Team Report
Evaluation Form
Chapter 79: Standards for Practitioner Preparation Programs
I. 281-79.10(256) Unit Governance and II. 281-79.10(256) Unit Resources
Concerns/Recommendations
1. State Response:
Teacher education faculty members and support staff are eager to institutionalize UTEP as a universitywide presence. This will have to be acted upon as soon as possible so that momentum gained during the
preparation for the state accreditation visit is not lost.
Institutional Response:
The University Teacher Education Program has continued to develop under the new structure developed
from 2004-2006. Departmental representation on UTEP Committee has worked effectively to set and
carry out teacher education policy. Department representatives have indicated that they believe their
departments are better represented under the new committee structure. The identification of an Office
of Teacher Education under the leadership of the Associate Director has led to effective and efficient
processing of teacher education matters. A Teacher Education Program Operations Team meets weekly
to coordinate and carry out teacher education program issues. The system has worked effectively to
develop a response to the state report. Dean Achterberg has worked to obtain and secure central
administration funding for a full time director of teacher education position. All of these factors
indicate that the changes initiated prior to and described in our Institutional Report have led to a strong
ISU commitment to teacher education and to strong collaboration among the departments and colleges
involved in teacher education. They also are indicative of central administration support for teacher
education. We believe that the new program structure and the other changes identified represent
continuing institutionalization of UTEP as an important University function. They demonstrate the
commitment of the institution to teacher education.
The UTEP program and UTEP Committee will continue to strive to enhance the effectiveness and
quality of teacher education at ISU. These activities represent the appropriate level of action as
requested by the State.
2. State Response:
The position of Associate Director should be full time and carry appropriate faculty/administrative
designation; the position of Program Coordinator should be maintained at full time. With this change,
job descriptions for the UTEP Office Team should be developed.
Institutional Response:
Dean Achterberg has secured a commitment of funding to initiate a search for a Director of Teacher
Education. A national search is being opened to hire a full time employee to serve as the Associate
Dean in the College of Human Sciences and Director of the University Teacher Education Program. The
responsibilities for this person will center on Teacher Education at Iowa State. The intent is to complete
a hire this spring.
In regards to the job descriptions for the UTEP Office Team, as a part of the hiring process, job
descriptions are established for each position (see attached).
-1-
Team Report
Evaluation Form
State Response:
Appropriate new faculty line(s) should be implemented to support this new organizational structure.
Institutional Response:
The new organizational structure is being supported by a new line for a Director of Teacher Education
Associate Dean in the College of Human Sciences. In addition, the new Office of Teacher Education
with its associated lines were described in the institutional report. This combination of lines and
resources represents a strong commitment to support the new UTEP organizational structure.
3. State Response:
College administration is encouraged to employ the expertise and enthusiasm of the UTEPC in
successfully implementing the new organization of teacher education at ISU. It is suggested that
resources be allocated to support such work.
Institutional Response:
As noted in responses to point 1 and 2, Dean Achterberg emphasized her support of the University
Teacher Education Program during the November 28, 2005 UTEPC meeting. She has continued her
support by proposing a new Associate Dean for Teacher Education position.
4. State Response:
During the process of institutionalizing UTEP and the Teacher Education Office Team, attention should
be given to how UTEPC interfaces with the UTEP administration to enhance two-way communication
and to set and enact program policy.
Institutional Response:
The Institutional Report, in Chapter 3, details how the University Teacher Program Committee and the
UTEP administration engage in “two way communication” and “set and enact program policy.” The
UTEP administration, called the Teacher Education Program Operations Team (TEPOT), includes the
Associate Director of Teacher Education, the Teacher Education Program Coordinator, the Licensure
Analyst, and the Director of Field Experiences. The Associate Dean of College of Human Sciences has
been meeting with TEPOT. For this year the Chair of Curriculum and Instruction has also been meeting
with TEPOT to promote continuity with last year as the Chair also serve as Co-Associate Director of
Teacher Education last year. These individuals also meet with the UTEP Committee. Thus, direct face
to face communication is provided for twice a month. In addition, in the performance of their duties,
TEPOT members regularly communicate and coordinate with teacher education coordinators and
faculty in the respective departments. Moreover, departmental representatives on the UTEP Committee
have responsibility for sharing relevant UTEP information with UTEP faculty and other relevant staff
(e.g. advisors) in their departments. This is a major reason that the structure of the UTEP Committee
was changed to include departmental, as opposed to College, representation. In our view, two way
communication among members of the UTEP administration, faculty, and staff communities has
increased substantially as a result of that change. Collectively, we will strive to maintain and enhance
communication between Teacher Education Program Operations Team (consisting of members of the
UTEP Office Team) and University Teacher Education Program Committee members (representatives
of the licensure areas). Agendas and minutes for TEPOT, UTEPC, UTEPC Admissions Subcommittee,
UTEPC Assessment Subcommittee, UTEPC Field Advisory Subcommittee and UTEPC External
Advisory Subcommittee are located on a WebCT site and are accessible to teacher education faculty and
staff members. This will provide a more transparent means of communication for teacher education
faculty and staff members at Iowa State.
Directions to access the WebCT site:
1. Click on the following link: https://webct.ait.iastate.edu/ISUtools/webhtml/login.html
-2-
Team Report
Evaluation Form
2. Click on the button on the left titled “Login to WebCT”
3. Type the following information:
Username: w.utep1
Password: utep
In addition, for further clarification, a UTEP organizational chart is appended.
5. State Response:
The budget for UTEP is currently in a developmental stage. Operational expenses for the Program are
somewhat fixed and have been historically funded by Curriculum and Instruction, student fees, and the
Provost’s Office. This would be a good time for the entire Teacher Education Faculty to identify time
and resources they are expending to shepherd candidates through the Program. These should be brought
to the attention of those who will be establishing the UTEP budget from a university-wide perspective.
Institutional Response:
The 2006-2007 proposed budget accurately reflecting UTEP as an individual, university based program
has been presented to the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education.
6. State Response:
The UTEPC members desire for teacher preparation to be recognized as a university-wide committee
and should, therefore, become visible to the university by establishing a written mission, policies, and
procedures for conducting business. The resulting documents will be a tool for connecting the UTEP
with upper administration and the ISU community. This will make UTEPC more active in their policymaking role within their already collegial structure.
Institutional Response:
The mission of the teacher education program remains what it has always been: To prepare effective
teachers for birth through grade 12 teacher licensure in the areas in which ISU offers teacher
preparation. This mission is implicit in the conceptual foundations statement provided in the
Institutional Report. The policies and governance of the UTEP serves this mission. However, policies
regarding teacher education are provided in the University Catalogue and on the UTEP Web page and
were available for the team. Web pages serve as more easily updated repositories of mission statements,
A revised policies and procedures manual is under development. Once approved by UTEPC, the
manual will be available online on the University Teacher Education Program website. Policy related
forms are appended.
