practices and that positively impacts student
learning.
2. Planning LU Educational Professionals possess the ability to develop individual and group
outcomes using appropriate techniques, strategies, technology, and available resources to meet
state standards, other educational goals, and student needs.
3. Learning Climate LU Education Professionals are able to create for all students a positive
and supportive environment that is conducive to learning, developmentally appropriate, and
encourages mutual cooperation and respect.
EDUC 518, EDUC 531, EDUC
524, EDUC 525, EDUC 526,
EDUC 527, EDUC 626
4. Implementation/Management LU Education Professionals design and use effective
strategies that motivate students to have high expectations while encouraging critical thinking
and creative problem solving.
EDUC 518, EDUC 524, EDUC
525, EDUC 527, EDUC 530
5. Evaluation /Assessment LU Education Professionals use a variety of appropriate appraisal
and evaluation methods to assess student learning and growth and to evaluate and improve on
their professional practices.
EDUC 524, EDUC 526, EDUC
527, EDUC 626, EDUC 646
6. Communication LU Education Professionals possess the ability to communicate in a variety
of contexts and with a variety of audiences, including students, parents, colleagues, and
administrators, and value such communication as a means to provide opportunities for all
students to grow and develop to their fullest potential.
EDUC 518, EDUC 520, EDUC
531, EDUC 626,
EDUC 645, EDUC 646
7. Technology LU Education Professionals utilize appropriate media, technology, and available
resources for planning and implementing instruction, assessing and communicating learning
results, and engaging students in instruction.
EDUC 524, EDUC 525, EDUC
526, EDUC 527, EDUC 531,
12
Program Report Template--IRA
EDUC 524, EDUC 525, EDUC
526, EDUC 527,
EDUC 530, EDUC 626
EDUC 518, EDUC 520, EDUC
524, EDUC 525, EDUC 527,
EDUC 645
Updated February 2008
EDUC 626, EDUC 646
8. Diversity LU Education Professionals value diversity as an opportunity to enhance the
learning of all students. They are deliberate in using what each child brings to the learning
situation and facilitating learning experiences crafted to each student’s learning needs. They also
challenge students to reflect upon and transform their own beliefs about a diverse society as well
as to challenge stereotypes and negative assumptions about diverse cultures, languages,
economic resources, and abilities.
EDUC 520, EDUC 525, EDUC
524, EDUC 527, EDUC 626
9. Professional Development LU Education Professionals demonstrate dispositions associated
with the profession by their valuing of learning, personal integrity, diversity, collaboration, and
professionalism.
EDUC 645
EDUC 646
Candidates graduate from Longwood’s Literacy and Culture program with an extensive working knowledge of the content of literacy
evaluation and instruction and are able to positively impact student learning in their schools. Throughout their coursework and
practicum experience, they develop the skills to assess individual student literacy development, plan effectively for instruction,
provide a positive and supportive literacy learning environment, promote reading comprehension as well as critical thinking and
problem solving, evaluate and assess the effectiveness of programs, instruction, and their own professional practice, communicate
effectively with colleagues, serve in a teacher-leadership capacity to promote effective literacy instructional practices, utilize
technology productively and efficiently, value and respect diversity, and demonstrate that they value learning, collaboration, and
professionalism.
5. Indication of whether the program has a unique set of program assessments and their relationship of the program’s assessments
to the unit’s assessment system2. [Response limited to 4000 characters]
Program assessments are listed below.
1. Virginia Reading Assessment
2
This response should clarify how the key assessments used in the program are derived from or informed by the assessment system that the unit will address
under NCATE Standard 2.
Program Report Template—IRA
13
Updated February 2008
2. Child Study
3. Lesson Plans
4. Clinical Experience
5. Professional Portfolio
6. Hall of Fame
The program’s assessments relate to the unit assessment system in that they reflect the unit’s conceptual framework, in that they
incorporate candidate proficiencies as outlined in national and state standards, and in that they allow the unit to monitor candidate
performance.
6. The On-line PRS system will not permit you to include tables or graphics in text fields. Therefore any tables or charts must be
attached as files. The title of the file should clearly indicate its content. Word documents, .pdf files, and other commonly used file
formats are acceptable. The system will not accept .docx files. [In PRS you will be able to attach files here]
For this draft, tables and charts are included. They will be submitted as separate files as required by the online submission
system.
7. Please attach files to describe a program of study that outlines the courses and experiences required for candidates to complete
the program. The program of study must include course titles. [This information may be provided as an attachment from the
college catalog (not the complete catalog) or as a student advisement sheet.]
Files will be attached as requested at the time of report submission to NCATE but, for now, are embedded as follows from the
Longwood University Graduate Catalog, (http://www.longwood.edu/graduatestudies/catalog2007/EDUC.htm):
14
Program Report Template--IRA
Updated February 2008
LITERACY AND CULTURE Master of Science in Education
The concentration in Literacy and Culture is designed for teachers who wish to: (a) upgrade their knowledge and skills for teaching literacy in the PreK-12
classroom; (b) be an instructional specialist; and/or (c) work
in alternative support programs. The program follows both the Standards for Reading Professionals published by the International Reading Association (IRA)
and endorsed by the accreditation agency NCATE, as well as the Virginia Department of Education Licensure Regulations for School Personnel. Upon
successful completion of this 36 hour program, a Master of Science in Education and eligibility to receive an endorsement as a Reading Specialist/Coach PreK12 will be earned. This degree provides teachers the opportunity to investigate research-based theories in reading and writing, put theory into effective practice,
and examine how culture impacts literacy teaching and learning. The goal of this program is to produce competent teacher-leaders able to teach reading and
writing across the curriculum within the parameters of research-based literacy techniques and assessments.
Students entering this program must possess a valid Virginia Collegiate Professional License or equivalent from another state. Applicants must also have a
minimum of two years teaching experience under a full-time teaching contract and the capacity to work directly with students in an educational setting as they
proceed through the program. Interested applicants with less than two years teaching experience may contact the program coordinator to discuss options.
NOTE: All applicants must meet with the program coordinator and create a course completion plan upon being admitted to the program.
