Teacher Education Council
April 1, 2010
3:00 – 5:00pm
Fireplace Lounge, Corey Union
MINUTES
Members Present: A. Pagano, D. Dickerson, E. Jampole, E. Kudela, G. Bhat, J.
Alemzadeh, J. Bailey, J. Lykos, K. Howarth, L. Couturier, M. Gfeller, M. Kelly, R.
Janke, W. Buxton, M. Barduhn, J. Cottone, B. Mattingly, D. Farnsworth, E. Gravani,
J. O’Callaghan, J. Mosher, K. Beney, K. Smith, M. Canfield, N. Aumann, V. Marty, M.
Prus
Meeting was convened by M. Barduhn, Chair at 3:07p.m.
I. Review and Approve Agenda: Approved without modification or
addition
II. Review and approve minutes, March 4, 2010: Approved without
modification or addition
III. Old Business
a.
Report from the NCATE Steering Committee-J. Cottone, B.
Mattingly and M. Barduhn
1) Standards Sub-committee Updates-Standard 5-B.
MattinglyBruce did a power point presentation for the group (appended
here), highlighting the elements contained in Standard 5 of
the Institutional Report, as well as how the Standard 5 subcommittee plans to address each of these elements and
provide evidentiary support for demonstrating that we are at
an acceptable or target level for the standard overall. One
area of significant concern and a challenge for the Standard 5
subcommittee, however, is element 5b. Bruce polled the
present TEC members to ascertain if there would be
objections to allowing the Standard 5 sub-committee to use
their CTE data in an aggregated form, by school, for the
NCATE Standard 5 process? What If we took teaching
evaluations and aggregate them by school. This goes beyond
aggregating by program or individual. Mark clarified that a
report from the committee on teaching effectiveness states
the results of CTE belong to the faculty member and the
department. This was approved by the faculty senate and
was accepted by the then-President Judson Taylor. Lynn
Couturier indicated that she does not believe anyone will care
or take issue with using the aggregated results of the CTEs.
Girish asked if it is currently possible for us to access this
information? If it is, in what form (electronic or hard copy)?
Merle responded that it would not be hard to get the data if
appropriate approvals were garnered. David Dickerson
stated that there are different questions that each dept. asks
and questioned whether the data derived from these questions
would yield consistent data across all programs/schools.
Bruce responded that the Standard 5 committee would only
be using the common questions on the CTEs to collect and
analyze data and that the CTEs from pedagogy courses will
be the only ones used for this purpose. He further advised
that there are 8 common questions that are asked on all
CTEs. Bill Buxton feels that some of the information may be
useful and meaningful like the number of students enrolled,
whether the course is a required course in the major etc., but
he has to wonder whether the result is truly meaningful to us
as we try to demonstrate that we have met a particular
Standard for NCATE reaccreditation. Bruce informed the
council that he did have a recent conversation with J. Dangler
and he indicated that she felt this method would be
acceptable. In the final analysis the question that needs to be
asked is, “What is the expectation and what is a meaningful
way to meet it?”
2) Update on SPA Completion, Edit, Review and
Submission Processes-D. Farnsworth advised the
council that all Specialized Area Program Reports
for SUNY Cortland were filed electronically by the
March 15, 2010 deadline. He congratulated all of
the SPA writers and contributors and thanks
participants for their outstanding scholarship and
commitment to Teacher Education at SUNY
Cortland. Dennis also informed the Council that
three of the reports were returned for not meeting
the required number of acceptable tables/graphs but
that all of the reports were quickly corrected and
resubmitted for acceptance and consideration. Now
all we need do is wait for the SPAs to render
decisions. This must be done by 8/1/10.
3) Update from the SUNY Cortland Conceptual
Framework Review Committee-K. Howarth & J.
Mosher-(See the power point presentation appended
to these minutes). Kath Howarth and Joy Mosher
went through the power point presentation they put
together on the update/revision process they have
been employing to compress the existing CF
document from 46 pages to approximately 3 pages.
They advised the membership where they could
access the amended CF but cautioned members that
their work continues. Joy reviewed additional dates,
times and locations where updates on the CF would
be conducted.
4) Updated SUNY Cortland IR/SPA Timeline-M.
Barduhn reviewed the revised timeline paying
special attention to the IR potion and informing the
full council on items that we need to be aware of.
b. Feedback from TEC to K. Beney on the Draft Document “100
Hours of State Mandated Field Experience in K-12 School
Settings” and “Disrupted Placements”: Kathy reviewed the
genesis of the two documents and informed the committee that
they are welcome to recommend additional modifications to the
document. We will solicit additional comments and approval by
the TEC will be put to electronic vote when all modifications and
edits are complete. Emilie Kudela asked if the chart on the early
field experiences was meant to address the 100 hours only, as
many programs go beyond the 100 hour threshold. Kathy
indicated that the chart was to represent all early field experiences.
Emily notified Kathy that she would be making some
recommendations for change to the original document. There was
significant discussion about adding additional boxes to the flow
chart for disrupted placements in order to reflect other pathways
within which these situations can occur. E. Gravani suggested that
there should be a two-way pathway from the Assoc. Dean to the
Registrar. Keith Smith raised a concern that from his perspective
there are other situations (i.e. using the term colored to an African
American student) that are not reflected in the flow chart and
perhaps should be. Kathy made note of all comments and will
bring the chart back to the TEC when all changes have been made.
c. Update on the effort to revise the TEC Bylaws of 2009 and the
TEC Policy and Procedure Manual: J. Cottone reviewed his
requested to put together a small committee to begin looking at this
area. He indicated that we are currently a bit top-heavy in exofficio members being represented and hopes to hear from a few
more faculty members with regard to serving on the update
committee. The committee could even meet electronically to begin
the process if members felt this would be a productive avenue to
begin discussion.
d. Professional Development School (PDS) update and National
Conference Report-K. Hempson-No report at this time.
