Teacher Education Council
April 8, 2011
3:00Pm-5:00pm
Exhibition Lounge
MINUTES
Members Present: Amy Schutt, A. Lachance, C. Widdall, C. Sarver, D. Dickerson, E. Kudela, J. Duncan, J.
Shedd, J. Lykos, K. Mack, L. Campbell, L. Couturier, M. Gfeller, M. Kelly, R. Grantham, W. Buxton, L.
Melita, J. Cottone, B. Mattingly, D. Farnsworth, G. Peterson, E. Gravani, J. O’Callaghan, J. Mosher, N.
Aumann, M. Barduhn
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Approve Agenda: Agenda was approved as written
Approve Minutes from 2/11/11: Minutes were approved as written
Standing Committee Reports: (See written reports from Chairs): All reports were accepted
by consent.
a. TEC Bylaws Committee-J. Cottone
b. TEC Assessment Committee: A. Lachancec. Conceptual Framework Committee: J. Mosherd. TECRC: N. Aumanne. TEC Curriculum Committee: E. Gravani- No Report since last meeting
f. TEC Dispositions Sub-committee-N. Aumann
Old Business :
a. NYSED Mandate on Special Education-M. Barduhn and the Deans: To access this
document go to: MRD/Files/Teacher Education Council/NYSED/B of R/Memo to DeansSpecial Education Certification.pdf The Council engaged in a prolonged discussion of
these new requirements and posed a number of questions that require follow-up at the
next Council meeting. Marley informed the council that work was progressing in
identifying stand-alone courses that meet the new regulations and that a number of
new courses are also being considered by the Curriculum Committee. All such courses
will be identified before the next Council meeting.
i. Discussion on request for one year waiver of implementation-Review New
Information with regard to the possibility of a waiver in light of recent
communication. It was determined that no waiver of the implementation of
these requirements would be possible as the full implementation date for the
provisions of the regulation is September 2011. Additional questions arose
about whether or not the requirements would need to be enforced if the actual
start date of the next year commences before September 1st, 2011. Marley
commented that these programs with summer start dates come under the Fall
2011 catalog and would therefore require that the new regulations be
observed. Further examination of this issue will be undertaken and followed up
at our next meeting. There was also a request that guidance be sought from the
Provost and from NYSED with regard to the definition of a cohort-term,
particularly as the term relates to transfer students.
ii. For advanced programs (MSEd) the 15 hour field placement observation
requirement is not required.
b. Update on the NCATE BoE Site Visit and the preliminary BoE Report-M. Barduhn-As this
was the first meeting of the Teacher Education Council since the accreditation site visit
by the NCATE Board of Examiners, Marley formally advised the Council that SUNY
Cortland met all 6 standards at both the initial and advanced level. That having been
said, however, there were a number of Areas for Improvement identified, particularly
related to our advanced programs that need to be addressed later on in the meeting.
c. NCTQ – Update on Correspondence from Kate Walsh, President of NCTQ to the
Chancellors of NY, California, and Maryland-M. Barduhn-Marley informed the council of
recent developments with regard to this ongoing issue. She also asked Julianne Lykos to
provide a brief update from the Education Club on a presentation that they received
from Marley and Henry Steck on this issue and the related Childhood Student Teacher
Study that was done by NCTQ. Cynthia Sarver mentioned the recent Ravitch book and
indicated that she feels there may be a coalition emerging. The student affiliate from
NCTE may invite Henry to speak about union issues as well. Marley informed the
council that we are in the process of setting up a meeting with college officials about
our own response to NCTQ in the event that negative publicity results from this
arbitrary study. Bill Buxton asked for a summary of the history of this organization and
why there was so much concern. There was overall agreement that we should do all
that we can to counter this negative publicity without being drawn further into the
quagmire that will certainly result. Laura Campbell suggested that we focus on recent
reaccreditation by NCATE and then make a statement that does not allow for rebuttal
and end it there. This issue of a response is something that may be taken on as a
project by the Education Club.
V.