7. State Response:
UTEPC may wish to consider establishing shared professional development as a major role of the
UTEPC so that the spirit of collegiality remains a critical component. Representation to UTEPC may
need to be re-examined (again) to ensure representation of all secondary majors.
Institutional Response:
This response has two components. The first deals with UTEPC involvement in professional
development, presumably for faculty employed by UTEP departments. As the IR points out, there is
considerable support available for professional development for faculty. UTEPC will discuss this issue
and determine if professional development opportunities need to be increased and if so, will try to
develop a professional development plan. However, the Institutional Report provides explicit details
about professional development options for teacher education faculty.
The second component involves composition of UTEPC. Each of the teacher preparation areas is
represented in UTEPC.
-3-
Team Report
Evaluation Form
8. State Response:
Student involvement in teacher education governance should be explored beyond the inclusion of the
two student positions already on UTEPC. Possibilities include a student government body or
organization that has its own newsletters and community-building activities for candidates throughout
the program.
Institutional Response:
Seven teacher education related organizations for candidates presently exist:
http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/prspstud/ugrad/GettingInvolved.php
1. Education Club: for all candidates interested in education; Faculty Advisor is Ellen Fairchild
2. Alpha Upsilon: Reading Honor Society (more information); Faculty Advisor is Donna Merkley
3. Council for Exceptional Children (professional organization also has a Division of Early Childhood);
Faculty Advisor is Geoffrey Abelson
4. IAEYC: Iowa Association for the Education of Young Children International; Faculty Advisor is
Carol Phillips
5. Kappa Delta Pi: National Honor Society in Education to recognize excellence in education; Faculty
Advisor is Al Campbell
6. TECC: for candidates interested in educational computing
7. Best Buddies: Faculty Advisor is Geoffrey Abelson and Denise Schmidt
9. State Response:
An advisory committee to the UTEP comprised of a variety of stakeholders needs to be established and
meet.
Institutional Response:
An External Advisory Subcommittee has been established. The first meeting is tentatively scheduled for
the middle of April. A list of nominations, draft invitation letter and draft agenda are attached.
10. State Response:
All Teacher Education Faculty members are encouraged to become aware of the services available to
them as members of UTEP, regardless of the location of the service.
Institutional Response:
TEPOT has created a list of available resources for all UTEP faculty/staff including access to licensure,
field experiences, career services, and the CTLT. A UTEP Resources sheet is attached. This sheet was
distributed to UTEPC members. It will be posted on the Teacher Education website. A reminder email
will be sent to all UTEP faculty near the beginning of each academic year.
11. State Response:
Music education needs more resources in materials, state-of-the art rehearsal areas, and secretarial
support for the music education advisor.
Institutional Response:
The Chair of the Music Department and the Coordinator of Music Education met February 9, 2006.
Below is a summary of their conversation regarding the progress in the identified areas of improvement
needed for Music Education:
1. Room 2 (where all music education classes are held) will be undergoing a "refurbishing" in the
Summer of 2006:
-4-
Team Report
Evaluation Form




new carpeting
new white boards (with music lines and plain)
room painted
plugs in working order for overhead projector
2.
The Music Department has been given a significant donation ($1,000,000) and we are meeting as a
faculty to discuss use of the money based on our shared vision and specific needs. The Chair has
suggested that the Coordinator put together a proposal to include needs for Music Education in terms
of instruments, series books and records (used in public school settings), and other materials necessary
to update materials so that we are able to appropriately prepare our candidates for what they need in
their future classrooms (and for what they will have to do when they student teach).
3.
The Chair has allocated secretarial assistance for Music Education. Space has been identified space
where old files can be stored in a secure location. One of the current secretaries stated that she
would have time in her schedule to add a few tasks - especially those related to admittance to Teacher
Education and practica/student teaching placements and maintaining all the files related to those
tasks. Since this would be additional work, it has to be figured out officially whether or not she is able
to add these specific duties and how much time she would have to devote to this.
12. State Response:
Teacher Education Faculty perceive teacher education to be undervalued at ISU as evidenced by
insufficient staffing resources in some programs as well as in some clinical practice supervision. The
UTEP should take a close look at the use of clinicians, lecturers, and graduate students in critical
teaching areas, especially in elementary education and secondary mathematics. New faculty lines should
be considered.
Institutional Response:
If a written response is requested, please provide clarification. If intent is to increase the number of
tenure-track faculty, the Dean and Department Chairs will need to take the lead.
13. State Response:
Due to funding constraints, student teaching supervision in some programs had been reduced (number
of visits per placement). It is the understanding of the team that an appropriate number of visits is
currently being supported. The team urges continued support of this critical aspect of the program.
Institutional Response:
We have experienced cutbacks, but the number of visits and number of hours of supervision is
comparable and superior to other institutions. Based on the responses from the field, cooperating
teachers and school personnel appreciate the quality of supervision that is provided.
14. Items that must be Addressed Prior to State Board Action:
State Response:
Convene an advisory committee. UTEP is to submit to the state a roster of members and a date for the
first meeting prior to approval. Minutes of meetings should be submitted to the state for the first two
years of the committee’s existence.
Institutional Response:
In compliance of “79.10(2) Unit faculty shall collaborate with members of the professional community,
including the unit’s advisory committee, to design, deliver, and evaluate programs to prepare school
-5-
Team Report
Evaluation Form
personnel,” UTEPC has established an External Advisory Subcommittee. Attached are the following: a
list of nominations, draft invitation, and draft agenda for the proposed April 19th meeting.
-6-
Team Report
Evaluation Form
III. 281-79.11(256) Diversity
Concerns/Recommendations
Institutional Response:
Response to 15, 16, and 17: We are continuing our efforts to support recruitment and retention by
devising a meeting with key parties to discuss a plan of action. Individuals who will be involved
in this discussion include the Dean, Recruitment and Retention Officer, Minority Liaison
Officers, Director and Coordinator.
15. State Response:
Although the percentage of students and faculty of color has increased, the percentage in UTEP
remains lower than those campus-wide.
Institutional Response:
As a land-grant university based program, we remain committed to the principles of equal access
and opportunity. We are constantly challenged by our efforts to expand the diversity of faculty
represented in teacher education. We see the recruitment and retention of outstanding diverse
faculty as part of our core values and themes depicted within the mission at Iowa State
University. UTEP will continue to recruit, admit, and retain high quality and diverse candidates.
16. State Response:
While the focus on international placement for field experiences and recruitment of UTEP
students from outside the U.S. is commendable, these efforts should not be at the expense of field
experiences in diverse settings domestically or continued efforts to increase students of color
from domestic populations.
Institutional Response:
Student teaching experiences are available in diverse settings such as Perry, Marshalltown, Des
Moines, Omaha, Kansas City, Texas, and Puerto Rico.