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
EDUC 518 Teaching the Writing Process K-8 (3)
EDUC 520 Literacy Development and Cultural Awareness (3)
EDUC 524 Emergent and Early Literacy Instruction (3)
EDUC 525 Intermediate to Middle School Literacy Instruction (3)
EDUC 526 Evaluation of Literacy (3)
EDUC 527 Strategies for Students who Struggle with Literacy (3)
EDUC 530 Teaching Reading in the Content Area (3)
EDUC 531 Literacy Education: History and Issues (3)
EDUC 626 Practicum I: Analysis & Instruction in Literacy (3)
EDUC 645 Developing Leaders in Literacy ( (3)
EDUC 646 Practicum II: Leadership in Literacy (3)
EDUC 699 Comprehensive Examination (0)
ELECTIVE COURSE (3) Select one course from the following:
EDUC 502 Research Design (3)
EDUC 529 Teaching Comprehension Strategies (3)
EDSL 520 Library Resources for Children (3)
EDSL 530 Library Resources for Young Adults (3)
SPED 515 Survey of Exceptional Students (3)
SPED 520 Language Development and Disorders (3)
OR another three-credit course approved by the advisor
TOTAL HOURS REQUIRED 36
Program Report Template—IRA
15
Updated February 2008
LITERACY AND CULTURE LICENSURE (Endorsement as Reading Specialist/Coach)
The Reading Specialist/Coach licensure program is designed for teachers who have a Master’s degree, a valid Virginia Postgraduate Professional teaching license
or equivalent from another state, and at least three years of successful teaching experience in which reading education was a responsibility under a full-time
teaching contract. This program provides teachers the opportunity to investigate research-based theories in reading and writing, put theory into effective practice,
and examine how culture impacts teaching and learning. The goal of this program is to produce competent teacher-leaders able to teach reading and writing
across the curriculum within the parameters of research-based literacy techniques and assessments. Admission to this licensure program is on the same basis as
admission to the graduate degree program in Literacy and Culture at Longwood University.
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
EDUC 518 Teaching the Writing Process K-8 (3)
EDUC 524 Emergent and Early Literacy Instruction (3)
EDUC 526 Evaluation of Literacy (3)
EDUC 527 Strategies for Students who Struggle with Literacy (3)
EDUC 626 Practicum I: Analysis & Instruction in Literacy (3)
EDUC 645 Developing Leaders in Literacy ( (3)
EDUC 646 Practicum II: Leadership in Literacy (3)
ELECTIVE COURSE (3) Select one course from the following:
EDUC 520 Literacy Development & Cultural Awareness (3)
EDUC 525 Intermediate to Middle School Literacy Instruction (3)
EDUC 529 Teaching Comprehension Strategies (3)
EDUC 530 Teaching Reading in the Content Area (3)
EDUC 531 Literacy Education: History and Issues (3)
OR another three-credit course approved by the advisor
TOTAL HOURS REQUIRED 24
8. Candidate Information
Directions: Provide three years of data on candidates enrolled in the program and completing the program, beginning with the
most recent academic year for which numbers have been tabulated. Report the data separately for the levels/tracks (e.g.,
baccalaureate, post-baccalaureate, alternate routes, master's, doctorate) being addressed in this report. Data must also be
reported separately for programs offered at multiple sites. Update academic years (column 1) as appropriate for your data span.
[A copy of the Candidate and Completers chart is included as Attachment A at the end of this document.]
16
Program Report Template--IRA
Updated February 2008
9. Faculty Information
Directions: Complete the following information for each faculty member responsible for professional coursework, clinical
supervision, or administration in this program. [A copy of the Faculty chart is included as Attachment B at the end of this
document.]
Program Report Template—IRA
17
Updated February 2008
SECTION II— LIST OF ASSESSMENTS
In this section, list the 6-8 assessments that are being submitted as evidence for meeting the IRA standards. All programs must
provide a minimum of six assessments. If your state does not require a state licensure test in the content area, you must substitute
an assessment that documents candidate attainment of content knowledge in #1 below. For each assessment, indicate the type or
form of the assessment and when it is administered in the program.
Name of Assessment3
1
Type or
Form of Assessment4
State Test Multiple Choice & Essay
State Established Pass Score
When the Assessment
Is Administered5
Last 2 semesters of program or comps semester.
Project
Rubric: 80% criteria score 3 or higher
EDUC 626.
EDUC 524, 527, 518
[Assessment of internship, practicum, or other
clinical experience]
3 lesson plans over program
Rubric: Average score 3.5 or higher in
all areas
Project, Observation
Rubric: 90 % criteria met at 2.5 or higher
[Assessment of candidate effect on student
learning]
Project
Rubric: 80% criteria score 3 or higher
EDUC 646
Additional assessment that addresses IRA
standards (required) ]
Powerpoint Project
Rubric: 80% criteria score 3 or higher
EDUC 531
[Licensure assessment, or other content-based
assessment]
Virginia Reading Assessment
2
[Assessment of content knowledge in reading
education]
Child Study
3
[Assessment of candidate ability to plan
instruction]
Lesson Plans
4
Clinical Experience
5
Professional Portfolio
6
Literacy Hall of Fame
7
Additional assessment that addresses IRA
standards (optional) ]
8
Additional assessment that addresses IRA
standards (optional) ]
EDUC 626
3
Identify assessment by title used in the program; refer to Section IV for further information on appropriate assessment to include.
Identify the type of assessment (e.g., essay, case study, project, comprehensive exam, reflection, state licensure test, portfolio).
5 Indicate the point in the program when the assessment is administered (e.g., admission to the program, admission to student teaching/internship, required
courses [specify course title and numbers], or completion of the program).
4
18
Program Report Template--IRA
Updated February 2008
Name of Assessment3
Type or
Form of Assessment4
When the Assessment
Is Administered5
SECTION III—RELATIONSHIP OF ASSESSMENT TO STANDARDS
For each IRA standard on the chart below, identify the assessment(s) in Section II that address the standard. One assessment may
apply to multiple IRA standards.
APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS FROM SECTION
II
IRA STANDARD
1. Foundational Knowledge. Candidates have knowledge of the foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction. As a result, the
candidates:
1.1 Demonstrate knowledge of psychological, sociological, and linguistic foundations of
#1
#2
#3
#4
reading and writing processes and instruction.
1.2 Demonstrate knowledge of reading research and histories of reading.
1.3 Demonstrate knowledge of language development and reading acquisition and the
variations related to culture and linguistic diversity.
