Program Review Self Study Contents
Year 2008-2009
Department of Education
I.
Introduction to Department/Program(s)
A
Department/unit mission statement
Faculty and staff are committed to ensuring graduates are prepared to be outstanding educational
leaders and facilitators of learning who demonstrate the knowledge and skill necessary to educate and
work within a diverse school population.
B
Brief description of department and program contexts including date of last review
The faculty are organized into programs, which represent traditional areas of expertise within the field
of education. Generally, most of a faculty member’s teaching load will be conducted in one program.
Program faculty are responsible for the programs which are offered by those faculty.
Programs representing significant and coherent courses of study are established by the faculty to assist
in the management of the Department’s teaching activities.
Programs
Bilingual/TESL/Linguistic
Diversity
Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Library Media
Master Teacher
Middle-Level (education
course component)
Curriculum and Instruction
Reading
School
Administration/Instructional
Leadership
Special Education
Field Supervision
This is the first five-year self-study conducted by the Department of Education.
C
Page 1
4/4/08
Describe departmental governance system and provide organizational chart for department.
Administration
University departments are groupings of teaching and research personnel, organized around traditional
academic disciplines. As such, departments have as their primary responsibilities the instruction of
students and the development and supervision of programs to facilitate and to improve instruction.
Research and/or creative work by faculty members is also a matter of importance to the departments as
is service to the University, community, and the state. Each department has its own budget, used in
support of such items as travel, supplies, student help, telephone, and equipment.
The Department of Education functions under a system of shared decision-making and strong
executive leadership. The establishment of basic policy is the responsibility of the faculty as provided
under the University’s Faculty Code and is developed through a system of interrelated committees
established by the Department. All policies are subject to the continued review by the faculty at
regularly scheduled and/or special meetings of the Department. Scheduled department meetings
typically occur once a month on a schedule provided by the chair.
Department chair.
The University administration expects department chairs to be leaders in developing strong teaching,
research, public service, and academic programs within their departments. They are responsible to the
department for staff selection, retention, tenure, and promotion of department personnel and the
preparation and administration of departmental budgets. They are subject to the University Faculty
Code and policies and procedures established by the faculty of the department. They are also subject
to the authority of their dean. The chair of the department is the executive head of the faculty and is
expected to keep the faculty regularly informed with respect to personnel, budget, staffing and related
program matters through regular faculty meetings and other means as appropriate.
Department assistant chair.
The Assistant Department Chair is appointed by the Chair, and performs duties as assigned by the
Chair.
Programs
The faculty are organized into programs, which represent traditional areas of expertise within the field
of education. Generally, most of a faculty member’s teaching load will be conducted in one program.
Program faculty are responsible for the programs which are offered by those faculty.
Programs representing significant and coherent courses of study are established by the faculty to assist
in the management of the Department’s teaching activities.
Program coordinators.
Program coordinators are elected annually in the spring by the active faculties of the designated
programs, and provide leadership for their programs. The Department Chair and program faculty
should look to their program coordinators for guidance, counsel, and leadership in matters related to
their program.
Specific responsibilities may be assigned to program coordinators by the department chair and may
include, but are not restricted to the following:
1. Coordinate curriculum and program development in the program and with other programs.
Page 2
4/4/08
2.
3.
4.
5.
Develop annual class schedules including summer programs, and cooperate in the hiring of faculty.
Disseminate information about the program.
Assist in student advisement.
Plan and coordinate special efforts and activities related to the particular interests of the program.
Center coordinators.
Center Coordinators are not officially assigned by the Department of Education, rather the College of
Education and Professional Studies. Yet, they coordinate with the Department Chair and Program
Coordinators to ensure that programs being offered at university centers function as part of the
Department of Education. The assist coordinators in staffing program courses and recruiting students
to the centers.
D
Department/Programs
1.
List department/program goals
See Table 1: CWU Department/Program Assessment Plan Preparation
2. Describe the relationship of each department/program(s) goal to relevant college and
University strategic goals. Explain how each relevant strategic goal(s) for the University and
college are being met within the department.
See Table 1: CWU Department/Program Assessment Plan Preparation
3. Identify what data was used to measure (assess) goal attainment
See Table 1: CWU Department/Program Assessment Plan Preparation
4. Describe the criterion of achievement (standard of mastery) for each goal.
See Table 1: CWU Department/Program Assessment Plan Preparation
5. Describe the major activities that enabled goal attainment.
Goal 1: All students who are preparing to become teachers must take certificate specific and
endorsement specific courses. Each of these courses is standards-based, meaning that university state
and professional standards are embedded in the content and assessment. All students are required to
demonstrate their ability to develop lesson plans in EDCS 311. Consequently, this is the course that
we use to evaluate students meeting this goal.