17. State Response:
It will be important not to rely on the George Washington Carver Program to be the major or only
mechanism for increasing diversity.
Institutional Response:
The UTEP Coordinator and College of Human Sciences Recruitment and Retention Officer,
Darlene Fratzke, are investigating ways to recruit teacher education candidates. We have
significantly increased the visibility of University Teacher Education Program staff at recruitment
related events such as fairs and Experience Iowa State days. In addition, the Coordinator will
partake in a recruitment tool created by ISU Admissions. Scheduling virtual meeting dates for
recruitment-related online chat rooms that are major-specific are underway. The information
sheets used at recruitment events that provide detailed information on UTEP is appended. In
addition, Curriculum and Instruction is developing 2+2 agreements with community colleges that
will provide additional pathways for recruitment of candidates of color.
18. State Response:
The College should consider the effects of the loss of the Assistant Dean for Student and Minority
Affairs on recruitment and climate.
-7-
Team Report
Evaluation Form
Institutional Response:
These resources were allocated to establishing UTEP administration, thus, this charge will rest
with the Associate Director of UTEP (Associate Dean of UTEP, in the future).
19. State Response:
UTEP should consider the percentage of faculty and students of color who are being retained, not
just the percentage of increase, a statistic that might mask the attrition of faculty and students of
color.
Institutional Response:
A study will be conducted to examine retention rates for candidates of color.
20. State Response:
The Minority Liaison Officers in the Colleges if Agriculture and Human Sciences believe they
could increase their recruitment efforts and more effectively do their frontline work with students
if they had clerical and data management support.
Institutional Response:
Staff changes are being considered by the Dean and the Associate Director.
21. State Response:
The MLO’s would like to see a continued emphasis on the land grant institutional mission of
access to a wider variety of minority students instead of what they regard as a greater effort to
recruit only the academically strongest minority students.
Institutional Response:
There are discussions underway to create a 2+2 program between various community colleges
and the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, which will assist with the suggested
expansion. However, societal pressures on teacher education demand that only applicants well
qualified in fundamental communication and mathematical skills. Evidence of this mandate is
provided by the State Department’s requirement for post matriculation testing and by increased
accountability and testing demands on teachers in Iowa and in most states.
Items that Must Be Addressed Prior to State Board Action: None
-8-
Team Report
Evaluation Form
281-79.12(256) Practitioner preparation faculty performance and development.
IV.
V.
VI.
Faculty Qualifications
Faculty Scholarship, Collaboration, and Service
Institution and Department Policies and Procedures
Concerns/Recommendations
22. State Response:
It was difficult to determine which full time and part time faculty members’ materials to review in
order to determine whether state standards regarding faculty had been met. It appears that some
faculty in Liberal Arts and Sciences who are considered part of UTEP have no UTEP teaching
responsibilities; criteria for being considered part of UTEP is unclear.
Institutional Response:
The following parameters will be considered at the March 22, 2006 UTEPC meeting:
University Teacher Education Students:
Students who have declared as a major Early Childhood Education or Elementary Education or a
major which integrates teacher licensure.
University Teacher Education Program Students:
Students who have received full admission to the University Teacher Education Program.
University Teacher Education Program Staff:
Individuals who advise, coordinate, support teacher education at Iowa State.
University Teacher Education Program Faculty:
UTEP Faculty are defined by the following criteria:
 Individuals who teach or who are eligible to teach teacher education courses including
professional core courses and methods courses and/or supervise field experiences such as
practica and student teaching.
 Employed more than 1/2 time at Iowa State University for more than a one year basis.
 Eligible to vote on curriculum issues in their respective departments.
 Individuals who only teach the "content" of what a teacher would teach are not
considered UTEP faculty.
Membership varies on a yearly basis. At the beginning of each school year, Department Chairs
will be asked to provide a revised list of individuals who have been assigned to teach teacher
education courses. Vitas were provided in the Exhibit Room and online
(http://www.teacher.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibit_5_1.php) for your perusal.
23. State Response:
A number of current methods instructors appear to have no PK – 12 teaching experience. These
include adjuncts, teaching assistants, lecturers, and probationary faculty members.
Institutional Response:
The chart that responds to #27 will address this concern.
State Response:
a. Two teaching assistants who currently teach methods courses hold only bachelor’s
degrees and do not have teaching experience.
-9-
Team Report
Evaluation Form
Institutional Response:
These teaching assistants have B-12 teaching experience.
State Response:
b. Approximately half of the current methods instructors are not full time tenure track
faculty. UTEP should consider a system for supervising the work of these instructors in
order to ensure program quality.
Institutional Response:
A plan will be constructed with Department Chairs.
State Response:
c. Elementary education seems to be dominated by non tenure track faculty. While this can
be strength when faculty has considerable and recent experience in K-6 classrooms, this
does not appear to be the case in some subject areas.
Institutional Response:
The claim that Elementary Education is dominated by non-tenure track faculty is inaccurate.
University records reported in the Institutional Report indicate that the percentage of classes
taught by non-tenure track faculty has always been less than 40% and has been declining.
While this percentage remains above the faculty senate’s recommended maximum, it clearly
does not represent domination. In addition, the Director of Undergraduate Education in C&I
provides guidance to non tenure track faculty by reviewing syllabi and by conducting annual
evaluations of non-tenure track faculty. The overwhelming majority of non-tenure track
faculty bring extensive field experience to their teaching as was included in Table 5-1 of the
Institutional Report.
24. State Response:
Mentoring and monitoring of non-tenure-line and part time faculty’s teaching seems to vary,
depending on whether faculty members in a given program take it upon themselves to do so.
Some non-tenure-line and part time faculty feel isolated or unsupported in their work.
Institutional Response:
Faculty are evaluated annually in all content areas. During these evaluations, faculty members are
encouraged to share their concerns. Conversation has been initiated to develop a more structured
support system for all faculty members. Presently, informal mentoring occurs.
25. State Response:
While some individuals have considerable involvement on state committees and in schools, more
faculty members could be encouraged to share their expertise in these ways and to collaborate
with local school districts.
Institutional Response:
We believe that Iowa State University faculty are outstanding in their involvement with schools
and state committees. In the Institutional Report, on two tables (5-2 and 5-4), the “community
outreach” heading lists work with B-12 schools that were listed on the curriculum vitas of teacher
education faculty. In addition, the vast majority of research projects in which teacher education
faculty were and continue to be involved are collaborative activities with schools and state
agencies. Many have presented workshops for educational personnel, collaborated with
- 10 -
Team Report
Evaluation Form
educational agencies, and many have served on state and LEA committees. In Curriculum and
Instruction of 27 continuing tenured, tenure-track, or adjunct faculty, 22 (80%) have begin
involved in significant collaborative work with educational agencies over the review period.
Three of the faculty in the 27 are recent hires (one last year and two this academic year).