1.4 Demonstrate knowledge of the major components of reading (phonemic awareness, word
identification and phonics, vocabulary and background knowledge, fluency, comprehension
strategies, and motivation) and how they are integrated in fluent reading.
x
x#5
x #1
x#5
x#1
□#5
x#1
□#5
x
x#6
x#2
x#6
x#2
□#6
x#2
□#6
□
□#7
□#3
□#7
□#3
□#7
x#3
□#7
□
□#8
□#4
□#8
□#4
□#8
x#4
□#8
Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials. Candidates use a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, methods, and curriculum
materials to support reading and writing instruction. As a result, the candidates:
2.1 Use instructional grouping options (individual, small-group, whole-class, and computer
based) as appropriate for accomplishing given purposes.
Program Report Template—IRA
x #1 □#2 □#3 x#4
x#5 □#6 □#7 □#8
19
Updated February 2008
IRA STANDARD
2.2 Use a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, and methods, including technologybased practices, for learners at differing stages of development and from differing cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
2.3 Use a wide range of curriculum materials in effective reading instruction for learners at
different stages of reading and writing development and from different cultural and linguistic
backgrounds.
APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS FROM SECTION
II
x #1
x#5
x #1
x#5
x#2
□#6
x#2
□#6
x#3
□#7
x#3
□#7
x#4
□#8
x#4
□#8
3. Assessment, Diagnosis and Evaluation. Candidates use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective reading
instruction. As a result, candidates:
3.1 Use a wide range of assessment tools and practices that range from individual and group
standardized tests to individual and group informal classroom assessment strategies, including
technology-based assessment tools.
3.2 Place students along a developmental continuum and identify students’ proficiencies and
difficulties.
3.3 Use assessment information to plan, evaluate, and revise effective instruction that meets the
needs of all students including those at different developmental stages and those from diverse
cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
3.4 Communicate results of assessments to specific individuals, (students, parents, caregivers,
colleagues, administrators, policymakers, policy officials, community, etc.).
x#1
x#5
x#1
x#5
x#1
x#5
x #1
x#5
x#2
□#6
x#2
□#6
x#2
□#6
x#2
□#6
x#3
□#7
□#3
□#7
□#3
□#7
□#3
□#7
x#4
□#8
x#4
□#8
x#4
□#8
x#4
□#8
Standard 4. Creating a Literate Environment. Candidates create a literate environment that fosters reading and writing by integrating
foundational knowledge, use of instructional practices, approaches and methods, curriculum materials, and the appropriate use of assessments. As a
result, candidates:
4.1 Use students’ interests, reading abilities and backgrounds as foundations for the reading and
#1
#2
#3
#4
writing program.
4.2 Use a large supply of books, technology-based information, and non-print materials
representing multiple levels, broad interests, cultures and linguistic backgrounds.
20
x
x#5
x #1
x#5
Program Report Template--IRA
x
□#6
x#2
□#6
x
□#7
x#3
□#7
x
□#8
x#4
□#8
Updated February 2008
IRA STANDARD
4.3 Model reading and writing enthusiastically as valued life-long activities.
4.4 Motivate learners to be life-long readers.
APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS FROM SECTION
II
□#1
x#5
□#1
x#5
□#2
□#6
□#2
□#6
x#3
□#7
x#3
□#7
x#4
□#8
x#4
□#8
Standard 5. Professional Development. Candidates view professional development as a career-long effort and responsibility. As a result,
candidates:
5.1 Display dispositions related to reading and the teaching of reading.
#1
#2
#3
#4
5.2 Continue to pursue the development of professional knowledge and dispositions.
5.3 Work with colleagues to observe, evaluate, and provide feedback on each other’s practice
5.4 Participate in, initiate, implement, and evaluate professional development programs.
Program Report Template—IRA
□
x#5
x #1
x#5
x #1
x#5
x #1
x#5
21
□
□#6
□#2
□#6
□#2
□#6
□#2
□#6
□
□#7
□#3
□#7
□#3
□#7
□#3
□#7
x
□#8
□#4
□#8
□#4
□#8
□#4
□#8
Updated February 2010
SECTION IV—EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS
DIRECTIONS: The 6-8 key assessments listed in Section II must be documented and discussed in
Section IV. The assessments must be those that all candidates in the program are required to
complete and should be used by the program to determine candidate proficiencies as expected in
the program standards. In the description of each assessment below, the SPA has identified
potential assessments that would be appropriate. Assessments have been organized into the
following three areas that are addressed in NCATE’s unit standard 1:



Content knowledge6
Pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions
Focus on student learning
For each assessment, the evidence for meeting standards should include the following information:
1. A brief description of the assessment and its use in the program (one sentence may be
sufficient);
2. A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is cited for in
Section III.
3. A brief analysis of the data findings;
4. An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards; and
5. Attachment of assessment documentation, including7:
(a) the assessment tool or description of the assignment;
(b) the scoring guide for the assessment; and
(c) candidate data derived from the assessment.
The narrative section for each assessment (1-4 above) is limited to two text pages. It is preferred
that each attachment for a specific assessment (5a-c above) be limited to the equivalent of five text
pages, however in some cases assessment instruments or scoring guides may go beyond 5 pages.
#1 (Required) CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Data from licensure tests or professional
examinations of content knowledge. IRA standards addressed in this entry could include all
of the standards. If your state does not require licensure tests or professional examinations in the
content area, data from another assessment must be presented to document candidate
attainment of content knowledge.
Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV
Virginia Reading Assessment
6
In some disciplines, content knowledge may include or be inextricable from professional knowledge. If this is the
case, assessments that combine content and professional knowledge may be considered “content knowledge”
assessments for the purpose of this report.
7 All three components of the assessment – as identified in 5a-c – must be attached, with the following exceptions: (a)
the assessment tool and scoring guide are not required for reporting state licensure data, and (b) for some
assessments, data may not yet be available.
Program Report Template—IRA
22
Updated February 2008
1. Description of Assessment: The 2001 session of the Virginia General Assembly, through
Virginia House Joint Resolution Number 794 (HJR 794), requested that the Virginia Department
of Education, in cooperation with the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, study the
proficiency of Virginia teachers. http://www.va.nesinc.com/
On April 29, 2003, the Board of Education adopted the Resolution to Enhance the Teaching of
Reading in Virginia. One goal of the plan was to develop a reading assessment aligned with the
English Standards of Learning for Virginia Public Schools (SOL) and the National Reading
Panel’s five key components of effective reading instruction—phonics, phonemic awareness,
vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. The VRA test will help identify those teaching
candidates who have the knowledge and skills that are important for performing the job of a
reading specialist in Virginia public schools. The VRA is administered six times each year at
varying locations throughout Virginia.