Goal 2: All future teachers need to successfully complete the field placement portion of their training.
An evaluation form is used to document their success. This is the data used for Goal 2.
Goals 3 & 4: Each faculty member submits a report of their previous year’s activities in an “Activity
Report.” These reports have only been in service for two years. Previously the data required to
document faculty meeting Goals 3 & 4 were gathered through reviews or not at all.
Page 3
4/4/08
Bilingual
Education/
TESL
Program
Coordinator
Program
Faculty
Curriculum
&
Instruction
Program
Coordinator
Program
Faculty
Department of Education Organization Chart
College
Dean
Department
Chair
Administrative
Department
Staff
Assistant
Chair
Early
Education
Elementary
Field
Childhood Administration
Education
Placement
Education
Program
Program
Program
Program
Coordinator
Coordinator
Coordinator
Coordinator
Program
Program
Program
Program
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Library
Media
Program
Coordinator
Reading
Program
Coordinator
Special
Education
Program
Coordinator
Program
Faculty
Program
Faculty
Program
Faculty
Department of Education Center Organization Chart
Department Chair
Program Coordinator for Center
Program(s)
Center Coordinator
Center Faculty
Page 4
4/4/08
Table 1
CWU Department/Program Assessment Plan Preparation Form
Department: ___EDUCATION______________
Program: ___________All Programs__________________
Department/Program Goals
Related
College Goals
1. Graduates will be prepared to
be outstanding educational
leaders and facilitators of
learning
Goals 1
“outstanding
academic and
professional
growth
experience” &
2 “participate
in an
increasingly
diverse and
environment”
Goals 1
“outstanding
academic and
professional
growth
experience” &
2 “participate
in an
increasingly
diverse and
environment”
2. Graduates will demonstrate
the knowledge and skill
necessary to educate and work
within a diverse school
population.
Page 5
4/4/08
Related
University
Goals
Goals I & II:
“outstanding
academic life”
Goals I & II:
“…outstanding
academic
life…”
Goal VI: “Build
inclusive and
diverse campus
communities
that promote
intellectual
inquiry and
encourage
civility, mutual
respect, and
cooperation.”
Method(s) of Assessment
(What is the assessment?)
Who/What Assessed
(population, item)
When Assessed
(term, dates)
Students will be evaluated
by professors and
instructors using program
approved electronic rubrics.
All students will
prepare formal lesson
plans.
Fall, Winter,
Spring terms
Students will be evaluated
by trained observers using
the Department of
Education “Student Teacher
Final Evaluation.”
All students will be
assessed during
student teaching.
Fall, Winter,
Spring terms.
Criterion of Achievement
(Expectation of how good
things should be?)
All student learning outcomes
that use direct measures meet
established criterion levels
At least 90% of all completing
students will earn a rating “3” or
above in all learner outcome
areas students will pass all
sections of the Student Teacher
Final Evaluation.
3. Faculty members will
demonstrate professional
development.
Goal 3
“Recruit and
retain a diverse
and highly
qualified
faculty”
4. Faculty members will
demonstrate service.
Goal 4 “Build
mutually
beneficial
partnerships”
Page 6
4/4/08
Goal V:
“Achieve
regional and
national
prominence for
the university.”
Goal IV: Build
mutually
beneficial
partnerships
with the public
sector,
industry,
professional
groups,
institutions,
and the
communities
surrounding
our campuses.
Faculty participation in
local, state, regional,
national and international
professional conferences
and/or publication of
original works as
determined by annual
Activities Report.
Faculty participation in
university, community
and/or professional
organizations as determined
by annual Activities Report.
Faculty participation
in conferences;
faculty publication
records.
Fall (deadline for
Activities
Report)
Tenure/Tenure Track
faculty and their
service.
Fall (deadline for
Activities
Report)
At least 85% of Tenure/Tenure
Track faculty will present at a
conference or have at least one
publication each year.
At least 50% of Non-Tenure
Track Full Time faculty will
present at a conference each
year.
100% of Tenure/tenure Track
faculty will document service in
university, community, and/or
professional organizations.
E
List results for each department/program goal.
1. Provide results in specific quantitative or qualitative terms for each department/program(s).
The Department of Education’s goals are recent. They were developed during the Fall Quarter of the
2007-08 academic year. Consequently, the analysis of Due to the nature of the data collected for the
NCATE accreditation review, certain of the department goals can be analyzed.
Goal 1: Graduates will be prepared to be outstanding educational leaders and facilitators of
learning.