Excluding those faculty 22 of 24 faculty members (90%) have significant collaborative
involvement during the review period. Details are provided in the faculties vitae.
In HDFS, there are 8 continuing tenure-line or adjunct faculty associated with the Early
Childhood Education program; of those 8, 6 (75%) have been significantly involved with state
committee or in projects that significantly impact early childhood educational institutions.
26. State Response:
While all the required faculty members have now met the 40-hour rule, examples of ongoing,
meaningful involvement with teachers and schools generally were not available. Science and
technology faculty are notable exceptions. UTEP may want to consider closer monitoring of the
nature of activities being used to meet the 40-hour team teaching requirement.
Institutional Response:
Compliance was previously based on the honor system; in the future UTEP will ask for a brief
narrative/description for each experience. These narratives will be reviewed yearly by TEPOT
members.
In addition, it is simply not the case that examples of ongoing, meaningful involvement with
teachers and schools generally were not available to the review team. Both Exhibit 5-2 provided
multiple examples of ongoing meaningful involvement and the faculty vita, available to the
review team, provided examples of ongoing meaningful involvement. See also answer to Item
25.
27. Items that Must Be Addressed Prior to State Board Action:
State Response:
Conduct an internal review of all faculty in UTEP regarding qualifications (scholarly and
teaching experience) and assignments. Technical assistance will be provided by the Iowa
Department of Education. End of year review submissions will be provided which will show
faculty qualifications.
Institutional Response:
The UTEP Administration Team worked with Department Chairs to conduct an internal review of
all faculty in UTEP. A chart is under construction and it will be sent as an attachment on March
3, 2006. The completed chart will be submitted, as well.
- 11 -
Team Report
Evaluation Form
281-79.13(256) Practitioner preparation clinical practice standards.
VII.
Field Placement Settings and Duration
VII.
Diversity in Clinical Practice
IX.
KDPs during Clinical Practice
X.
Collaboration with Cooperating Teachers and Other Area School Personnel
Concerns/Recommendations
28. State Response:
Limited experiences exist with students of diverse backgrounds and abilities. Many students made
statements such as: “We feel we are being taught to teach kids in the middle with limited exposure to
the two extremes—gifted and talented and students with limited abilities. We need to see general
education and special education teachers collaborate and co-teach.” (For example, work with IEP
team and the role of the classroom teacher in staffing meetings).
Institutional Response:
Exceptionalities are covered in different ways in different program options. Without greater
description of the students from whom the comments came, it is difficult to judge the validity or
specificity of the concerns. Exceptionalities are covered in CI/SPED 250 for elementary education
candidates and in CI 333 for secondary candidates. In addition, faculty teaching methods courses do
include adaptations for candidates with special needs as part of the course materials. All candidates
complete CI 406 in which they both review cultural/ethnic/racial diversity and develop lesson plans
for adaptation for such pupils. Moreover, in the ECE program, exceptionality is exceptionally well
integrated into the curriculum as the response from the ECE group below indicates. However, the
UTEP recognizes that exceptionalities and differentiation are complex topics about which candidates
can feel less than confident in their knowledge and skills. Candidates in the secondary programs and
K-12 programs, with the exception of Physical Education which has its own course, will be required
to complete a new course in special education and giftedness. More information on this new
requirement can be found in the institutional response for concern #41.
In addition, UTEP will conduct a study of ways differentiation and adaptation for exceptionalities
are integrated in methods courses.
Response from ECE Team:
We feel that the ECE program is an exception to this concern. Endorsement 100 covers birth through
third grade, regular and special education. Although we would always like to have more exposure to
special education for our students, they do have designated coursework on interventions, IEP’s,
IFSP’s, adaptive programming, and early intervention. The practicum for one course (HDFS 455),
as well as one 8 week student teaching experience, takes place in a classroom that includes at least
one child with identified special needs who is on an IEP. Many student teaching placements take
place in Head Start classrooms, which certainly reflects economic diversity, and usually reflects
ethnic diversity, also. Although we include information on giftedness in our coursework, we agree
that we could do this more systematically.
29. State Response:
Inconsistent exposure to exceptional learners and classroom and behavior management is found
across content areas.
Institutional Response:
UTEPC Coordinators agree there is a lack of consistency in the amount of information disseminated
to secondary education majors in regard to exceptionalities. The stand-alone special education course
- 12 -
Team Report
Evaluation Form
discussed in the institutional response for concern #41 will provide a consistent knowledge base.
Classroom management is discussed below.
30. State Response:
Concerns about classroom management came from student teachers, administrators, cooperating
teachers, and supervisors.
Institutional Response:
Classroom management is discussed in CI 245, CI 332/333, CI 426, and methods courses. Guidance
techniques for children are included in HDFS 226 taken by elementary candidates and HDFS 220,
221 340, 343, 455 for ECE candidates. Cooperative discipline is emphasized in student teaching
(candidates purchase a book centering on cooperative discipline strategies). Research data examining
teacher candidates perceptions of their education almost always find that teachers believe additional
classroom management education could be included in their programs. In part this must be true,
because regardless of the educational program, candidates will have less experience in classrooms
than after they teach for a number of years. Research on teacher development indicate that teachers
develop their management styles over the first three year of teaching and that teachers develop their
ability to enhance pupil learning, in part through developing classroom management knowledge and
skills, over those years.
However, classroom management is important and the UTEP will continue to examine and review
how it prepares candidates to manage classrooms.
31. State Response:
Students would benefit from more required opportunities in a variety of classrooms for hands-on
experiences prior to student teaching.
Institutional Response:
All candidates complete a minimum of 50 hours of involvement in the classroom before student
teaching; see Tables 6-1 and 6-2 in the Institutional Report. These hours include a minimum of 10
hours taken prior to admission to teacher education and a minimum of 40 hours after admission and
before student teaching. Unlike some other institutions where students simply observe on their own,
for most of our candidates, the 10 hours of prior field experience is accompanied by coursework that
guides the candidates’ observations and helps to develop their understanding of education (see syllabi
for the various CI 280s). We believe our pre admission experience contributes to the candidates
developing knowledge of effective teaching and is a component in the overall field experience of
candidates. The table below indicate the minimum number of hours in each of the program options.
Seven of the eleven program options require more than 50 hours of practicum experience prior to
student teaching. All candidates meet the requirements of Chapter 79.
Program Option
ECE
ELED
AG ED
English
FCSED
For Lang
Health Ed
Math
Number of Practicum Hours Before Student
Teaching In Each Program Option
Pre Admission Post Admission – Pre Student Teaching
10
130
20
120
40
40
10
80
25
40
10
40
10
40
10
40
- 13 -
Total
140
140
80
90
65
50
50
50
Team Report
Evaluation Form
Music
Phy Ed
Sec Sci
10
20
20
40
80
80
50
100
100
Response from ECE Team:
We feel that the ECE program is an exception to this concern. We have over 100 hours of practicum
in the pre-kindergarten portion of our coursework alone. We have the candidates involved in practica
in their sophomore year, and consistently keep them moving through experiences, taking more
responsibility at each step.