New Business (Discussion Items):
a. Discussion of Board of Examiners’ Preliminary Report-Dennis Farnsworth presented a
power point presentation highlighting areas for improvement identified in the BOE final
report. He also reviewed Areas for Improvement that were resolved from the first
accreditation cycle. Dennis provided a summary document to the council members
outlining the rationale for each of the AFIs (Attached). As we move forward we will
need to develop a strategy for a campus-wide response to these critical areas. There
was significant discussion with regard to which system the Unit would employ as a
repository for assessment data. It was noted that not all teacher preparation programs
and in particular not all advanced programs collect and maintain data with regard to
assessments that are easily retrievable and/or provide a basis for producing common
reports with regard to program efficacy. It was determined that the Council would
make a strong recommendation to the provost that TaskStream be adopted for this
VI.
purpose. Language for a ballot was discussed and a decision will be made with regard to
how to present this recommendation to the Office of the Provost for action. (It should
be noted that the Council voted to put this item up for electronic ballot. However, the
TEC ByLaws of 2009 establish that the electronic vote be employed for policy decisions
only. )
b. Employer and Graduate Surveys-Not discussed
i. Reinforcing a cycle of assessment
ii. Process
c. Update on TPAC (Teacher Performance Assessment Consortium)-NYS – Not discussed
d. NYSTCE Data Sharing-Frequency of Distribution- Marley asked what preference the TEC
had for sharing this data and it was determined that twice per year (Once each
semester) would be best if we are serious about tracking our own data and using it to
improve program and instruction
Other:
a. Who is a ‘Highly Qualified’ Teacher? – Not Discussed
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/teachers/letter-to-president-obama-who.html
b.
VII.
Title II Survey on Technology- Quick Turn-around time.- C. Widdall and
Committee- Chris made a request that members receiving this survey complete it
as expeditiously as possible, as the turn-around time is brief.
Adjourn: Our next meeting of the TEC will be May 06, 2011 from 3:00pm to 5:00pm in the Exhibition
Lounge, Corey Union.
NCATE BoE Report
March 5 – 9, 2011 Continuing Accreditation Visit
Summary Findings
Standard
Status (Initial, Advanced)
Areas for Improvement:
Corrected Continued New
1
Met/Met
2
0
1
AFI 1—The unit does not have aggregated program performance data indicating that candidates in advanced programs for teachers have the necessary
content, pedagogical, and professional
knowledge and skills in their area of
study except for Ed. Leadership, Literacy,
Physical Education, and Teaching Students with Disabilities.
2
Met/Met
1
0
2
AFI 1--The unit doesn’t use data regularly and systematically to improve opertions.
AFI 2—The unit doesn’t systematically
analyze assessment data in advanced
programs for teachers.
3
Met/Met
0
0
1
AFI 1—Candidates in advanced progRams for teachers are required to
participate in field experiences that
require them to apply course work in
classroom settings, analyze P-12 student learning, and reflect on their practice in the context of theories on teaching and learning.
4
Met/Met
1
1
0
Candidates have limited opportunities
to interact with diverse faculty at both
the initial and advanced levels.
5
Met/Met
0
0
0
6
Met/Met
1
1
1
Reference for New
AFI 1—(Continued and included in new
AFI)-The capacity of the Childhood Program faculty is not sufficient to meet the
advising needs of candidates in the
program.
AFI 1-The unit does not have consistent
criteria related to faculty workload with
regard to candidate advising.
TEC By-laws Committee
John Cottone, Chair
A. Student Representation (Current)
Undergraduate student representatives must be sophomores, juniors, or seniors. Student
representatives will be registered as voting members of the TEC.
One undergraduate and one graduate student from each school appointed by the Dean of
the school in consultation with department chairs.
A. Student Representation (Proposed)
Undergraduate student representatives must be sophomores, juniors, or seniors. Student
representatives will be registered as voting members of the TEC.
One undergraduate and one graduate student from each school appointed by the Dean of
the school in consultation with department chairs is preferred. If a particular school does
not have a nominee for a student representative, qualified nominees from the other schools
may be considered for appointment by the Deans.
TEC Assessment Committee
Andrea Lachance, Chair
The TEC Assessment Committee has not met since our last report. At this point we are awaiting
the results of the BoE final Report from the site-visit of March 5 – 9, 2011 before moving
forward with any development activities or initiatives.
Conceptual Framework Committee
Joy Mosher, Chair
The following members of the committee met with the BOE: Brian Barrett, Joy Mosher and Katina
Sayers Walker. There are no AFIs for the Conceptual Framework. However- we have identified some
next steps including:



Education Program wide discussion regarding the way the CF represents advanced programs
and whether the CF should remain as an “umbrella” for all programs.
Continued examination of the CF for its congruency and adequacy in representing what we
believe and what we do in teacher education at Cortland.
Solicitation of institution-wide suggestions related to the CF.
