I.3 What are the significant changes, if any, made to the conceptual framework since the last NCATE review?
In 1987, as a member of the Holmes Group, educator preparation programs at the University of
Cincinnati initiated redesign. The knowledge base was articulated in “A Pattern Language for Teaching”
(University of Cincinnati, 1997, 3 rd Edition). In 1992, that pattern language was used to collect and document expertise across the university and the professional community and became our NCATE approved conceptual framework and knowledge base. As our knowledge base grew and expectations became more explicitly articulated nationally, the complex Pattern Language became less useful in the daily implementation and evaluation of programs. Recognizing that the “Unit” goes beyond the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services, we broadened our perspective and the members of our professional community. However, we continue to attest that there are Professional Ways of
Knowing (content knowledge), Professional Ways of Being (dispositions), and Professional Ways of
Doing (pedagogical knowledge), and organizing structures of the pattern language.
The conceptual framework that evolved from these efforts, Preparing committed, caring, competent
educators, was initially proposed during the summer of 2001. Members of the unit participated in reflective dialogue in which existing practices and proposed changes were reviewed, critiqued, and questioned in the context of developing a vision for improving preparation of professional educators.
During the 2001-2002 academic year, each program responded with a written commitment to the conceptual framework. The Unit continued to revisit the conceptual framework every three years, documenting the evolution of our theory and practice. The most recent draft prior to this submission was completed in 2007 and approved by the University Council for Educator Preparation, the managing body for educator preparation programs.
In 2009, the University of Cincinnati responded to NCATE’s redesign to become a Transformation
Initiative institution. As such, we reaffirmed our commitment to prepare committed, caring, and competent educators, while shifting the context of our work to high need schools and the imperative to prepare candidates to support students in those schools. Johnson (2009) indicated that the focus of this effort is to ensure that teacher candidates are full participants within the professional community of practice in high needs urban schools.” Our transformation efforts are not only related to our own candidates, but target the transformation of education for students who are underserved as well as the transformation of our own practices. In order to increase positive outcomes for our candidates, students, and the communities we serve, we must utilize evidence-based practice and document effective practices in student-driven teaching, learning, and services; and in providing a permeable curriculum (Dyson, 1993). Through shifting the focus of candidate preparation to the schools we aim to increase candidates’ skills and engage them in a system of accountability.
We adopted the Council for Exceptional Children’s inclusive definition of diversity:
“CEC believes diversity means understanding and valuing the characteristics and beliefs of those who demonstrate a wide range of characteristics. This includes ethnic and racial backgrounds, age, physical and cognitive abilities, family status, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religious and spiritual values, and geographic location. While recognizing the different groups to which individuals may belong, CEC also understands that each group is composed of persons who exhibit a broad range in values and characteristics. We must refrain from making group stereotypes. Rather, in each of our roles, as educators and as association members and staff, each person must be treated with respect and valued as an individual.”

As Ladson-Billings suggests (2001) “multiethnic” and “multicultural” fails to describe the wide range of diversity our candidates meet. Consistent with CEC’s definition, she suggests that we prepare candidates to engage with students of different races, ethnicities, religions, abilities, socioeconomic groups, and family constellations.
Though each program varies in implementation of this framework, we are consistent in our belief system and standards. Our candidates critically examine a range of perspectives in what Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., described as a “great world house in which we must learn to live with each other in peace” (Where do we go from here: Chaos or Community, 1968). Our model of teaching appreciates that students contribute to the construction of knowledge. Teachers learn from the students and release power that enables what Gutiërrez (2008) referred to as dialogic pedagogy where students discover voice with the teachers assistance and cooperation incorporate their own scripts in the learning process.
We have changed our analysis from what we do with our candidates to what our candidates do with their students. This emphasis on student outcomes has pushed us to add an additional program review cycle, focused on reviewing data related to p-12 students as well as our programs and the performance of our candidates. Our belief in the power of education is such that our theme statement has become
“Transforming Lives, Schools, and Communities.”