The content of the VRA is organized into objectives, which are aligned with the Standards of
Learning and reading competencies contained in the Virginia Licensure Regulations for School
Personnel and consistent with the recommendations of the Committee to Enhance the K–12
Teaching Experience in Virginia, the Advisory Board on Teacher Education and Licensure
(ABTEL), and the Panel for Reviewing Reading Assessment for Initial Licensure. The Licensing
examination in Virginia is a comprehensive test designed for Reading specialists and consists of
both multiple choice questions and case studies. Designed to measure preparation in the five key
components of effective reading instruction: phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary,
comprehension, and fluency.
Domain I ASSESSMENT AND DIAGNOSTIC TEACHING (11-20 items)
001 Understand the characteristics and uses of assessment and screening measures for evaluating
students' language proficiency and reading skills.
002 Understand the use of assessment data to plan reading instruction
Domain II ORAL LANGUAGE AND ORAL COMMUNICATION (1 to 10 items)
0003 Understand the development of oral language and oral communication skills.
0004 Understand the development of phonological awareness, including phonemic awareness
DOMAIN III—READING DEVELOPMENT (31 to 40 items)
0005 Understand how to promote students' understanding of concepts of print and basic phonetic
principles.
0006 Understand explicit, systematic phonics instruction.
0007 Understand word-analysis skills and vocabulary development.
0008 Understand the development of reading fluency and reading comprehension.
0009 Understand reading comprehension strategies for fiction and poetry.
0010 Understand reading comprehension strategies for nonfiction.
DOMAIN IV—WRITING AND RESEARCH (1 to 10 items)
0011 Understand writing skills and processes.
Program Report Template—IRA
23
Updated February 2008
0012 Understand how to promote students' knowledge of correct spelling, usage, and other writing
mechanics.
0013 Understand writing and reading as tools for inquiry and research.
DOMAIN V—SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE AND LEADERSHIP SKILLS (11 to 20 items; 1
constructed response)
0014 Understand specialized knowledge and skills required to perform the role of a reading
specialist.
0015 Understand leadership roles of the reading specialist in organizing and supervising reading
programs and promoting staff development.
0016 Understand strategies for communicating and collaborating with all members of the
educational community to address the goals of the reading program.
DOMAIN VI—INTEGRATED KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING: CASE STUDY (1
constructed response)
0001–0016 The candidate will apply knowledge of reading assessment and instruction to prepare
an organized written response to a case study of an elementary school student.
2. Description of Alignment:
The VRA consists of approximately 90 multiple-choice items and 2 constructed-response items,
including a case study. Multiple choice items are scored 1-4 with 4 being the highest possible.
Constructed response are scored 0-4. For each test of the VRA, scaled scores are reported in a
range from 100 to 300, based on your performance on all sections of the test. Your score for the
multiple-choice items and your scores on the constructed-response items are combined to obtain
your total score. A scaled total test score of 235 represents the minimum passing score for the
VRA for Elementary and Special Education Teachers and a scaled total test score of 245 represents
the minimum passing score for the VRA for Reading Specialists. A candidate with a scaled total
test score at or above the minimum passing score for the test passes the test. A candidate with a
scaled total test score below the minimum passing score for the test does not pass the test.
VRA items are criterion referenced and objective based and are designed to measure a candidate’s
knowledge and skills in relation to an established standard rather than in relation to the
performance of other candidates.
Domain 2 and 3 of the VRA (2 Oral Language and Communication; 3 Reading Development;)
align with IRA Standard 1 (Foundation Knowledge)
Domains 1, 3 and 4 of the VRA (1 Diagnostic Teaching; 3 Reading Development; 4 Writing and
Research) align with IRA Standard 2 (Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials).
Domains 1, 5 and 6 of the VRA (1 Assessment & Diagnostic Teaching; 5 Specialized Knowledge;
6 Integrated Knowledge & Understanding) align with IRA Standard 3 (Assessment, Diagnosis and
Evaluation)
Domains 5 and 6 of the VRA (5 Specialized Knowledge; 6 Integrated Knowledge &
24
Program Report Template--IRA
Updated February 2008
Understanding) align with IRA Standard 4 (Creating a Literate Environment).
Domain 5 of the VRA (Leadership Skills) aligns with IRA Standard 5 (Professional development)
3. Analysis of Data:
Tests taken between May 2005 and June 30, 2006 did not have a pass/fail ‘cut’ score. The cut
score went into effect July 2006. All twenty-one candidates who took the test during the 20062007 academic year did not have a cut score. Two candidates took the test during the 2007-2008
academic year with the cut score of 245 in place.
While data from the 2006-2007 period indicates potential need areas in Domain 3, 4, 5 and 6 and
with constructed response in general, this data is skewed since there was not a cut score and
candidates were encouraged to take the test prior to relevant program course work by incentives.
This data is not useful.
Data from 2007-2008 indicates sufficient knowledge in all domains with an average pass score of
280, well above the minimum 245.
#
Candidates
Domain
Average Scores
2006-2007
Average Scores
2007-2008
Average Scores
2008-2009
MC
1
MC
MC
MC
MC
CR
CR
2
3
4
5
5
6
Total Score
3.8
2.9
2.9
3.3
2.6
2.4
254
4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
280
2.9
2.9
3.3
2,6
2,4
254
21
3.2
2
4
18
MC = Multiple Choice
CR = Constructed Response
4. Interpretation of Data:
In regards to content knowledge in the five domains, our students have sufficient achievement to
pass the state exam for reading specialists
#2 (Required)-CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Assessment of content knowledge in reading
education. IRA standards addressed in this entry could include but are not limited to 1 and 5.
Examples of appropriate assessments include comprehensive examinations, research reports,
child studies, action research, portfolio projects, 8 and essays.
Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV
8
For program review purposes, there are two ways to list a portfolio as an assessment. In some programs a portfolio is
considered a single assessment and scoring criteria (usually rubrics) have been developed for the contents of the
portfolio as a whole. In this instance, the portfolio would be considered a single assessment. However, in many
programs a portfolio is a collection of candidate work—and the artifacts included are discrete items. In this case, some
of the artifacts included in the portfolio may be considered individual assessments.