TEC Curriculum Committee
E. Gravani, chair
No Report
Dispositions Committee
Nancy Aumann, Chair
Considering numerous events on campus (including our NCATE visit), the Committee has not met. Yet
we have exchanged ideas via e-mail, especially with regard to the advanced programs. Also, the work of
the Committee to date was shared at the February 16 meeting of graduate coordinators. Our final
recommendation remains a "work in progress."
TECRC
Nancy Aumann
On the regular every-other-Friday schedule, TECRC has conducted "business as usual." At this
time of the year, part of that "business" is to review every candidate who plans to student teach in
the fall.
TEC Steering Committee and Regular TEC Meeting Dates-2010/2011
Steering Committee Date/11:00am-12:00pm
TEC Meeting Date/3:00pm-5:00pm
LOC
Friday September 3, 2010
Friday September 17, 2010
Jacobus
Friday October 1, 2010
Friday October 8, 2010
Hall of Fame
Friday October 29, 2010
Friday November 12, 2010
TBD
Friday November 19, 2010
Friday December 10, 2010
Jacobus
Friday January 14, 2011 (optional)
Friday January 28, 2011
Exhibition
Friday February 4, 2011
Friday February 11, 2011
Jacobus
Site Visit for NCATE is March 5-9
No TEC Meeting this month
Friday April 1, 2011
Friday April 8, 2011
Exhibition
Friday April 29, 2011
Friday May 6, 2011
Exhibition
All steering meetings to be held in 1242 Education
Draft
Teacher Education Council
February 11, 2011
3:00 – 5:00 pm
Fireplace Lounge
Minutes
Members Present: R. Grantham, R. Janke, B. Buxton, J. Cottone, B. Mattingly, D. Farnsworth, E.
Gravani, J. Mosher, N. Aumann, A. Schutt, A. Pagano, C. Widdall, C. Sarver, E. Kudela, J. Bailey, J.
Lykos, K. Hempson, L. Campbell, L. Couturier, M. Kelly, G. Peterson, M. Barduhn
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Approve Agenda: Approved as written.
Approve Minutes from 1/28/11: Approved as written. All in favor.
Standing Committee Reports:
a. TEC Bylaws Committee – J. Cottone – The committee will be discussing amending the
current bylaws. Equal representation from all three schools is preferred. If students are
interested in serving as representatives, they would need to be voted in. There would
need to be an amendment to the by-laws on how students are selected. Another topic for
discussion is the role of the TEC Curriculum Committee. J. Cottone will send
information out to members asking for suggestions on amending the by-laws.
b. TEC Assessment Committee – D. Farnsworth – The committee will not be able to meet
prior to the NCATE Board of Examiners site visit. It is difficult getting members of the
committee together. The committee will meet on February 21. This will be the first
meeting for the spring semester. Topics of discussion will be; 1) Where are the
weaknesses within the unit assessment system and how to cope; 2) Strengths of the
assessment program. We will look at the advanced programs. The primary focus of the
February 21 and 28 meetings will be to prepare to meet with the Board of Examiners.
We will review the narrative from our Institutional Report, exhibits, and the TECAS
evaluation system. The week after spring break we will work with feedback provided
from the Board of Examiners to address any weaknesses. A long range plan for meeting
to refine assessment instruments will be established. As part of the preparation for the
visit, be sure to look at the Institutional Report, Standard 2 and the exhibits. The
assessment handbook will be included as one of the exhibits. This will be compiled by J.
Bailey.
c. Conceptual Framework Committee – No report.
d. TECRC – N. Aumann – See attached report with comments.
e. TEC Curriculum Committee – No report.
Old Business:
a. NYSED mandate on Special Education – M. Barduhn
i. SPE 275 and 520 - A new curriculum proposal has gone through the School of
Education Curriculum committee. Some minor revisions were completed and the proposal
has been forwarded on to the dean
ii. Discussion on request for one year waiver of implementation - The question was
raised whether or not a one-year waiver should be requested or to move forward with the
proposal. The following is based on discussion: There is a lot to be considered and
approved in a short period of time. A one-year waiver would allow for further discussion
and a more complete understanding of what changes need to be made in order to meet the
new requirements. For example, the 15 hour field placement requirement would not
apply to Communications Disorders and Sciences majors. Considering the number of
new freshmen and transfer students coming into the program, it is important to get the
waiver. It was also stated it would be difficult to complete all of the work that still needs
to be done in order to shift things in the program in such a short time frame. It takes time
and effort for change. Transfers will be hit the hardest. The changes in field placements
will require a lot of dialogue with the schools. Foundations and Social Advocacy strategic
plan is to develop their 7 – 12 majors connected to content areas. The curriculum process
and review system is such that if a proposal is submitted and approved in the spring, it is
not implemented until the next spring. Is there a reasonable chance of a waiver being
approved? If a waiver is requested, how long will it take to be notified? M. Barduhn
would have to ask the Provost to fast-track the approval process. The following
suggestions were made: 1) Sciences are proposing to offer a course with field
experience, perhaps adding to or using the existing structure and embedding the field
experience. 2) Take 15 hours out of a senior course and put it into special education (SPE
270 could be taken simultaneously.) 3) Observation hours can be reconfigured. (Clinical
experience will include the 25 hours. The deans will look into this.) 4) Field work is
only one credit. It is difficult to pull it out. M. Barduhn suggested that discussion
continue and a decision be made by the end of the spring semester. M. Barduhn will
work on the structure of the letter. M. Barduhn requested a vote to vote. L. Campbell
made a motion. E. Kudela seconded. All were in favor with the exception of two
abstentions.