IV.
New Businessa. Vote to approve Mary Ann Murphy, Principal, Tully High
School as a member of the Conceptual Framework Subcommittee. 10 voting members were present at the time of the
vote/10 members voted to approve.
b. Discuss the establishment of the Standing TEC Advisory
Committee: Purpose, Responsibilities, Committee Make-Up,
etc.- An appeal was made by M. Barduhn and supported by the
deans to encourage nominations to the TEC Advisory council
so that we can approve membership, secure letters of
appointment by the provost, and convene the group as soon as
possible.
c. Teacher Education Unit Assessment Committee-M. Barduhnitem held over for next meeting of the TEC.
V. Other?
Adjourned at 4:30 for cake and coffee in celebration of SPA Program Report
completion and submission.
Next meeting: Thursday, May 6, 2010, Fireplace Lounge, Corey Union,
3:00pm to 5:00pm.
Conceptual Framework Working Draft*: 29 March 2010
(current edits: 1,576 words; 11,199 characters with spaces)
I. Our Vision for Teacher Education
SUNY Cortland’s vision for teacher education programs is shared by faculty across
the campus who appreciate Cortland’s historical commitment to teacher education and to
program excellence. This vision is based on a set of common values related to preparing
future teachers:







The College values the collective knowledge, skills and unique talents of its teaching
community. It sees its role as providing opportunity for students to “graduate with the
knowledge, integrity, skills and compassion to excel as leaders, citizens, scholars,
teachers, and champions of excellence” (SUNY Cortland College vision 2010-2020);
The College has a clear commitment to providing diverse learning experiences and
quality instruction in the classroom, based on best practices and a strong knowledge
base.
Collaboration among liberal arts and professional members of the unit is expected.
collaboration among members of the unit and educational professionals in the public
schools is supported;
Faculty leadership in professional and organizational roles within the profession is
expected;
Faculty commitment to lifelong learning and engagement in social issues is
celebrated.
Teacher candidates are the focus of all our endeavors. SUNY Cortland is dedicated to
developing candidates’ knowledge, integrity, professional standards and commitment
to their future students and school community.
II. Our Mission
The mission of SUNY Cortland’s Teacher Education Unit is congruent with the College’s
new mission and is framed by its fundamental commitment to liberal learning. The
teacher education program curricula are based on a sound theoretical and empirical
framework, to provide candidates with depth and breadth of knowledge and practical
experiences necessary to become reflective and effective teachers. The unit prepares
teachers to contribute to their profession, their communities, and to society at large.
III. Our Philosophy
Our vision and mission are based on our belief that:
Teacher education at SUNY Cortland is built upon a foundation of liberal learning
and the development of teachers who have exceptional pedagogical knowledge and skills.
Liberal learning informs the professional education strand in an innovative thematic
approach emphasizing personal responsibility and global understanding that encourages
the construction of communities committed to enacting social justice. We prepare teacher
candidates to know the world in ways they do not when they come to us, and to spark a
love of teaching and of learning so strong and so appealing that their students will be
drawn into it themselves. Graduates of SUNY Cortland’s teacher education program will
be prepared to contribute to their communities and to the democratic development of
society.
Three key components are included in our fundamental commitment to liberal
learning: personal responsibility, social justice, and global understanding. Personal
responsibility means candidate’s professional development addresses issues of integrity,
ethics, commitment, and moral choices. Social justice means candidates’ actions and
words seek full participation for all people in a global society. Candidates prepare to
teach in a variety of school environments while addressing the physical, emotional, and
intellectual needs of a diverse and multicultural student population. It is important that
educators have a highly elevated sense of global understanding: candidates will
inevitably teach new immigrants and international students; they are exposed to the
reality of a global community from multiple perspectives.
May 2002 the College’s TEC adopted the Cortland apple tree as a symbol of our
approach to teacher education (see exhibit); it remains relevant today. The root system
reflects three aspects of Liberal Learning: Personal Responsibility, Social Justice and
Global Understanding. Teacher Education, including NCATE’s Professional Standards
– Knowledge Base, Professional Commitments, Professional and State Standards,
Diversity, and Assessment – form the trunk and branches. Each of these elements is
connected, functioning as part of a whole.
IV. Candidate Proficiencies and Knowledge Base
SUNY Cortland’s teacher education programs provide opportunities and experiences to
ensure that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required for
effective teaching. The following thirteen proficiencies assure that SUNY Cortland
teacher candidates will make a difference in the classroom and beyond.