Program Report Template—IRA
25
Updated February 2008
Child Case Study
1. Description of Assessment: In EDUC 626, candidates complete an in- depth literacy
diagnosis and remediation case study on a selected student’s literacy development. Working in a
local school setting, candidates practice and develop skills in assessment, interpretation of
assessment, identification of literacy levels, strengths and needs, and remediation in a selected
need area. Communication to both parents and the current teacher are required as well as a parent
extension kit to assist parents in supporting their child’s literacy growth.
2. Description of Alignment: In the Case Study Report, candidates use a variety of formal and
informal measures to diagnose and determine the student’s strengths and needs. This aligns with
IRA standards # 1 Foundation Knowledge and # 3 (Assessment, Diagnosis and Evaluation). In
the report, candidates must write a pre-assessment , complete a data analysis and show the process
of linking instruction with contextual information, pre and post assessment, and reflection. This
aligns with IRA standards# 2 (Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials) and IRA
Standard # 3 (Assessment, Diagnosis and Evaluation). By developing a remediation plan and
including materials that would be motivating to children, based on assessment instruments,
candidates focus on developing a positive literacy environment. This aligns with IRA Standard # 4
(Creating a Literate Environment). Candidates use Literacy profiles as a communication tool
between the parent and candidate and have a parent-teacher conference at the end of the clinical
experience to review the information contained in the literacy profile. This aligns with Standard
#3 (Assessment, Diagnosis and Evaluation).
3. Analysis of Data: Data analysis of all assessments utilizes the following guidelines:
Below 55%
56-70%
71-75%
Immediate Attention (coded dark gray on assessments)
Attention (coded light gray on assessments)
Area to watch (coded pale yellow on assessments)
In 2006-2007, 19 program candidates enrolled in EDUC 626 and completed the Child Study. Data
indicate that candidates have target or acceptable levels of knowledge, skills and dispositions in
all standards measured. All candidates received passing scores on the assignment and class
averages on rubric scores are all above 2.5, acceptable. One standard, 3.4, needs attention with
32% of the 19 candidates receiving a 2. This aspect of the child study involves the candidate
writing a recommendation letter to the parents. Three standards, 3.1, 4.2 and 1.1 need to be
watched. The related aspects of the child study are an interest inventory, the lesson plans, and
evidence of research base reflected in study. The 2007-2008 data includes scores of 43 program
candidates and indicates improvements in all areas, though a continued focus on communication
with parents is needed. 2008-2009 data demonstrates that the improvements from 06-07 goals have
been maintained. While there is one area to watch, and one that may need attention, these areas
were not problematic in the past. For Standard 3.3, 38% of the 24 candidates received a score of 2
rather than 3. However, this standard shows 100% in 07-08 and 95% in 06-07 receiving a score of
3.
4. Interpretation of Data: After three years’ data collection, it can be concluded that the
standards measured in this assessment are being met and candidates are demonstrating sufficient
skills in diagnosis and remediation of literacy. While candidates are performing at acceptable and
26
Program Report Template--IRA
Updated February 2008
target levels, the following area will continue to be a focus point in the program: Writing to
communicate with parents as well as clearly identify student literacy strengths and challenges.
#3 (Required)-PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND
DISPOSITIONS: Assessment that demonstrates candidates can effectively plan
reading and literacy instruction, or fulfill other professional responsibilities in reading
education. IRA standards that could be addressed in this assessment include but are not limited
to 2, 3, 4, and 5. Examples of assessments include the evaluation of candidates’ abilities to
develop lesson or unit plans or individualized educational plans.
Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Sections III and IV.
Lesson Plans
1. Description of Assessment: Literacy lesson plans, demonstrating the candidate’s
understanding of and ability to adapt and implement selected teaching techniques for various
aspects of literacy are required in EDUC 518, 524, 527, and 530. The Child Study, conducted in
the EDUC 646 Practicum I field experience also requires multiple lesson plans. Lesson plans
typically require careful selection of appropriate materials that will support the technique, clear
objectives directly connected to observable and measurable assessment, procedures, and
adaptations for special needs. Some lesson plans require implementation in actual classrooms
followed by a teacher and student reflection. Correlation to Virginia SOL’s are required as well as
correlation to specific literacy objectives.
Lesson plans collected from EDUC 518, 527 and 524 are used for this analysis. These courses are
typically taken at different points along the candidate’s course of study, but within the first 21
hours. By collecting several lesson plans over a period of time within each candidate’s program, a
more accurate analysis can be made. Three plans are collected from three different courses within
the program. The same rubric is used to evaluate all three plans. While average scores can be
examined, individual items can also be analyzed with our assessment collection system enabling us
to identify overall areas of strength and weakness per student as well as among the whole group of
candidates.
2. Description of Alignment: As candidates design their lesson plan, they utilize their
foundation knowledge to determine the overall content. This aligns with IRA Standard 1
(Foundational Knowledge). As part of the lesson , candidates select appropriate instructional
strategies and curriculum materials. This aligns with IRA Standard 2 (Instructional Strategies and
Curriculum Materials). Candidates are expected to carefully select teaching techniques, objectives
and assessments that align with one another. Candidates are asked to consider what the student
should be able to do after the lesson and how they will measure and record the level of
accomplishment for each student. These aspects of the lesson align with IRA Standard 3
(Assessment, Diagnosis & Evaluation). Evidence of IRA Standard 4 (Creating a Literate
Environment) is also expected in these lesson by demonstrating use of a wide range of materials to
support the lesson, modeling to demonstrate the techniques, strategies and skills being taught, and
ensuring student motivation is considered in all lessons.
Program Report Template—IRA
27
Updated February 2008
3. Analysis of Data: Data analysis of all assessments utilizes the following guidelines:
Below 55%
56-70%
71-75%
Immediate Attention (coded dark gray on assessments)
Attention (coded light gray on assessments)
Area to watch (coded pale yellow on assessments)
For the 2006-2007 academic year, lesson plan scores were collected in Spring and Summer 2007.
A total of 16 candidates submitted lesson plans in EDUC 524, 13 in EDUC 527, and 43 in EDUC
518. This analysis, therefore, is of seventy-two lesson plans. Scores overall were excellent with
most standards receiving an average score above 2.9. While standard 2.2, criteria 3c received a
‘watch’ score in one of the three classes, this criteria (the lesson plan includes all required
components) does not appear to be a problem area. However, standards 4.1 and 3.1 require
attention. The aspects of the lesson plan covered by these criteria are alignment and understanding
of all lesson components and assessment. The following year’s data indicates attention is still
needed for 3.1 and, while 08-09 data show no areas of need or attention 3.1 remains an area of
focus.