FCEDS 206 has 20 hours of practicum in a classroom setting. This practicum is completed 4
semesters prior to student teaching. An additional 40 hours is completed prior to student teaching.
32. State Response:
Few students know that through EDUC 280 additional practicum experiences are available prior to
student teaching.
Institutional Response:
This information is available online (http://www.teacher.hs.iastate.edu/intro-practica.php) and shared
during orientation courses and early field experience courses such as CI280L and CI280A. The high
number of methods courses with corresponding field experiences that in which candidates are
required to enroll impacts participation in additional CI 280 experiences. Many of the Elementary
Education and ECE students do not take CI 280s because of the experiences they get in the HDFS
courses and the methods courses.
33. State Response:
A field experience required during an entry class may satisfy student desire for early classroom
experience. Since many students complained about the lack of classroom management skills and lack
of field experience, videotaped vignettes from classrooms or reflections from personal observations
could maximize a field experience.
Institutional Response:
Instructional uses of videotape occurs in many teacher education classes. Faculty members use a
variety of pedagogies to enhance student learning. As the review team did, we believe that
videotaped vignettes can supplement practicum experience in classrooms and will continue to explore
its usage in our program.
34. State Response:
Kindergarten teachers noted a difference in preparation between elementary and early childhood
majors.
Institutional Response:
ECE has a special education component so a difference should be detected. The ECE faculty would
be interested in clarification of the preparation differences that were noted between elementary and
ECE candidates by the kindergarten teachers. This information might be potentially helpful in
reflecting on our coursework.
35. State Response:
A strong need exists for a website for student teacher candidates: expectations, requirements, and
deadlines, schedules, explanations of DPI and portfolios, etc. Cooperating teachers suggested that
templates and information be placed on-line.
- 14 -
Team Report
Evaluation Form
Institutional Response:
The University Teacher Education Program website is now revised:
http://www.teacher.hs.iastate.edu/. This site contains the student teaching handbook as well as parts
of the handbook that are frequently used which are pulled out and linked so that cooperating teachers
can type on the midterm evaluation, final evaluation and weekly feedback sheets. Student Teaching
information can be found on the following webpage: http://www.teacher.hs.iastate.edu/introteaching.php.
Family and Consumer Sciences Education is developing a one credit course that will be used to
disseminate all of this information. In addition, a new one credit course has been developed that will
provide opportunities for candidates to put together a learning portfolio. These two courses will be
required in the curriculum.
The ECE program could not agree more with this recommendation. The ECE Coordinating
Committee has been working on establishing a website for ECE with much of this information on it.
Expanding the website to include information for the student teaching semester is a logical extension
of this.
36. State Response:
Severe budget cuts in recent years have impacted student teacher supervision. For example,
supervisors have not received a raise for seven years!
Institutional Response:
There is no evidence that the ability to attract and recruit competent supervisors has been impacted by
their payment schedule. This issue is best addressed by the Dean and Associate Director of UTEP.
37. State Response:
The recent restructuring of the University Teacher Education Program has substantially increased the
responsibilities of the Office of Field Director; budgeting for this important segment of the program
should be reviewed and adjustments made.
Institutional Response:
It is not clear how the restructuring of the UTEP has led to increased responsibilities for the Director
of Field Experiences. This issue is best addressed by the Dean, Associate Director and Director of
Field Experiences.
Item that must be Addressed Prior to State Board Action: None
- 15 -
Team Report
Evaluation Form
281-79.14(256) Practitioner preparation candidate performance standards.
XII. Assessment of Candidate Knowledge and Competence
Concerns/Recommendations
38. State Response:
Some specific issues surfaced regarding courses. The following concerns are worthy of review by the
program:
a. Students expressed concern about the multiple sections of the same course; expectations and
requirements differ among instructors. Collaboration among instructors teaching the same
course would provide consistent content and rigor.
b. Students gave examples of identical content in two or three required courses (ed psych, dev
psych, and human development). Early childhood majors are required to take all three
courses. Curriculum mapping may help find voids and duplications.
c. Students mentioned frustration with sequencing in some classes (e.g. 201 uses educational
technology to plan lessons required prior to 204 when lesson planning is taught).
Institutional Response:
The University Teacher Education Program Committee is in agreement that a curriculum map
of the development courses should be assessed for possible duplication of content. We will
ask that the departments involved in providing the developmental courses provide a
curriculum map of the course content. Similarly, we will ask for a curriculum map of
multisection courses. After conducting this self-study, we will make adjustments as needed.
However, it is important to note that candidates typically require multiple exposures to
concepts and principles to develop a deep understanding of them and to incorporate them in
their practice. Bruner used the concept of a spiral curriculum to capture the notion that
exposure to concepts and principles in increasing depth and in new contexts is essential to
effective education. Similarly, research on professional development for teachers indicates
that only long term education with support for introducing taught content in the field provides
for true change in teacher behavior and cognition. Thus it is important to realize that
effective curriculum mapping does not mean that concepts, principles, and skills are
introduced once and not taught or mentioned again. It is likely that key concepts, principles,
and skills will be introduced multiple times in any curriculum changes that occur. We do
value the concern because it is always appropriate to ensure that there is an effective
sequence to instruction and that repetition occurs in planful ways to meet important
educational goals. The comments by candidates may reflect that they have not come to
appreciate the intent and purposes of the curriculum or that we have not made clear how
contextual factors influence the interpretation and understanding of the repeated concept,
principle, or skill.
With respect to CI 201 and CI 204, comment c has a number of inaccuracies. First of all, CI
204 is a history/philosophy of education course that does not introduce lesson planning. It is
true that CI 201, our technology in education class, does occur early in our sequence. Many
technology in education classes focus on teaching candidates technology. We believe that
this is the wrong approach. CI 201 focuses on teaching candidates how to use technology as
an educational tool to promote pupils’ learning. Further it emphasizes empowering pupils in
their use of technology as self-regulated learning tools. As a result, CI 201 teaches a
beginning form of lesson planning so that candidates are able to develop lesson plans that
incorporate technology as a tool to promote their pupils’ learning. As an example, we do not
- 16 -
Team Report
Evaluation Form
teach candidates to use Power Point or Web Quests so that they would develop Power Point
presentation of their own Web Quests. The candidates are taught to use such technology, but
must use it to provide their future pupils with the opportunity to use such technology to
promote pupil learning. A teacher needs to help her or his pupils to use a tool such as Power
Point or a Web authoring program as a way of organizing and enhance a presentation to truly
communicates or helping candidates to develop web products that share knowledge that they
have compiled or developed. We consciously choose to include CI 201 early in the sequence
because we want our candidates to have exposure to the taught content and skills to enhance
their learning in subsequent courses. Many of our subsequent courses incorporate similar
uses of technology. We envision CI 201 as a springboard for the most important use of
technology in education: empowering teachers to use technology to promote pupil learning
and to, in turn, empower pupils to use technology in their own self-regulated learning.