b. Update from the Dispositions Sub-Committee (administration plan for advanced
programs) – N. Aumann – To date, there has been no feedback on wording, objectives,
etc. There was no meeting of the graduate coordinators. A meeting has been scheduled
for Wednesday from 2:00 – 3:00 pm. N. Aumann asked to be put on the end of the
agenda and will send information from that meeting out electronically.
V.
New Business: (Discussion Items)
a. ID Badges: Distribution Process and Timeline – M. Barduhn – K. Beney is working on
getting the ID badges for student teachers. Materials have been ordered.
b. NCTQ Update – M. Barduhn – Schools of Education and administration are now paying
attention. In 2007, SUNY Cortland participated in a study conducted by NCTQ with
regard to Childhood Education. It was later learned that this organization did not pay
attention to the materials that were submitted by SUNY Cortland. As a result, SUNY
Cortland has sought legal council. There has been no further consultation with NCTQ.
The methodology and ethics of this organization are questionable.
c. Update from the NCATE Executive Steering Committee – M. Barduhn and the
Committee
i. Report from the NCATE Site Visit Committee – M. Barduhn – Preparations for
the site visit are progressing. The Board of Examiners Team has changed a few
times recently. The committee is working on travel arrangements. B. Klein is
working with student ambassadors. She has conducted two training sessions.
1. Preparations for Meeting with the BoE – Final Schedule - The final
schedule has been completed. An open faculty meeting has been
scheduled. Please come and make your voices heard. School visits have
been scheduled with Cortland City Schools, Tully Central Schools and
Ithaca City Schools. We are looking for school administrators to attend a
session on campus as well as host teachers, initial and advanced
candidates, advisory board members and alumni. If you know of anyone,
let us know. We can provide videoconferencing if necessary.
2. NCATE Informational Packets Distributed to Relevant Groups – M.
Barduhn will be meeting with the Chair’s Councils from all three schools
and will distribute informational packets to all department chairs. For
preparation of adjuncts and students, M. Barduhn will distribute
information electronically.
3. Poster Session Update - . The poster session is being scheduled by J.
Walkuski and P. Buckenmeyer. Jacobus Lounge will be available on
Friday afternoon for faculty to set up for the session.
ii. Modifications to the Teacher Education Website – We recently added our
NCATE brochure to the Teacher Education website. The Professional Education
Unit website can be accessed through the Teacher Education site. We are still
working on populating some areas. It is still under construction and will be
completed by the time of the site visit. Most course syllabi have been posted to
the Professional Education Unit website, although we are still lacking some
syllabi. There is still work to be done on completing the list of classes being held
on Monday and Tuesday, which may be chosen for a visit by the BoE Team. If a
class is selected for a visit, the corresponding syllabus is a necessity. Therefore,
it is imperative that all syllabi be received for inclusion on the website.
iii. Video Production – M. Barduhn is looking into the possibility of creating an
NCATE video which would be used to inform students, faculty and staff of what
NCATE is all about. Work has begun.
iv. Review of the Preparation Questions for Constituent Groups 1. M. Barduhn has shared a list of prep questions for Professional
Education faculty. This is not a substitute for reading the Institutional
Report. Read it and get a sense for what is contained in the report.
Conceptual Framework slides are available; the deans have them. If you
need them, let the deans know. The group briefly went through the
questions and addressed any questions from the committee. M. Barduhn
asked for examples of portfolios; if you want to share one that is
exemplar, please do.
2. The committee reviewed the assessment questions and addressed any
areas of concern.
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 pm.