4. Interpretation of Data: Overall, candidates are able to write lesson plans at the target level.
The varying data described above could be attributed to different instructors teaching in the
program at the time. In addition, past informal analysis of candidate performance on lesson plans
has led the faculty to conclude that the areas indicated above were areas that should be addressed
which could explain the improved scores in EDUC 518. It would be advantageous to our
candidates to continue to focus on understanding and aligning all lesson plan components and
assessment and evaluation.
#4 (Required)-PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND
DISPOSITIONS: Assessment that demonstrates candidates' knowledge, skills, and
dispositions are applied effectively in practice. IRA standards that could be addressed in
this assessment include but are not limited to 2, 3, 4, and 5. The assessment instrument used to
evaluate internships, practicum, or other clinical experiences should be submitted.
Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV
Clinical Experience
1. Description of Assessment: In EDUC 626 Practicum I, all candidates are evaluated in a
clinical setting on 8 specific areas by the practicum supervisor. The assessment instrument, a
checklist, is used by the supervisor to record observations when she visits the classroom.
Additional materials are also used to complete the assessment such as copies of lessons,
assessment instruments, written feedback, etc.
2. Description of Alignment: Using the Clinical experience instrument, the university
supervisor evaluates candidates on their ability to demonstrate specific teaching practices
effectively.
The eight specific practices are aligned with the IRA standards as follows:
28
Program Report Template--IRA
Updated February 2008
1. Understands and can support classroom teachers in their use of principles and procedures for
organizing and implementing literacy lessons and on how to use this knowledge to help learners
construct meaning and achieve intended outcomes.
Assessment of practice #1 aligns with IRA Standard # 2 ( Instructional strategies and
Curriculum Materials) and #4 (Creating a Literate Environment)
2. Understands multiple approaches to literacy instruction and can support classroom teachers and
paraprofessionals on how to use this knowledge to facilitate learning in various situations.
Assessment of practice # 2 aligns with IRA Standard # 2 ( Instructional strategies and
Curriculum Materials)
3. Understands and can support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals as to how motivational
principles and practices can be used to promote student achievement in literacy and active
engagement in literacy learning and lifelong practices
Assessment of practice # 3 aligns with IRA Standard # 4 ( Creating a Literate
Environment) and #3 (Assessment & Diagnosis).
4. Understands and can support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in the use of how to use
a variety of communication modes to promote student learning in literacy and to foster a climate of
trust and support.
Assessment of practice # 4 aligns with IRA Standards #3 (Assessment & Diagnosis) and #
4 ( Creating a Literate Environment)
7. Understands and can support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals to help students
appropriately integrate the components (phonemic awareness, word identification and phonics,
vocabulary and background knowledge, fluency, comprehension strategies, and motivation) in
fluent reading.
Assessment of practice #1 aligns with IRA Standard # 1 ( Foundation Knowledge)
8. Understands and can support classroom teachers on how to use a wide range of assessment tools
in literacy.
Assessment of practice # 4 aligns with IRA Standards #3 (Assessment, Diagnosis and
Evaluation
3. Analysis of Data: Data analysis of all assessments utilizes the following guidelines:
Below 55%
56-70%
71-75%
Immediate Attention (coded dark gray on assessments)
Attention (coded light gray on assessments)
Area to watch (coded pale yellow on assessments)
In the 2006-2007 academic year, 20 candidates completed their Practicum I, EDUC 626,
experience. All areas were on target or acceptable and all candidates achieved a passing score on
the checklist. Only one criteria is at the attention level with 40% receiving a score of 2. This is
standard 4.1 and relates to the candidates abilities to use intrinsic and extrinsic factors to positively
motivate students. Five areas received a watch with standards 4.3, 4.4 and 3.4 showing a 30%
score of 2 and standards 2.2 and 4.1 showing 25% at a score of 2. The aspects of these areas are
Program Report Template—IRA
29
Updated February 2008
connecting the lesson to students’ prior knowledge, connecting the lesson to past/future
instruction, explaining assessment results, matching instruction to learners, and relating concepts
to students’ everyday experiences. In 2007-2008, forty-three candidates were assessed in this
practicum experience and in 2008-2009 twenty-five were assessed. Scores indicate steady
achievement across all standards with all candidates scoring at target levels in the most recent year.
4. Interpretation of Data: Candidates are doing very well in their clinical practicum. Changes
made to the practicum over the past three years have helped with this increase in scores. The
practicum experience now includes not only observation but modeling by the instructor.
Individual consultations with each candidate, splitting the case study assignment into smaller
sections and providing response to each, and small and large group meetings throughout the
practicum have also been included and/or improved.
#5 (Required)-EFFECTS ON STUDENT LEARNING: Assessment that demonstrates and
evaluates candidate effects on student learning and provision of supportive learning
environments for student learning. IRA standards that could be addressed in this assessment
include but are not limited to 2, 3, 4, and 5. Examples of assessments include those based on
student work samples, portfolio tasks, case studies, follow-up studies, and employer surveys.
Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV
Professional Portfolio
1. Description of Assessment: In EDUC 646, candidates develop a professional portfolio that
includes information demonstrating their understanding of the application of all IRA standards and
their ability to support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in using curriculum materials,
interpretation of assessments, instructional grouping options, motivation and technology. The
EDUC 646 class is closely linked to the EDUC 645 class. Assignments from the 645 class are
included in the professional portfolio, as well as assignments from previous classes if the
candidates choose to do so.
2. Description of Alignment: While the focus of both classes and this assessment is Standard
5, coaching and leadership, the portfolio aligns specifically with all IRA standards. One of the first
parts of the portfolio is the IRA standards sheet where students reflect on each standard and record
how they have, and could, demonstrate that standard as professionals.
3. Analysis of Data: Data analysis of all assessments utilizes the following guidelines:
Below 55%
56-70%
71-75%
Immediate Attention (coded dark gray on assessments)
Attention (coded light gray on assessments)
Area to watch (coded pale yellow on assessments)
In 2006-2007, 7 candidates completed the professional portfolio. Twenty-five standards were
measured and 18 of those show a 100% on target score for the 25 students. One area, standard 5.2
evidence of ability to support teachers and paraprofessionals, does need attention. Fifty-seven
percent of the candidates scored a 2 on that criteria. Another aspect of the portfolio that 43% of
the students received a score of 2 on was the coaching essay. Finally, the professional
30
Program Report Template--IRA
Updated February 2008
development plan shows 29% of the candidates with a score of 2. While this is considered an item
to watch, that was only 2 students out of the 7. As with the previous assessment, scores improved
from 06-07 to 08-09 with the final year showing target scores for all candidates.