Knowledge base: Candidates will:
1. Demonstrate a solid foundation in the arts and sciences;
2. Possess in-depth knowledge of the subject area to be taught;
3. Understand how students learn and develop;
4. Manage classrooms structured in a variety of ways to promote a safe learning
environment;
5. Know and apply various disciplinary models to manage student behavior;
Professional commitment: Candidates will:
6. Promote parental involvement and collaborate effectively with other staff, the
community, higher education, other agencies, and cultural institutions, as well as parents
and other care givers, for the benefit of students;
7. Continue to develop professionally as reflective practitioners who are committed to
ongoing
scholarly inquiry;
Standards: Candidates will:
8. Integrate curriculum among disciplines, and balance historical and contemporary
research, theory, and practice;
9. Demonstrate good moral character;
Diversity: Candidates will:
10. Apply a variety of teaching strategies to develop a positive teaching-learning
environment where all students are encouraged to achieve their highest potential;
11. Foster respect for individual’s abilities and disabilities and an understanding and
appreciation of variations of ethnicity, culture, language, gender, age, class, and sexual
orientation;
Assessment: Candidates will:
12. Use multiple and authentic forms of assessment to analyze teaching and student
learning and to plan curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of individual students;
and,
Technology: Candidates will:
13. Demonstrate sufficient technology skills and the ability to integrate technology into
classroom teaching/learning.
These outcomes are based largely on national, state, institutional, and SPA standards. The
Crosswalk (ATTACHMENT) details how SUNY Cortland’s outcomes for teacher
education candidates align with these external standards. Included immediately below is a
narrative explaining how SUNY Cortland’s faculty established these based on existing
research and best practice.
Knowledge Base
Candidates should demonstrate a solid foundation in the arts and sciences. The
philosophical commitment to a solid foundation in the arts and sciences in our teacher
education programs can be traced to the space John Dewey (1916, 1938) granted for the
liberal arts in connecting the growth of democracy and sound educational practice.
Education must not only provide candidates the opportunity to acquire a broad foundation
in the arts and sciences; it must teach them to critically analyze that knowledge and to
recognize its often contested nature (e.g., Banks, 1999; Apple, 2004; Nieto and Bode,
2008).
Candidates should possess in-depth knowledge of the subject area to be taught.
Alongside preparation in pedagogy and methods, teachers’ subject matter knowledge has
consistently been shown to relate positively with student achievement (e.g., Monk, 1994;
Darling-Hammond and Youngs, 2002).
Candidates should understand how students learn and develop. Effective teachers
must be aware of theories of child development and learning in order to select appropriate
pedagogical strategies and materials to support cognitive, social, physical, and emotional
growth in all students (Darling-Hammond, 1998). Candidates in the SUNY Cortland
teacher education program acquire understanding of a broad range of historical and
contemporary developmental and learning theories (e.g., Gardner, 1993; Piaget, 1970;
Vygotsky, 1978).
Candidates must manage classrooms structured in a variety of ways to promote a
safe and orderly environment for learning and to teach the skills of living responsibly
in society. Candidates must demonstrate competence in establishing an optimal learning
environment; they must understand the theoretical perspectives and practical applications
of strategies for effective classroom management and discipline, ranging from humanistic
to behavioristic approaches. Candidates discuss classroom management, review a range
of models and begin developing their approach, which will be ongoing throughout the
program. Teachers must be mindful that the skills and attitudes students learn are
powerfully related to the nature of the society. Democracies give great power to citizens;
responsible citizenship is built in some part through what students learn from teachers’
approach to classroom management and discipline. Candidates develop their own
classroom plan, based on the needs of the students they will teach.
Professional Commitments
Candidates promote parental involvement and collaborate effectively with other
staff, the community, higher education, other agencies, and cultural institutions as
well as parents and other caregivers for the benefit of students. Research
demonstrates that family involvement in schools has an especially positive impact on
student achievement (cf., Fan & Chen, 2001).
Candidates continue to develop professionally as reflective practitioners who are
committed to ongoing scholarly inquiry. Technical skills, knowledge, behavior and
ethical and political judgments are critical components of reflective thought and effective
teaching (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). As such, the reflective practitioner (Schon, 1983)
keeps abreast of current research and technology in the field as a part of professional
development. The reflective practitioner is constantly reading, researching, analyzing and
questioning issues in the profession (Berliner & Biddle, 1995). As part of the reflective
process, public school teachers and college faculty should collaborate to design effective
and up-to-date curriculum for teacher education programs (Goodlad, 1990; DarlingHammond, 2006).
Standards
Our candidates integrate curriculum among disciplines and balance historical
and contemporary research, theory, and practice. When learning is disconnected
from a meaningful context, students’ engagement in the process is minimized. Teacher
candidates help students make these connections by linking knowledge across areas of
study. The benefits of this include increased learning, motivation for learning, and the
ability to apply concepts and utilize higher-order thinking, as well as decreased anxiety
and disruptive behavior. Candidates’ understanding of the social, historical, and
philosophical context of education informs their critical analysis of existing theory and
practice.
Candidates demonstrate good moral character. Teacher candidates learn to educate
for character as well as for intellect. They embody the highest ethical standards in
establishing and maintaining a psychologically and socially safe, respectful, and
supportive environment where all children can learn (Noddings, 2002).
----- CURRENT EDITS END HERE -----
Diversity
One outcome representing the Diversity “branch” of SUNY Cortland’s Conceptual
Framework states that candidates must apply a variety of teaching strategies to develop
a positive teaching-learning environment where all students are encouraged to
achieve their highest potential. To ensure that all students learn, effective teachers
utilize a variety of teaching strategies that address the individual needs of their students.
The need for multiple teaching strategies has been acknowledged consistently throughout
the literature, evident from Bruner (1960) to the present day. As observed by Bruner, “In
sum, then, the teacher’s task as communicator, model, and identification figure can be
supported by a wise use of a variety of devices that expand experience, clarify it, and give
it personal significance” (p. 91). In the mideighties, Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple
intelligences distinguished among different types of learners and suggested ways to teach
each type effectively (Gardner, 1983).