Thus, we do not anticipate that we will eliminate lesson planning in CI 201 or change its
position in the sequence. However, we will review if the approaches to lesson planning used
in CI 201 are consistent with later courses and work to ensure that candidates understand the
connections. As a way of enhancing the value of CI 201, we are planning to create ECEElED and Secondary Education sections of the course. This change will better allow students
to see connections between the course and their own teaching program options.
State Response:
d. Many students found theory stronger than application in some courses; a more balanced
approach might be considered.
Institutional Response:
Two major traditions influence thinking about teacher education, teaching-as-profession and
teaching-as-craft. A craft is learned primarily through doing the activity; a profession
provides a solid, rigorous education in the theory and research that explains and underlies
effective practice and seeks to develop a flexible understanding of the field. As in any
applied field, teachers need to carry out their craft practice, their everyday activities, but both
the expectations of much of the teacher preparation field (e.g. Preparing Teachers for a
Changing World, Darling-Hammond & Bransford) and our conceptual foundation emphasize
teaching as a profession. As such, our teacher preparation program seeks to provide
prospective teachers with a deep understanding of both theory and the practical declarative
and procedural knowledge needed to carry out the craft of teaching. We do not believe that
our ratio of theory and application is unbalanced; rather we believe that many candidates,
typically not the best candidates, would prefer a craft-only approach to teaching and that it is
our challenge to help such candidates come to understand the necessity of combining deep
understanding with effective skill. This emphasis on a balance of theory is to be expected
from a Research Extensive Institution. It is consistent with what, in our view, are the best
contemporary conceptions of teacher preparation (e.g. Darling-Hammond & Bransford). The
evidence indicates that through a structured combination of courses, our candidates receive a
balanced education that combines theory (e.g. the professional foundation core) and their
practice (the methods courses and field experiences). The variety of field experiences
available to candidates plays an important role in the application of learning.
However, we are not ignoring the candidates’ comments referred to above. In part they
indicate that we have been less effective than perfection in helping all candidates develop a
balanced understanding of theory and practice and of the necessity for teachers to develop
such a balanced understanding if they are going to able to flexibly adapt their knowledge and
practice to the variety of contexts they will encounter in their teaching career. We need to
- 17 -
Team Report
Evaluation Form
explore if we can provide all of our candidates with a more in-depth and balanced
understanding.
State Response:
e. A review of lesson plan formats might increase consistency and facilitate more effective use
by candidates.
Institutional Response:
In our view, there is not a single correct way of lesson planning. Candidates should be exposed to
and learn a variety of lesson planning formats. What is considered an appropriate lesson plan will
vary with context. Methods courses and the student teaching manual provide numerous lesson
plan formats. This flexibility allows candidates to match their lesson plan format with their
personal organizational style and as appropriate for course content and course goals. The different
lesson plan formats are described in the syllabi of methods courses (syllabi were provided online:
http://www.teacher.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibit_3_6.php).
The ECE program uses different lesson plan formats for its pre-kindergarten and primary grades,
because the planning and curriculum needs for birth through age 9 are so different.
As a program, we view exposure to multiple lesson-planning formats a plus. Having candidates
be flexible enough to use a variety of lesson plan formats will help the teacher flexibly adapt to
different teaching contexts. Schools differ greatly in what their expectations are and candidates
should be prepared to adapt their knowledge to school contexts.
It is important however, that candidates understand the need for flexibility in approaches to lesson
planning and instructional development. In the present case, the candidate comments do indicate
that the program options in teacher education should review their practice and include
components that help candidates reflect on and develop the adaptability intended.
39. State Response:
More consistency throughout the program is recommended, especially among the secondary
offerings. Areas to be reviewed include:
a. Specific standards used: some areas use INTASC; others use Teacher Quality Standards.
Institutional Response:
Iowa State’s teacher education program has adopted the Iowa State version of the INTASC
standards provided in the Institutional Report. Many of our faculty believe that these Iowa
State standards are broader and more comprehensive than Iowa’s Teacher Quality Standards.
However, advice provided by the State Department of Education by Jackie Crawford at the
Fall, 2004 IACTE meeting indicated that meeting the 8 Iowa Teaching Quality Standards was
equivalent to meeting the INTASC standards as described in Chapter 79. As a result, some
program options choose to present candidates only with the 8 Iowa Teaching Quality
Standards. Other program options choose to initially present the 11 Iowa State INTASC
based standards and to transition candidates to the 8 Iowa Teacher Quality Standards. Later
advice, given by Arlie Willems, indicated that institutions also remained responsible for the
11 INTASC standards. To deal with the situation that institutions are responsible for the 11
INTASC standards and that institutions must also help prepare candidates to meet the 8 Iowa
Teacher Quality Standards, we developed a concordance mapping between the two sets of
standards. To help candidates understand the relationship between these related standards
sets, we provide them with this concordance mapping. As an aside, we note the approach of
a concordance mapping was adopted by the Iowa Department of Education in developing its
- 18 -
Team Report
Evaluation Form
student teaching assessment instrument that institutions were required to use this previous
academic year. To help candidates transition to what they will encounter in their initial
teaching in Iowa, we use the 8 Iowa Teaching Quality Standards as the basis for evaluation in
student teaching.
State Response:
b. A determination of how standards are met: what competencies are required.
Institutional Response:
Chapter 8 of the Institution Report provides details of the standards assessment system.
Candidates are assessed multiple times on each of the standards. The specific nature of the
standards assessments necessarily vary with the course content and subject matter. Given
that candidates will be expected to display consistent behaviors across a variety of
educational situations, they need to be able to flexibly adapt their knowledge to different
situations. The fact that standards assessments vary between courses, but require use of the
knowledge and skills essential to the standards is seen as a strength of the program and the
assessment system. The review team was provided with the details of each of the standards
assessments in each of the courses. The competencies required are described in the standards
assessments (DPI) in each course. These were provided in the syllabi for each class. In
addition, example DPI assignments were provided in Table 8-2.
On the other hand, we believe that we can create a document that more effectively
communicates the standards assessments and the competencies required for them.
Developing such a document will be part of the work of the UTEP Committee and Faculty.
State Response:
c. Use of technology within courses. Sequencing of courses.
Institutional Response:
Technology is an area of great strength at ISU. In CI 201, candidates are taught how to use
technology as a tool for promoting pupil learning and how to empower pupils to make
technology a tool for their own self-regulated learning. CI 201 comes early in the sequence
so that the knowledge and skills taught can be utilized in subsequent courses. Subsequent
courses continually adapt their uses of technology as software and hardware changes.