4. Interpretation of Data: Candidate performance on this assessment indicates excellent
demonstration of understanding of all standards. The coaching essay is a writing item that requires
reference to outside sources. By focusing on this part of the portfolio, quality of the essay has
improved substantially since 06-07. Once again, refinements and improvements to this assignment
and additional support for our candidates during the second practicum have resulted in higher
scores.
#6 (Required)-Additional assessment that addresses IRA standards. IRA standards that
could be addressed in this assessment include but are not limited to 2, 3, 4, and 5. Examples of
appropriate assessments include evaluations of field experiences, case studies, research reports,
child studies, action research, portfolio tasks, and follow-up studies.
Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV
Literacy Hall of Fame
1. Description of Assessment: Candidates research three individuals who have historically
and currently influenced the development of literacy education. Each candidate creates an
electronic poster in powerpoint for each hall of fame person. These are all combined into a large
class powerpoint which is used to place individuals along a timeline as well as sort them by their
area of study and/or impact in literacy education.
2. Description of Alignment: By reviewing biographical information specifically on three
individuals who have made significant contributions to the field of literacy and generally on
between 50 and 60 in the class review, and recounting how the individuals have influenced literacy
research, theory and practice, candidates gain an understanding of the history of literacy education
and how the current philosophies evolved. The objectives of this assignment align with IRA
standard #1.
3. Analysis of Data: Data analysis of all assessments utilizes the following guidelines:
Below 55%
56-70%
71-75%
Immediate Attention (coded dark gray on assessments)
Attention (coded light gray on assessments)
Area to watch (coded pale yellow on assessments)
In the 2006-2007 academic year 15 candidates completed the Literacy Hall of Fame and in 20072008 34 candidates completed it for a total of 49 candidates completing this assignment. In both
years, the majority of the scores were on target. There were no areas of attention identified based
on this data. Scores from 2007-2008 from 34 candidates are also on target. In 2008-2009 thirtynine candidates were assessed. Overall, the success on all standards was maintained. However,
standard 1.1 (specifically identifying historical trends in literacy education) shows 28% at a level
2. While this may be an area to watch, the scores are still at or above the acceptable level.
Program Report Template—IRA
31
Updated February 2008
4. Interpretation of Data:
The data indicates that our candidates acquire a sufficient level of understanding of historic and
current people and events in literacy education. They are able to describe some of those people,
explain where they fit along the timeline of literacy education, and relate some of the research to
practice.
#7 (Optional)-Additional assessment that addresses IRA standards. Examples of
assessments include evaluations of field experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks, licensure tests
not reported in #1, and follow-up studies.
Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV
#8 (Optional)-Additional assessment that addresses IRA standards. Examples of
assessments include evaluations of field experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks, licensure tests
not reported in #1, and follow-up studies.
Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV
SECTION V—USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE
CANDIDATE AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
Evidence must be presented in this section that assessment results have been analyzed and have
been or will be used to improve candidate performance and strengthen the program. This
description should not link improvements to individual assessments but, rather, it should
summarize principal findings from the evidence, the faculty’s interpretation of those findings, and
changes made in (or planned for) the program as a result. Describe the steps program faculty has
taken to use information from assessments for improvement of both candidate performance and
the program. This information should be organized around (1) content knowledge, (2)
professional and pedagogical knowledge, skill, and dispositions, and (3) student
learning.
(response limited to 3 pages)
Content Knowledge
Principal Findings
Candidate performance on all assessments, but particularly assessments #1, #2, and #6 which focus
on content knowledge, demonstrates that candidates receive a strong foundation in literacy theory
and practice, research, history of instruction, and the key components of literacy learning and
instruction.
32
Program Report Template--IRA
Updated February 2008
Changes Planned: Make sure candidates take the VRA after completing most courses and prior to
completing their degree/ require scores as part of degree requirement. This requirement was added
to the program in spring 2010.
Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Principal Findings
Candidate performance on all assessments, but particularly assessments #2, #3, #4, & #5 ,
demonstrates that candidates have the opportunity to apply professional and pedagogical
knowledge as they apply and reflect upon what they are learning in their own instructional settings,
learn to collaborate with others and take a leadership role in their profession.
Changes Planned:
1. An overall focus on writing for our candidates (ie: letter, report, referencing sources, etc.).
We have created a new class (EDUC 518) for writing specifically. We are also working to
map out ways to include small writing assignments in different classes focusing on various
aspects of professional writing. More models of effectively written literature and article
reviews will be included. Beginning fall 2010, candidates will be required to join the
International Reading Association and receive the journal. This will be used regularly in
all courses.
2. Some of the data from this study, as well as other data from assignments not included in
this study indicate a need to assist our students in connecting key names, research and
events with practice, especially when writing essays or papers.
3. We will continue to monitor changes made to the EDUC 646 class, Practicum II, as well as
other classes that occur earlier in the sequence to ensure candidates have adequate
opportunities to engage in meaningful leadership experiences in literacy.
Student Learning
Principal Findings
Candidate performance on all assessments, but particularly assessment #2, #3 and #4
demonstrates that candidates positively impact student learning. They create supportive learning
environments based on sound theory and best practice, have an extensive knowledge of materials
and methods and the importance of choosing from a wide variety of such, and consistently show
awareness of the importance of student motivation and attitude towards literacy as well as their
own dispositions and modeling of life-long literacy learning.
Changes Planned:
1. Ensure all faculty teaching courses which contain lesson plans are aware of the need to
focus on, model and assess candidates’ abilities to write effective lesson plans in which
objectives are clearly stated and connected to assessments which are measurable and
recordable.
2. Provide increased opportunities for candidates to ensure connections are well established in
their teaching as well as in their conceptualization of the Literacy & Culture program.
3. Embedded in many of the IRA standards are references to supporting diverse cultures and
linguistic backgrounds. This is not adequately assessed within our program. Review
program sequence, especially EDUC 520, to ensure these objectives are met, develop and
include an assessment for these objectives.