The knowledge and ability to teach in an inclusive setting has become increasingly
important, as has the ability of the teacher to manage classrooms in which students come
from differing socioeconomic backgrounds, diverse populations and from homes whose
native language is not English. Collaborative, student-centered classrooms have long
been considered a useful forum for learning (Goodlad, 1984).
At SUNY Cortland all teacher candidates receive training and experience in the use
of multiple teaching strategies, collaborative learning, inclusive settings, and literacy.
Candidates also engage in 100 hours of pre-student teaching as well as student teaching
experiences in a variety of school settings and with diverse student populations where
their training is put into practice.
As a second outcome related to Diversity, our candidates must foster respect for
individual’s abilities and disabilities and an understanding and appreciation of
variations of ethnicity, culture, language, gender, age, class, and sexual orientation.
Just as educators must understand the similarities that characterize children’s learning
and development, they must recognize the many ways children differ from each other and
how these differences can influence teaching and learning (Dyson, 1997). In addition, it
is increasingly important in our multicultural society that educators transcend simple
knowledge and “tolerance” of differences among humans, and in fact appreciate and
respect those differences. Such attitudes are necessary in part because they help ensure
that children have an optimal learning experience regardless of their background and
other characteristics. They are also necessary because educators have a critical modeling
effect on children, many of whom respond aversively to any kind of difference in others.
As such it is important for children to sense and see that their teachers view individual
variations in a positive fashion.
In the past decade few issues in the field of education have generated more attention
than this one, with much of the relevant literature falling under the umbrella of
“multicultural education” (e.g., Banks, 1999; Gay, 1994; Nieto, 2000). More modern
authors, however, owe a great debt to anthropologist John Ogbu (1974; 1978) who was
one of the first to attempt to tease out the contributions of racial/ethnic status, culture, and
social class in explaining why American public education was “failing” poor ethnic
minority children, especially blacks and Hispanics. Thirty years after Ogbu’s initial
writings, public education continues to face the same challenges he described in the
1970’s. These challenges include: ongoing differences in children’s school achievement
based on their ethnic status and social class (Gay, 1994), the occurrence of “cultural
clashes” between the school and a student’s home and community (Banks, 1999; Delpit,
1995), and the tendency for teachers to respond to children on the basis of stereotypes the
teachers hold regarding the child’s race/ethnicity and social class (Delpit, 1995). More
positively, a significant number of recommendations have also emerged for overcoming
these challenges (e.g., Delpit, 1995; Dyson, 1997; Nieto, 2000).
Reflecting the need to acknowledge differences that may exist among children, the
No Child Left Behind Act (2002) includes provisions for taking these variations into
account. As an example, annual progress toward standards for each state, school district,
and school will be measured by sorting test results for students who are economically
disadvantaged, are from racial or ethnic minority groups, have disabilities, or have
limited proficiency in English. Results will also be sorted by gender and migrant status.
Since these results must be included in state and district annual reports, any “achievement
gaps” between particular student groups will be clear and public, with the intent that
these gaps can be closed through appropriate intervention. As the legislation’s Web page
states, “No country has ever made the bold commitment that every boy and girl will learn
and excel – regardless of race, family background, or income.” It is also notable that the
NCLB Act addresses the special needs of children who are gifted and talented.
Finally, although early “multicultural education” initiatives focused exclusively on race
and ethnicity, more recently there has been growing recognition of the other factors that
contribute to children’s “difference,” including social class (e.g., Kozol, 1991), culture
(e.g., Heath, 1983), gender (e.g., Gilligan, 1982), disability status (e.g., Mercer & Mercer,
1998), linguistic variations (e.g., Delpit, 1995), and sexual orientation (e.g., Nieto, 2000).
SUNY Cortland believes that a necessary step in preparing students for a
multicultural society and world is to expose them to the origins and characteristics of
racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression, at both the individual and institutional
levels and in both this country and in a global context. To that end, as part of its General
Education Program, the College requires students to take coursework in Prejudice and
Discrimination. In addition, all teacher candidates are required by NYSED to complete a
year of college-level study of a foreign language, including awareness of other cultures.
A web-based interactive ESL module has been developed to further enhance candidates’
understanding of different cultures.
Assessment
Our candidates must use multiple and authentic forms of assessment to analyze
teaching and student learning and to plan curriculum and instruction to meet the
needs of individual students. Implemented effectively, evaluation serves as a basis to
improve learning and instruction, and a fundamental principle of effective evaluation is
that no single assessment measure is best, nor can it accurately reflect performance
(Gronlund, 1965). As such, effective evaluation necessarily includes a variety of
evaluation techniques. The need for such an approach is especially compelling when it is
taken into account that equally “intelligent” individuals demonstrate their intellectual
competencies in very different ways (Gardner, 1983). Along these lines, meaningful
evaluative information is most likely to be yielded through multiple assessments
grounded in authentic performance applications conducted in different contexts and at
different times (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). As Eisner (1993) observes, “The tasks used
to assess what students know and can do need to reflect the tasks they will encounter in
the work outside schools, not merely those limited to the schools themselves” (p. 226).
Similarly, Gardner (1983) notes the need to “include actual elements and symbols of the
particular realm under consideration “ (p. 387) when assessing knowledge and skills.