This department goal was measured using approved electronic portfolio scoring rubrics. The rubrics
were aligned to the standards developed by professional organizations and state legislation. These
rubrics assessed lessons plans developed by teacher candidates. The lesson plans were developed as a
requirement for both their teacher certification and their endorsements. Although different assessment
tools were used by the various programs, the scale on all of them was the same and they could be
aggregated into the general terms of "meeting or exceeding standards" and "not meeting standards."
Table 2
Lesson Plan Achievement
Lesson Plan
Development
Meets or Exceeds
Standards
Does Not Meet Standards Total
Completed
2215
110
2325
Percentage
95.3%
4.7%
100%
Chart 1
Successful Lesson Plan Development
Lesson Plan Development
4.73%
Meets or Exceeds
Standards
Does not Meet Standards
95.27%
Page 7
4/4/08
As can be seen in Table 2, over 95% of the teacher candidates successfully complete the lesson plan
development requirement.
Goal 2: Graduates will demonstrate the knowledge and skill necessary to educate and work
within a diverse school population.
This goal was measured through the use of an approved evaluation rubric used during the Student
Teaching portion of the teacher candidates’ program. Each Teacher Candidate is placed in a setting
recognized as being diverse by State of Washington definitions. During the 10 week time each teacher
candidates must successfully demonstrate their ability to teach students within their specific area.
Table 3
Student Teaching Completion
Enrolled
Withdrew
Average
Completors
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
Total
532
522
501
414
516
2485
3
5
3
16
15
42
99%
99%
99%
96%
97%
Chart 2
Student Teaching Completion Trends
Enrolled
532
522
Withdrew
516
501
414
3
2003-04
5
2004-05
3
2005-06
16
15
2006-07
2007-08
Goal 3: Faculty members will demonstrate professional development.
This goes established based on the concept of everyone being involved in Life Long Learning.
Consequently, it is expected that all faculty members will be actively engaged in furthering the
professional development. This can be accomplished through a variety of avenues, including the
development and publication/presentation of research (see faculty vita).
Table 9a and Table 9b document the publication and presentation portions of the professional
development goals.
Page 8
4/4/08
98%
Goal 4: Faculty members will demonstrate service.
The Department of Education firmly believes in the importance of professional and community
service. Service can take place at multiple levels including serving on university/college/department
committees, taking leadership roles in local/state/national/international organizations, advising and
student organizations, and/or participating with local community and/or school groups. Table 9a
documents this service.
Goal 5: Accreditation and Certification
An additional goal that was not presented above was for the successful completion of a National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) accreditation visit, as well as recertification
by the State of Washington Professional Education Standards Board (PESB). In May of 2007 a review
team from NCATE and PESB conducted the on-site visit. On October 31, 2007 NCATE announced
that the education programs at Central Washington University have been awarded "accreditation with
conditions." The follow-up visit will be conducted during the fall quarter of 2009 focusing on concerns
located in programs outside the programs being considered for the self-study. (See Appendices A and
B)
2
Compare results to standards of mastery listed above.
Goal 1: Graduates will be prepared to be outstanding educational leaders and facilitators of
learning.
See Table 2 above.
Goal 2: Graduates will demonstrate the knowledge and skill necessary to educate and work
within a diverse school population.
See Table 3 and Chart 2 above.
Goal 3: Faculty members will demonstrate professional development.
See Table 9a and Table 9b.
Goal 4: Faculty members will demonstrate service.
See Table 9a.
3
Provide documentation of continuing program(s) need including reference to the
statewide & regional needs assessment
Goal 1: Graduates will be prepared to be outstanding educational leaders and facilitators of
learning.
As can be seen in Table 2, over 95% of the teacher candidates successfully complete the lesson plan
development requirement. This is a strong indication that the programs located in the Department of
Education are meeting the required standards.
Goal 2: Graduates will demonstrate the knowledge and skill necessary to educate and work
within a diverse school population.
The goal was for a 90% successful completion rate. This can be seen in Table 3, the lowest completion
rate of any single year was 96%. The average completion rate was 98%. This demonstrates that the
Page 9
4/4/08
Department of Education was successful in meeting their goal in regards to preparing teacher
candidates.
Goal 3: Faculty members will demonstrate professional development.
The goal for tenure-track faculty was that 85% of them would present at a state or national conference
or publish in a refereed source. All the data submitted in Table 9a does not provide the detail needed to
accurately document the results for Goal 3, the combined efforts are encouraging. The percentage of
faculty members presenting at conferences ranged from a low of 57% to a high of 75%. In addition to
this, 25% or more of faculty members are published each year. Combining these two areas would
indicate that the department as ordinary as reached its goal.