Program Report Template—IRA
33
Updated February 2008
SECTION VI—For Revised Reports Only
Describe what changes or additions have been made in the report to address the standards that
were not met in the original submission. List the sections of the report you are resubmitting and
the changes that have been made. Specific instructions for preparing a revised report are
available on the NCATE web site at http://www.ncate.org/institutions/process.asp?ch=4
34
Program Report Template--IRA
Updated February 2008
ATTACHMENT A
Candidate Information (embedded in report temporarily)
Directions: Provide three years of data on candidates enrolled in the program and completing
the program, beginning with the most recent academic year for which numbers have been
tabulated. Report the data separately for the levels/tracks (e.g., baccalaureate, postbaccalaureate, alternate routes, master’s, doctorate) being addressed in this report. Data must
also be reported separately for programs offered at multiple sites. Update academic years
(column 1) as appropriate for your data span. Create additional tables as necessary.
Program:
Literacy & Culture, Master of Science in Education
Academic
Year
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
# of Candidates
Enrolled in the
Program
69
104 as of June 08
67
Program:
Literacy & Culture, Graduate Licensure
First admissions Fall 2006
Academic
# of Candidates
Year
Enrolled in the
Program
2006-2007
9
2007-2008
11 as of June 08
2008-2009
9
# of Program
Completers9
18
21
34
# of Program
Completers
1
2
5
NCATE uses the Title II definition for program completers. Program completers are persons who have met all the
requirements of a state-approved teacher preparation program. Program completers include all those who are
documented as having met such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate,
program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the program’s requirements.
9
Program Report Template—IRA
35
Updated February 2010
ATTACHMENT B
Faculty Information (embedded in report temporarily)
Directions: Complete the following information for each faculty member responsible for professional coursework, clinical
supervision, or administration in this program.
Faculty Member
Name
Highest
Degree, Field, &
University10
Assignment:
Indicate the
role of the
faculty
member11
Faculty
Rank12
Tenure
Track
(Yes/
No)
Dr. Jeannine R. Perry
PhD
Curriculum &
Instruction
Kent State University
Faculty
Assistant
Professor
Yes
Dr. Gretchen Braun
Ph.D. Education/
Instructional
Leadership
Faculty
Associate
Professor
Yes
Scholarship,13
Leadership in
Professional
Associations, and
Service: 14 List up to
3 major contributions
in the past 3 years 15
Articles
Program coordinator
VATE exec board;
registration chair
Reading First
Presentations
Presented at 2 IRA confs.;
3 Virginia Reading
Association Confs.; 1
10
Teaching or other
professional
experience in
P-12 schools16
Classroom
teacher/reading and
gifted educ. specialist 15
years Ohio Professional
Licenses: Elementary,
K-12 Reading, K-12
Gifted, English 7-12
16 years of teaching
PreK-12; Postgraduate
professional license,
e.g., PhD in Curriculum & Instruction, University of Nebraska
e.g., faculty, clinical supervisor, department chair, administrator
12 e.g., professor, associate professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, instructor
13 Scholarship is defined by NCATE as systematic inquiry into the areas related to teaching, learning, and the education of teachers and other school personnel.
Scholarship includes traditional research and publication as well as the rigorous and systematic study of pedagogy, and the application of current research findings
in new settings. Scholarship further presupposes submission of one’s work for professional review and evaluation.
14Service includes faculty contributions to college or university activities, schools, communities, and professional associations in ways that are consistent with the
institution and unit’s mission.
15 e.g., officer of a state or national association, article published in a specific journal, and an evaluation of a local school program
16 Briefly describe the nature of recent experience in P-12 schools (e.g. clinical supervision, inservice training, teaching in a PDS) indicating the discipline and
grade level of the assignment(s). List current P-12 licensure or certification(s) held, if any.
11
Program Report Template—IRA
36
Updated February 2008
Virginia
Commonwealth
University
national technology and
learning conf.; 1 Virginia
Middle School
Conference; published two
articles in peer-reviewed
journals
Reading Specialist,
grades 4-8, English,
Social Studies
Dr. Katherine
Wiesendanger
PhD
Reading
Mississippi State
Univesity
Faculty
Professor
No
Published 3 books
And over 50 articles in
professional journals
Leadership role in
professional organizations
Serve on 5 editorial boards
Of Profesioinal journals
Classroom teacher
Reading teacher
Reading Specialist
Tami Slater
Masters in Reading
and Cultural Literacy
(k-12) from Nazareth
College
Faculty/ Clinical
Supervisor
Adjunct Faculty
No
National Board Certified
Teacher in Literacyachieved in 2007
Dr. Lisa Lawrence
Ed. D. Language Arts
& Literacy ,
University of MA
Lowell
Faculty
Adjunct
professor for
online courses
No
Article published- The
Reading Matrix, Dec.
2007, Vol. 7, #3;
Online Instructor for the
NH Dept. of Ed. working
with K-12th grade teachers
Dr. Carol Dunn
Ed. D. Curriculum
Instruction &
Educational
Faculty
Adjunct
professor for
online courses
No
Faculty Development
Workshops for Chicago
Public Schools, City
Taught 3rd and 4th
grade for 4 years; Serve
as Reading
Specialist/Coach (7
years), permanent
certification in both NY
and VA; English Lead
Teacher for Chesterfield
County
Full-Time ESOL
Teacher (K-6th grade);
ESOL Consultant;
Certified in Curriculum
& Instruction in Elem.
Ed., Certified in TESOL
(K-12th grade); past
adjunct for Lesley
University-literacy
courses
Currently Principal of
Healy Program Center
under the auspices of
Program Report Template—IRA
37
Updated February 2008
Psychology,
Loyola University
Chicago
Jeanne Gunther
38
Masters- State
University of New
York at Albany/
Reading
Doctoral- currently
pursuing PhD in
Education in the
department of Early
Childhood, Families
and Literacy-University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill
Colleges of Chicago, and
The Center for New
Horizons
Faculty
Adjunct
professor for
online courses
No
Presented at: National
Center for Family
Literacy's Annual
Conference; Valdosta
State's Literacy
Conference; North
Carolina State Conference
for IRA. Member of
AERA and four SIGS;
volunteer at local
elementary school working
with struggling first grade
readers.
Program Report Template--IRA
Illinois School District
#428; past teacher and
reading specialist;
adjunct faculty for
American College of
Education, Loyola,
Columbia and others.
Taught fourth and first
grades for eight years,
owned an art and
literature studio for
toddlers and
preschoolers.