In order to promote the use of multiple assessment methods, SUNY Cortland’s
teacher education program exposes students to the variety of available techniques –
formative vs. summative, traditional vs. alternative, and quantitative vs. qualitative – as
well as the relative advantages and weaknesses of each approach. For example, Popham
(1999) warns against the use of standardized tests in assessing the quality of teaching and
education, and Gardner (1983) criticizes paper-and-pencil tests as a means of measuring
intelligence.
All teacher candidates at SUNY Cortland receive instruction in multiple and authentic
assessment in their methods courses and have the opportunity to complete assignments
demonstrating use of multiple assessments. Candidates’ ability to assess their students
directly begins with the 100 hours of field experience and is reported in their journals.
Candidates are further evaluated on their ability to assess their students during the
culminating student teaching experience. The Student Teacher Evaluation Form has a
question that is specific to the candidate’s knowledge of assessment strategies and ability
to implement them. The cooperating teacher and the college supervisor complete this
form at both the mid-quarter and the end of quarter points. Feedback is shared with the
student teacher in a three-way conversation. Exemplars of K-12 student performance
appear in the candidate’s portfolio.
Technology
Our candidates must demonstrate sufficient technology skills and the ability to
integrate technology into classroom teaching/learning. Access to computers, the
internet and e-mail has increased tremendously in the last decade. The gap between those
who have computer access and those who do not is narrowing with the introduction of
lower-cost computers and services, making them more accessible to those from lower
income families and poorer school districts and therefore making digital infusion a
realizable goal (Compaine, 2001).
The potential positive impact of technology and computers on learning and
development is well substantiated (Papert, 1980), but effective computer instruction
requires thoughtful guidance by educators. As Papert noted more than twenty years ago,
“. . . true computer literacy is not just knowing how to make use of computers and
computational ideas. It is knowing when it is appropriate to do so” (p. 155). According to
Jonassen (1996), computer applications should serve as “mind tools,” which enhance
learning by facilitating critical thinking and higher-order learning. Others such as Bowers
(1995) argue that instruction in this area must stress historical perspectives of technology
and science as they interact with cultural developments so that students understand their
eventual impact on culture and the environment. Given the dynamic nature of this field,
it is certain that new learning and teaching approaches will be a key focus for educators
(Compaine, 2001). As such, future teachers will need to know how and when to use
computers, how to understand their potential in enhancing learning, and how to integrate
computers and technology most effectively and appropriately into the curriculum.
At SUNY Cortland there are a number of requirements in place to ensure students’
technology competence. For example, at present the College is working to develop a
common set of expectations for all students so as to meet the current SUNY-wide
General Education requirement for Information Management. In addition, SUNY
Cortland students must complete two writing intensive courses, one of which is in the
major, for graduation. Writing intensive
(WI) courses require that students use technology for research in preparation of writing a
25-30 page term paper. This requirement represents the first step that teacher candidates
take to demonstrate their information technology general skills.
The TEC is currently in discussion regarding a common set of technology
performance outcomes for all teacher candidates, with discussion expected to continue in
Spring 2003. In the meantime the TEC, in conjunction with Library technology staff, has
undertaken pilot testing of candidates in various teacher education programs, including
Social Studies, to determine adequacy of basic computer skills. Computer technology
workshops for faculty and teacher candidates are offered regularly throughout the
semester by Library staff. Topics include but are not limited to: PowerPoint, spreadsheet
development, WebCT, database development, and TracDat.
The methods courses serve as the main source for fulfillment of technology
performance outcomes in the content area. Candidates are expected to demonstrate use of
technology in lesson planning, unit planning and classroom presentations. Examples
include but are not limited to: the integration of presentation software, the development
of web-based resources and the use of classroom management software. Prior to student
teaching candidates receive training in identification and implementation of appropriate
software in the field to be taught. Student teachers are also expected to demonstrate use
of appropriate technology in classroom instruction and are evaluated by the cooperating
teacher and the College supervisor. At the program exit level, candidates are required to
submit a portfolio, with the understanding that future candidates within the next five
years will be expected to produce electronic portfolios. The TEC has identified three
programs – Physical Education, Adolescence Science Education, and Speech Pathology
and Audiology—to participate in an iWebFolio pilot project. Candidates in these
programs will have the opportunity to use this software, developed by NuVentive, to
produce electronic portfolios for selected classes. Training for pilot faculty and
candidates for this initiative will take place at the beginning of the Spring 2003 semester.
A second electronic portfolio model is currently being used in the Thematic Methods
Block for the Childhood Education Program.
V. Candidate Assessment
Teacher educators at SUNY Cortland view assessment both as a means of monitoring
candidate progress and accountability and as a way to promote student learning. Faculty
are committed to investigating research-based assessment techniques and using multiple
forms of assessment. Throughout the program candidates move toward a comprehensive
understanding of assessment, both in their ability to apply assessment measures in the
classroom and to perform their own self assessment in professional development.
*
Note: the original CF can be found at:
http://www.cortland.edu/ncate/conceptual%20framework.pdf
SUNY CORTLAND SPA REPORT TIMELINE
Submission Deadline: 03/15/10
09/08/09:
Steering Cmte meets to decide on review process
Recommendations for SPA Review Committee structure and function
09/22/09:
Finalize SPA Review Committee structure and function.
SPA Review Committee appointed and charged.
10/05/09:
SPA Review Committee reviewer inter-rater reliability training begins.
10/30/09
Initial draft of SPA Report due to D. Farnsworth
Review period 10/30/09 till 12/05/09
12/05/09
Comments and dialogue with SPA preparers through Quality Circle
Review Process.