Candidates are exposed to integrating technology in the classroom in CI201: Instructional
Technology. Curriculum mapping will be discussed during UTEPC meetings in the Spring of
2006.
State Response:
d. Course requirements, use of DPIs, and assessment strategies. The team recommends
consideration of:
 Reviewing DPIs for valid, meaningful requirements throughout program.
 Collaborating on the use of DPIs with faculty throughout program so that they have
clear understanding and appreciation for the valid use of the system.
 Communicating a positive message to all candidates the reasons for DPIs as well as
how the requirements can be fulfilled.
e. Purpose and structure of practica across the program.
- 19 -
Team Report
Evaluation Form
Institutional Response:
UTEP Committee will ask each program option to review the DPIs or standards assessments used
in that option with respect to validity and meaning and report its findings to UTEP Committee.
We are not clear what collaborating on the use of DPI throughout the program would mean. For
example, lesson plans, which represent one common category of DPI, of necessity must be
specific to the content area. While effective lesson plans may include some common features, the
components most critical for effective learning have a strong component of deep content and deep
content pedagogical knowledge. Different lesson plan formats and certainly different
instructional activities will be applicable to different content areas and different educational
goals. So it is not clear what collaborative use of DPIs would mean. On the other hand,
regardless of the nature of specific performance assessments or DPIs, candidate performances
must be evaluated and evaluations must be compiled. We are still developing effective
information technology systems to do so. We do need to communicate the operational details of
the standards assessment system to each of the faculty.
Finally, we agree that we need to examine the validity of the standards assessments (DPIs) and to
communicate the standards assessment system more effectively to candidates. UTEP will focus
on this issue in Spring 2006.
Current field experiences are outlined in the tables in Chapter 6 (specifically, table 6.2). Please
note that all practica (field experiences) have a course number and are courses with an ISU
faculty/instructor directing the learning experiences. These courses have an accompanying course
syllabus with stated goals, assignments and evaluations. All syllabi are on file. In addition, all
upper level practica are supervised and have that added level of rigor.
State Response:
f. Collection and use of data to assist candidates in development of professional dispositions.
In our view, while beliefs and attitudes influence dispositions, dispositions are best assessed through
actions. Virtually all of our courses both model and teach professional dispositions, ranging from
professionalism and responsibility in completing assignments and attendance to appropriate ways to
treat all pupils with dignity and respect, to value all pupils, and to promote their development and
learning. Dispositions include guidance and classroom management techniques, they also include
the willingness to adapt to meet the needs of individual candidates. While all classes support the
development of professional dispositions, our multicultural class, CI 406, and our special education
classes especially promote the development of dispositions related to effective differentiation of
instruction. Our practica and student teaching classes especially focus on the assessment of
dispositions in practice.
g. Orientation of candidates to the program; teacher education programs are complex systems.
Candidates in elementary education complete orientation classes that provide an overview of the
major and the requirements of teacher education. Candidates entering as freshman complete two
orientation classes; transfer candidates complete one. A new ECE orientation sequence has been
formed and is taught specifically for that major. In the secondary area and K-12 areas, orientation to
teacher education is provided by coordinators and advisors.
h. Policies and procedures regarding entry to program and check points to assure that candidates
have completed requirements prior to moving on in the program.
Policies and procedures with respect to checkpoints are and have been available in the catalogue,
from option advisors and coordinators, and on the teacher education webpage. All candidates are
reviewed to verify that they meet minimum standards for admission to teacher education. Advisors
- 20 -
Team Report
Evaluation Form
review candidate progress. In elementary education, the academic advisors review the progress of
every student at the end of each semester Prior to student teaching, candidates records are evaluated
by their coordinator to determine that they meet minimum standards to student teach. However, the
development of the planned database will enhance the current process.
i. Evidence in syllabi that national professional content standards are implemented in courses and
that program standards/competencies are being addressed.
Each of the syllabi has a description of the standards to which the course is related and the standard
assessments or DPIs used in the class. The collection of syllabi provide the most direct evidence of
standards addressed in courses. UTEP will ask program options to review discipline specific
methods courses and other courses to which the discipline specific standards apply and to report on
how national discipline standards are addressed in the courses.
j. Evidence that all candidates are prepared to educate mobile students, English language learners,
and students with exceptionalities.
All candidates have been prepared to educate pupils with “exceptionalities.” The means by which
they have been prepared does vary between program options and the degree to which they have been
prepared may vary across options. Evidence for this claim includes the course requirements and
syllabi for candidates in the various program options. All candidates complete CI 406 with
addresses the needs of pupils of color and English Language Learners. Socioeconomic status as a
factor in learning is addressed in several courses including CI 406. Candidates in elementary
education also complete SPED/CI 250, which covers pupils classified in special education and
gifted pupils. Candidates in ECE also complete SPED 250 and further, complete multiple courses
including multiple standards assessments (DPIs) related to special education. Candidates in
physical education complete a course dealing with adaptations for special needs pupils in that area.
Candidates in the secondary program are exposed to content about exceptional learners in CI 333,
CI 426, and in their methods classes. Methods courses in the specific program option include the
expectation that candidates will develop lessons that include differentiation for exceptional learners.
Thus, as required in Chapter 79, all candidates receive some degree of education with respect to
exceptional learners. Finally, in student teaching, candidates are assessed on their ability to adapt
instruction for pupils with exceptional needs.
40. State Response:
It appears that some elementary education candidates cannot complete endorsement courses
until after student teaching (specifically the reading endorsement); it is suggested that this
situation be reviewed as such preparation would serve candidates well in student teaching and
when applying for teaching positions.
Institutional Response:
All elementary education candidates complete requirements for their initial endorsement in
elementary education. All candidates complete a 24 hour area of specialization that leads to
them being recommended for a second endorsement by Iowa State. In some cases, some
candidates may not be able to complete all of the second endorsement requirements prior to
student teaching. Often these problems occur because of variations in the candidate’s
program of study initiated by the candidate. Very occasionally, they may occur because of
scheduling changes and budgetary constraints.
Most of the concern probably focuses on the reading endorsement. We recognize that this
endorsement is important to many candidates. Feedback from the field is that a reading
endorsement is important in screening applicants for elementary positions. As a result many
- 21 -
Team Report
Evaluation Form
candidates seek the reading endorsement. In many districts, candidates applying for jobs
without a reading endorsement are often eliminated before reaching the interview process.
However, our literacy faculty believe that candidates receive a better education by delaying
some of the reading endorsement requirements until after student teaching. It is important to
note that the majority of the courses needed for the reading endorsement can be taken as part
of candidates’ undergraduate preparation program. There are two courses that our literacy
faculty believe are best taken after student teaching, CI 552, Corrective Reading and CI 588,
Supervised Tutoring in Reading. In their opinion, candidates who take the courses prior to
student teaching do not have the experiential background to fully profit from the courses.