Goal 4: Faculty members will demonstrate service.
Goal four of the Department of Education is that all tenure-track faculty members will provide service
to the university, communities, and/or professional organizations. As can be seen in Table 9a, the
Department of Education has met that goal.
F
Based on the results for each department/program(s) listed above describe:
1.
Specific changes to your department as they affect program(s) (e.g., curriculum,
teaching methods).
2.
Specific changes related to the assessment process.
Specific changes to programs within the Department Of Education have been impacted the most by
accreditation and recertification procedures. The Department of Education, as well as the other
programs coordinated by the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) reevaluated how students
progress through the programs were assessed and how the data were used for program change and
improvement. A new system of electronic data collection was implemented based on the professional
and state standards. Program faculty members meet on a regular basis to review the data collected
through this new system, with curriculum changes being made as needed.
3.
Provide documentation of continuing program(s) need including reference to the
statewide & regional needs assessment
The State of Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction conducts biennial surveys to
document the needs for teachers in the different endorsement areas. Table 4 documents the needs
obtained in the 2006 survey. It contains endorsement there is serviced by the Department of Education.
It should be noted that two of the endorsement areas, Middle Level - Humanities and Middle Level Math/Science, are officially housed in other departments, but a significant portion of their course work
is provided by the Department of Education.
As can be seen in Table 4, the six of the ten endorsement areas provided by the Department of
Education are documented as being "Considerable Shortage" or "Some Shortage." Three of the
remaining four are documented as "Balance." Elementary Education is the one endorsement area that is
considered "Some Surplus."
Table 4: Perceived Shortage Areas by Educational Service District
Page 10
4/4/08
Teaching Endorsements
ESD 101 105 112 113 114 121 123 171 189 Statewide
Bilingual Education
4 4.86
3.2
4.1 3.25
4 4.71
4
3.7
4.03
Early Childhood Education
3.14
3.4
3.2
3.5
2.5
3
3 2.71 3.17
3.21
Early Childhood Special Ed.
4.11 4.71
3.8
4 3.67 4.17
4.5 3.67 4.22
4.11
Elementary Education
2.57
2.5 2.29 2.38
1.9 2.14 2.64 2.54
2
2.37
English as a Second
Language
3.57 4.27 3.86 4.07 3.75
4
4.4
3.8 3.93
4.02
Library Media
3.62
3.5 3.45 3.07
3.6 3.87 3.33 3.17 3.36
3.47
Middle Level–Humanities
3
3.6 2.75
3 3.13 2.92 3.67
3.2 3.18
3.08
Middle Level–Math/Science
3.62 4.31 3.69 4.33
3.8
4.5 4.67
4
4.4
4.19
Reading
3.23 3.17 3.25 2.93 3.17
3.6 3.67 3.29
3.5
3.3
Special Education
4.12 4.77 4.27 4.59 4.64
4.7
4.5 4.18
4.6
4.52
5.00-4.21 = Considerable Shortage; 4.20-3.41 = Some Shortage; 3.40-2.61 = Balance; 2.60-1.81 = Some
Surplus; 1.80-1.00 = Considerable Surplus
(ESD 101 Spokane, ESD 105 Yakima, ESD 112 Vancouver, ESD 113 Olympia, ESD 114 Bremerton, ESD 121
Renton, ESD 123 Pasco, ESD 171 Wenatchee, ESD 189 Anacortes)
From Educator Supply and Demand in Washington State: 2006 Report Tables 5 & 13
http://www.k12.wa.us/certification/pubdocs/SupplyDemand2006.pdf
Table 4 documents how the needs are different and distinct parts of the state. The three shaded ESDs
are those most directly served by Central Washington University. While there are areas of variance
between the three districts, certain trends are consistent. Special Education, Bilingual Education,
Middle Level - Math/Science, Early Childhood Special Education, and English as a Second Language
endorsement areas are high demand areas. Elementary Education, on the other hand, has the lowest
need.
The Department of Education has begun conversations as to how we can better facilitate teacher
candidates moving from Elementary Education into one of the high need areas.
Page 11
4/4/08
II.
Description of degree programs and curricula
A.
List each degree program (undergraduate and graduate) offered in department by location,
regardless of state or self support. Include minor and undergraduate certificate program(s). (See Table
5)
Table 4
Degree Program and Professional Standards
Degree Program
Early Childhood Education
Organization Supplying Standards
Washington State Endorsement Competencies
National Association for the Education of Young
Children
Elementary Education
Washington State Endorsement Competencies
Special Education
Washington State Endorsement Competencies
Bilingual Education
Washington State Endorsement Competencies
National Association for Bilingual Education
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
Reading
Washington State Endorsement Competencies
International Reading Association
Teaching ESL
Washington State Endorsement Competencies
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
Master Teacher
Library Media Endorsement
B.