12/06/09
Revision period for SPA documents: 12/06/09-2/16/10
02/17/10
Dean’s Review of Revisions: 02/17/10 through 02/22/10
02/23/10
Dean submits Final SPA documents to M. Barduhn for review and
approval: 02/23/10 through 03/01/10
03/01/10
Provost Review and Approval to Submit: 03/01/10 through 03/09/10
03/09/10
SPA Submission Period to NCATE: 03/09/10 through 03/15/09
03/15/10
SPA Submission Final Deadline
08/01/10
Recognition Report Due Back to the Program by 8/01/10
9/15/10
Response to Conditions reports (Rejoinders) to be filed with NCATESeptember 15, 2010
02/01/11
NCATE sends notification of the decision of the revised national
recognition reports to institutions that submitted revised program reports
the previous September.
SUNY CORTLAND IR TIMELINE AND NCATE BOE VISIT
SPRING 2011
1/10/08
SUNY Cortland files Intent to Continue NCATE Accreditation form.
2/01/10
SUNY Cortland requests dates for a Spring 2011 NCATE BOE Visit.
3/15/10
SUNY Cortland submits electronic program reports to NCATE.
5/25/10
Initial draft of the SUNY Cortland IR due to the Assistant Provost for
Teacher Education.
5/31/10
Review, comment and revision process of the SUNY Cortland
Institutional Report begins.
8/01/10
SUNY Cortland notified of the decision on national recognition
reports for SPAs.
9/01/10
SUNY Cortland publishes an announcement of the upcoming visit in local
news media to invite third party testimony.
10/11/10
Final draft Institutional Report due to NCATE Steering Committee, deans,
Assistant Provost
10/11-11/15
Provost Review of Institutional Report.
11/01/10
NCATE sends copy of third party testimony (if any) to SUNY Cortland
for response.
11/1512/01/10
1/04/11
Final edits of Institutional Report
Responses to third party testimony have been reviewed by the BOE Team
Chair.
Pre-visit arrangements are finalized. (BOE chair, state representative, and
SUNY Cortland personnel) This may be a virtual visit and should be 60
days prior to actual visit.
SUNY Cortland makes draft version of IR on AIMS available for review
by the BOE Team Chair.
SUNY Cortland submits (within AIMS) the final version of the
Institutional Report (Online IR) as soon as the pre-visit is completed.
3/05/11
NCATE BOE visits SUNY Cortland Campus 3/05/11 through 3/09/11
5/02/11
NCATE has 52 days from the end date of the BOE visit to notify SUNY
Cortland that the final BOE Report is complete and available for review.
Upon review of the completed final BOE report, factual corrections should
be made as soon as possible. (Factual corrections are opportunities to
correct numbers, names of documents, an individual’s name, title or
assignment, etc. This is not an opportunity to point out incorrect
conclusions made in the BOE report.)
6/02/11
SUNY Cortland has 30 days from the date we were notified that the final
BOE report was complete and available for review to submit an
Institutional Rejoinder electronically to NCATE.
Within 7–10 days after receipt of the Rejoinder by NCATE: The BOE Team Chair has
an opportunity to submit a Response to Rejoinder.
October 2011 The Unit Accreditation Board renders an accreditation decision.
Within 2 weeks after the UAB Meeting: NCATE notifies the SUNY Cortland Unit Head,
NCATE Coordinator, and state representative electronically and in hard
copy of the UAB decision.
NCATE BOE Team Chair:
NCATE BOE Team Members:
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
NYSED Consultant:
NYSED Team Chair:
Barbara Downs____________________________
_________________________________________
Revised 3/22/10
Internal Notification Process for Disrupted Placements
1. Direct Communication: Attempt to have direct contact with each person “connected” to you via arrows
2. In the absence of “Acknowledged” Direct Communication: (i.e., a phone message or an email not acknowledged or responded to before the
end of the work day), go to the “next” person in line in all directions.