Student teaching provides candidates with the prerequisite experiences, including whole-class
curriculum and assessment issues, that are necessary in order to make the meaningful
connections required in the above mentioned courses. While some benefit might be obtained
from the candidates having these courses prior to student teaching, it is our view that any
benefit would be offset by candidates not gaining from the courses what they should and
having a weakened educational experience. Such a weakened experience would be
detrimental to their careers as teachers.
Items that Must Be Addressed Prior to State Board Action:
41. State Response:
Present a plan to assure that all candidates have an adequate background to educate students
with exceptionalities (especially the gifted and talented and students with disabilities).
Institutional Response:
The Department of Curriculum and Instruction has created a new three-credit course targeted
to secondary teacher education candidates. The course has a two hour lecture component and
a two hour lab component. The lecture component will cover general information such as
characteristics of different exceptionalities; eligibility; IDEA 2004, especially the sections
concerning the least restrictive environment and individual education programs; No Child
Left Behind legislation; differentiated instruction; and classroom accommodations. The
lecture component is linked to a lab where candidates are asked to adapt lessons for
exceptional learners. The lab would incorporate the co-teaching/collaborative teaching
models that candidates will benefit from observing. Candidates are expected to enroll in this
three credit course at the same time as their second content methods course.
This course, which will have a SpEd designator, will be available in the Spring of 2007 (the
syllabus is appended). This initiative will be phased in, specifically, candidates admitted in
the Fall of 2006 (and after) are required to take this course. This requirement will be added to
the 2007-2009 University Catalog. In addition, for students who are currently second
semester juniors and seniors who will still be taking classes in the Fall of 2006, a workshop
including some of the content of the proposed course will be developed and delivered next
fall.
Also, we would like to reinforce that CI417: Student Teaching assesses all of the standards.
Thus candidates are expected to demonstrate they can appropriately differentiate instruction
to meet the needs of children. In addition, we have collected information from the Fall 2005
student teachers regarding their classroom composition such as the number of pupils with
exceptionalities. This information will continue to be collected and analyzed.
- 22 -
Team Report
Evaluation Form
In addition, eleven ISU Faculty attended the Collaborative Conversations workshop on
January 26, 2006 presented by the Iowa Department of Education Co-Teaching Task Force.
Discussion is underway about hosting a similar workshop on campus and incorporating the
collaborative teaching model into our preparation program.
42. State Response:
Present a plan to improve the consistency of the program overall, with attention, especially, to
the use of standards, DPIs, and other program requirements.
Institutional Response:
We are not sure what this requirement means. There is substantial consistency across the
program options that was made clear in the institutional report.
1. Program requirements are consistent except for changes necessitated by the program
options. The program has the same admission requirements and the same requirements with
respect to minimum grade point average.
2. With respect to standards and DPIs, the entire program uses both the Iowa State INTASC
standards and the Iowa Teacher Quality Standards. Candidates are informed of the
correspondence between the two with a concordance table. Except for physical education,
candidates in all options complete the same professional core requirements in Curriculum and
Instruction courses (CI 201, CI 204, CI 332/CI333, CI 406). (Candidates in physical
education have specialized courses focused on that area except they also take the foundations
course. ) Requirements do vary, appropriately, in the required courses in methods. These
courses are and should be different depending on the specific licensure the candidate seeks.
Student teaching is evaluated on the standards using a form tied to the 8 Iowa Teaching
Quality Standards and through the correspondence table, the Iowa State / INTASC standards.
We agree that we need better information technology for distributing results of performance
assessments on the standards to all components of the program. A proposal for funding from
the Iowa Department of Education was submitted which will help clarify and provide ready
access to standards assessments (DPI’s) on the candidates’ part and advisors’ part. The grant
proposal outlines the plan to select from three vendors a database that can track the progress
of teacher education candidates from admission to alumni. Regardless of funding, this
initiative will occur in a timely manner (a copy of the proposal is attached).
The ECE program option feels that it has been consistently implementing the standards and
measuring them through the use of performance indicators appropriately specific to the nature
and content of the ECE program option.
We remain interested in and committed to improving the Iowa State Teacher Education
program. But we are confused as to what is specifically required by this state review team
comment.
- 23 -
Team Report
Evaluation Form
XIII. (2) Candidate assessment and unit planning and evaluation.
Concerns/Recommendations
43. State Response:
The assessment system at present is under development. Given the recent organizational and
administrative changes, there is a need and an opportunity to clarify the coordination of the
assessment system development. Time and resources must be provided for this responsibility.
44. State Response:
UTEP is encouraged to review the current assessment plan with attention to the following items:
a. An electronic system needs to be developed to help in the collection, storage, and
processing of candidate performance data over time.
b. At present, multiple measures are used to monitor candidate progress, but it is not clear
how results are summarized, reported, and used to improve programs at each stage of
preparation.
c. A more systematic plan for sharing assessment data with faculty along with guidance for
reflection and improvement is needed.
d. A process for reviewing and revising assessments to establish fairness, accuracy and
validity needs to be developed.
Institutional Response:
Questions 43 and 44 will be addressed through the proposal for funding.
The ECE program has informally shared assessment data with faculty, but does see a need for
more systematic information and reflection to improve our program.
In regards to item c, the UTEPC Assessment Subcommittee has met frequently over the last two
months to revise present assessments, as well as create a dissemination plan for sharing
assessment data with program faculty (see below for more information).
45. Items that must be Addressed Prior to State Board Action:
State Response:
Submit a comprehensive plan for program assessment throughout the University Teacher
Education Program prior to recommendation. Implementation should be well underway within
two years.
Institutional Response:
The University submitted its comprehensive plan for program assessment in the Institutional
Report. Candidates are assessed in an appropriate manner on each of the standards that is
program option specific. Standards Assessments, (DPI’s), have been in place since 2001. The
database system, which is addressed through the request for performance assessment system
funds, will allow the UTEP Coordinator to compile and disseminate information to UTEPC.
An External Advisory Subcommittee will provide feedback and review of the University Teacher
Education Program.
The UTEPC Assessment Subcommittee will provide additional program review. During the last
two months, the committee consisting of faculty members and the UTEP coordinator work with
the coordinator of the Research Institute for Studies in Education (RISE) to revise upcoming
assessments of graduates and employers of graduates. In the near future, research questions will
- 24 -
Team Report
Evaluation Form
be created for each secondary teacher education licensure area (notes from the previous
Assessment Subcommittee meetings are attached). Also, a systematic follow-up five year plan for
UTEP graduates is in place to track candidates’ thoughts on the effectiveness of the program
(Exhibit 8-3 located online:
http://www.teacher.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibit_8_3.php). This is a comprehensive
plan that assesses the effectiveness of the program.
- 25 -