3. Multi-directional Communication: Make sure that you have communicated with each person that “connects” to you via arrows
4. “Emergent”: Any disruption that may involve externals, press coverage, imminent danger &/or over-reaction (avoid having the President
Provost, Dean, Superintendent of Schools, Director of Field Placement being caught off guard with external constituents
or the press). If unable to speak directly to each person connected to you, go immediately to the next person in line
Associate Dean
Department
Chairperson
(if applicable)
Student Teacher
Host
Teacher
Supervisor/
Center Coordinator
Building
Principal
Department/Program
Education Coordinator
Superintendent
FPO Coordinator
= “Standard”
(within 24 hours)
FPO Director
= Added when
“Emergent”
(in Director’s absence, leave message
w/staff; they will notify Director or
designee)
2/16/10
(attempt to make contact
immediately )
Dean
Assistant Provost
(in the Dean’s absence,
contact Associate Dean)
for
Teacher Education
100 Hours of State Mandated Early Field
Experience in K-12 School Settings
(Number of hours associated with each course, course to which field placement hours are
attached, and required sequence of courses)
SCHOOL OF ARTS & SCIENCES
Undergraduate Level Programs of Study with Early Field Experience Requirements
English
Math
Science
Social
Studies
Spanish,
French
ESL
50 hours
50 hours
(Course #1or #2 – AED 309)
Participant-Observation: Writing Process
(Course #1or #2 – AED 409)
Participant-Observation: Teaching Writing
25 hours
25 hours
50 hours
(Course #1 - AED
391)
Introduction to
Adolescence
Education
(Course #2 - AED 392)
Methods I: Teaching
Adolescence Math
(Course #3 - AED 492)
Methods II: Field Experience in Adolescence Math
25 hours
25 hours
25 hours
25 hours
(Course #1 - AED
391)
Introduction to
Adolescence
Education
(Course #2 - AED 442)
Methods I: Teaching
Science at the
Middle/Secondary Level
(Course #3 or #4 - AED
443)
Methods II: Teaching
Science at the
Middle/Secondary Level
Note: May be taken
concurrently w/AED AED
444
(Course #3 or #4 AED 444)
Laboratory Practicum
Note: Hours not
arranged by FPO; may
be taken concurrently
w/AED 443
25 hours
35 hours
40 hours
(Course #1 - AED
391)
Introduction to
Adolescence
Education
(Course #2 - AED 300)
Introduction to Secondary Social
Studies
(Course #3 - AED 301)
Pre-Practice Teaching Seminar
NOTE: Field experience hours are completed
in May/June; PRIOR to starting fall course
60 hours
25 hours
15 hours
(Course #1 or #2 - AED 323)
Seminar for Field Observation
(Course # 1 or #2 - AED
391)
Introduction to
Adolescence Education
(Course #3AED 438)
Methods:
Teaching
Foreign
Languages at the
Middle & JHS
Level II
NOTE: Field experience hours are completed in Winter
Session or Summer Session; PRIOR to starting fall or spring
course
100 Hours of State Mandated Early Field
Experience in K-12 School Settings
(Number of hours associated with each course, course to which field placement hours are
attached, and required sequence of courses)
SCHOOL OF ARTS & SCIENCES
Graduate Level Programs of Study with Early Field Experience Requirements
50 hours
50 hours
English
(Course #1or #2 – ENG 505)
Participant-Observer Experience: Composition Process
(Course #1or #2 – ENG 669)
Participant-Observer Experience: Language
Development
25 hours
25 hours
50 hours
Math
(Course #1 - AED 600)
Introduction to
Adolescence Education
(Course #2 - AED 601)
Methods I: Teaching
Adolescence Math
(Course #3 - AED 603)
Methods II: Field Experience in Adolescence
Math
25 hours
25 hours
25 hours
25 hours
Science
(Course #1 - AED 600)
Introduction to
Adolescence Education
(Course #2 - AED 642)
Methods I: Teaching
Science at the
Middle/Secondary Level
(Course #3 or # 4 AED 643)
Laboratory Practicum
(Course #3 or # 4 AED 644)
Seminar for Field
Practicum
Note: May be taken
concurrently w/AED
644)
Note: May be taken
concurrently w/AED
643
Graduate Level Program of Study with only 50 hours of required field experience
(candidates have prior teacher certification in another area)
ESL
25 hours
25 hours
(Course #1 or #2 – ICC 620)
Materials and Techniques for Teaching ESL
(Course #1 or #2 – ICC 624)
Methods of Teaching ESL
100 Hours of State Mandated Early Field
Experience in K-12 School Settings
(Number of hours associated with each course, course to which field placement hours are
attached, and required sequence of courses)
SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
Undergraduate Level Programs of Study with Early Field Experience Requirements
Health
50 hours
50 hours
(Course #1or #2 – EDU 497)
Field Experience in Health Education
(Course #1or #2 – EDU 498)
Health Education Seminar
NOTE: Field experience hours are completed in
a grade 7-12 classroom setting
Physical
Education
10
hours
(Course #1 –
PED 201)
Motor
Development
NOTE: Field experience hours are completed in a
grade K-6 classroom setting
60 hours
(Course #2 – EDU 256)
Seminar for Field Experience
NOTE: Field experience hours are completed in
May/June or Winter session; FOLLOWING
course completion
12
hours
(Course #3 or
#4 – PED 356)
Adapted
Physical
Education &
Sport
Note: May be
taken
concurrently
w/PED 355
18 hours
(Course #3 or #4 –
EDU 355)
Physical
Education
Curriculum
Planning &
Practice
Note: May be
taken concurrently
w/PED 356
Graduate Level Program/Early Field Experience Requirements
Health
50 hours
50 hours
(Course #1or #2 – EDU 664)
Graduate Field Experience in Health Education
(Course #1or #2 – EDU 668)
Graduate Health Education Seminar
NOTE: Field experience hours are completed in a
grade 7-12 classroom setting (if teacher candidate has
prior certification, 25 of the 50 hours are in a grade
K-6 classroom setting
NOTE: Field experience hours are completed in a
grade K-6 classroom setting
100 Hours of State Mandated Early Field
Experience in K-12 School Settings
(Number of hours associated with each course, course to which field placement hours are
attached, and required sequence of courses)
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Department of Childhood/Early Childhood - Undergraduate Level Programs of
Study with Early Field Experience Requirements
Childhood
50 hours (aka:
“BLOCK 1”)
(Course #1 – EDU 379)
Inquiry into Curriculum, Technology and
Research
NOTE: Field experience hours must be
completed in a grade 1-6 classroom setting
Early
Childhood
Dual
Childhood/
Early
Childhood
50 hours (aka: “BLOCK 2”)
(Course #1or #2 – EDU 479)
Integration of Curriculum, Planning, Technology, and
Practice
NOTE: Field experience hours must be completed in a
grade 1-6 classroom setting
75 hours
(Course #1 – ECE 332)
Preschool Practicum
NOTE: Field experience hours must be completed in
a Pre-K 4 or Pre-K 3 & 4 classroom setting
75 hours
(Course #1 – ECE 332)
Preschool Practicum
50 hours (aka: “BLOCK
2”)
(Course #1or #2 – ECE 479)
Integration of Curriculum, Planning,
Technology, and Practice
NOTE: Field experience hours must be
completed in a grade K-2 classroom setting
50 hours
(aka:
“BLOCK
1”)
50 hours
(aka:
“BLOCK
2”)
(Course #1 – EDU
379)
Inquiry into
Curriculum,
Technology and
Teaching
NOTE: Field
experience hours
must be completed in
a grade 4-6
classroom setting
(Course #1or #2 –
ECE 479)
Integration of
Curriculum, Planning,
Technology, and
Practice
NOTE: Field
experience hours must
be completed in a
grade K-2 classroom
setting
Department of Childhood/Early Childhood - Graduate Level Program/Early Field
Experience Requirements
Childhood
MST
30 hours
100 hours
30 hours
(Course #1 – EDU 510)
Inquiry: Teaching,
Technology, & Tech
(Course #2 or #3 – EDU 657)
Elementary School Practice & Research Seminar
(Course #2 or
#3 – LIT 516)
NOTE: Field
hours must be
completed in a
grade 1-6
classroom
setting
NOTE: Field experience
hours must be completed in
a grade 1-6 classroom
setting
NOTE: Field experience hours must be completed in a
grade 1-6 classroom setting
100 Hours of State Mandated Early Field
Experience in K-12 School Settings
(Number of hours associated with each course, course to which field placement hours are
attached, and required sequence of courses)
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Department of Literacy - Graduate Level/Early Field Experience Requirements
Note: Programs of Study requires only 50 hours of field experience (candidates
have prior teacher certification in another area)
Literacy
Education
Birth Grade 6
10 hours
15 hours
25 hours
(Course #1 or #2 –
LIT 540)
Current Issues in
Assessment &
Instruction Birth –
Grade 6
(Course #1 or #2 –
LIT 680)
Assessment &
Instruction of
Learners
Experiencing Literacy
Difficulties, Birth –
Grade 6
(Course #3 – LIT 693)
Literacy Practicum
Note 1: Hours to be
completed shadowing
a literacy specialist
Note 2: May be taken
concurrently w/LIT
680
Literacy
Education
Grades 512
Note 1: Hours to be
completed working w/
a struggling reader
Note 2: May be taken
concurrently w/LIT
540
10 hours
15 hours
25 hours
(Course #1 or #2 –
LIT 550)
Current Issues in
Assessment &
Instruction Grades 5 –
12
Note 1: Hours to be
completed shadowing
a literacy specialist;
Note 2: May be taken
concurrently w/LIT
681
(Course#1 or #2 –
LIT 681)
Assessment &
Instruction of
Learners
Experiencing Literacy
Difficulties, Grades 5
– 12
Note 1: Hours to be
completed working w/
a struggling reader
Note 2: May be taken
concurrently w/LIT
550
(Course #3 – LIT 693)
Literacy Practicum
100 Hours of State Mandated Early Field
Experience in K-12 School Settings
(Number of hours associated with each course, course to which field placement hours are
attached, and required sequence of courses)
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Department of Foundations and Social Advocacy - Undergraduate Level Program/
Early Field Experience Requirements
Inclusive
Special
Education
25 hours
25 hours
25 hours
(Course #1 – FSA
101)
Introduction to
Urban Education)
(Course #2 – FSA
211)
Principals of
Inclusive Education
(Course #3 – FSA
281)
Perspectives on
Disability Field
Experience
100 hours
(aka: “Block”)
(Course #4 – FSA 420 -75 hours)
Inclusive Education Field Seminar
(Course #5 – LIT 311- 25 hours)
Literacy Field Experience
Note 1: FSA 420 & LIT 311 are
co-requisites
Note 2: Field hours are cohorted
at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Elementary School in fall semester
Note: Field hours
are cohorted at Dr.
Martin Luther King
Jr. Elementary
School in spring
semester
Department of Foundations and Social Advocacy - Graduate Level /Early Field
Experience Requirements
Teaching
Students
with
Disabilities
15
hours
(Course #1,
#2 or 3 – LIT
680)
Assessment &
Instruction
of Learners
Experiencing
Literacy
Difficulties,
Birth – Grade
6
Note 1:
Hours to be
completed
working w/ a
struggling
reader
Note 2: May
be taken
concurrently
w/SPE 610
and/or SPE
630
50 hours
(Course #1, #2
or 3 – SPE
610)
Advanced
Assessment,
Curriculum, &
Instruction of
Students
w/Disabilities
for Math,
Science, and
Social Studies
Note 1: Hours
to be
completed
working in a
general
education
classroom
Note 2: May be
taken
concurrently
w/SPE 610
and/or SPE 630
75
hours
150
hours
(Course #1,
#2 or 3 – SPE
630)
Students with
Disabilities
in Context
(Course #4 SPE 690)
Internship:
Teaching
Students with
Disabilities
Note 1:
Hours to be
completed
working w/ a
child w/ a
disability in
a family
setting.
Note 2: May
be taken
concurrently
w/SPE 610
and/or SPE
630
TEC
Ad hoc committee
on the
Conceptual Framework
Members –
Joy Mosher, Kath Howarth,
Brian Barrett, Angela Pagano,
Mary Ann Murphy
STANDARD 5. FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS,
PERFORMANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT
SUNY Cortland
Teacher Education Council
April 1, 2010