Washington State Library Media Competencies
Provide a table that lists courses, location, and faculty and student number for the following:
1.
General Education contributions (see Table 5)
The Department of Education does not offer coursework as part of the General Education
program.
Page 12
4/4/08
Table 5(Section II, A.)
Programs Offered in Department
Degree Program
Elementary Education
Early Childhood
Education
Special Education
* Professional Education
Minor Programs
Bilingual
Education/TESL
Early Childhood
Education
Reading
Special Education
Page 13
4/4/08
Delivery Location(s)
Ellensburg, Des
Moines, Lynnwood,
Yakima, Pierce
County, Wenatchee
Ellensburg, Des
Moines
Ellensburg
Ellensburg, Des
Moines, Green River,
Lynnwood, Yakima,
Pierce County,
Wenatchee
Delivery Location(s)
Ellensburg, Yakima,
Lynnwood
Ellensburg
Ellensburg, Pierce,
Wenatchee
Ellensburg, Wenatchee
Instructional Staff
Faculty
Grad
FTE
Assist.
FTE
N/A
N/A
# Students in Major
Yr
Yr
Yr
Yr
Yr
1
2
3
4
5
# Degrees Awarded
Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr
1
2
3
4
5
673
688
694
755
757
333 288 290 270 349
N/A
N/A
154
148
166
159
132
72
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
42
73
74
72
68
19 23 27 27 20
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 559 527 466 482
60
63
90
53
Instructional Staff
Faculty
Grad
FTE
Assist
FTE
N/A
N/A
# Students in Minor
Yr
Yr
Yr
Yr
Yr
1
2
3
4
5
#Minors Completed
Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr
1
2
3
4
5
90
91
109
148
164
51
29
36
50
91
N/A
N/A
149
158
110
100
95
65
79
64
27
40
N/A
N/A
103
127
136
116
149
52
41
78
38
71
N/A
N/A
35
41
34
55
50
16
20
12
11
27
Graduate and/or
Certificate Programs
Delivery Location(s)
Instructional Staff
Faculty
FTE
Master Teacher
Reading
Special Education
Page 14
4/4/08
Ellensburg, Des
Moines, Yakima,
Wenatchee
Ellensburg, Yakima
Ellensburg, Lynnwood
# Cert. Completed
# Students in Program
N/A
Grad
Assist
FTE
N/A
Yr
1
Yr
2
Yr
3
Yr
4
77
69
62
54
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
19
11
17
5
16
2
9
3
Yr
5
Yr
1
Yr
2
Yr
3
Yr
4
Yr
5
56
40
38
31
23
31
3
2
9
7
7
5
12
3
9
1
1
1
2.
Professional Educators contributions (See Table 6)
a.
courses delivered
b.
location
c.
instructional staff (information related to instruction staff was not available at
the time the report was completed.)
d.
number of students (breakout of students by center was not available)
Table 6 (Section II, B.)
Courses, Contributions, Locations
Contributing
area
Professional
Education Courses
Elementary
Education
EDEL 423
EDEL 420
EDRD 308
EDRD 309
EDRD 420
EDRD 421
Page 15
4/4/08
Delivery
Location
Location(s)
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Pierce, Yakima
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Ellensburg,
Instructional Staff
Faculty
FTE
n/a
Grad FTE
# Students
Yr
1
Yr
2
Yr
3
Yr
4
Yr
5
n/a
288 335 339 373 360
345 377 329 341 339
368 365 368 441 323
339 339 299 397 323
87
49
141 171 186
72
59
21
63
115
Contributing
area
Early Childhood
Education
EDEC 492
EDEC 331
EDEC 332
EDEC 333
EDEC 354
EDEC 421
EDEC 444
EDEC 447
EDEC 448
EDEC 493
EDEC 494
Special Education
EDSE 310
EDSE 311
EDSE410
EDSE 411
EDSE 422
Page 16
4/4/08
Delivery
Location
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Instructional Staff
n/a
n/a
Ellensburg,
Des Moines
Ellensburg,
Des Moines
Ellensburg,
Des Moines
Ellensburg,
Des Moines
Ellensburg,
Des Moines
Ellensburg,
Des Moines
Ellensburg,
Des Moines
Ellensburg,
Des Moines
Ellensburg,
Des Moines
Ellensburg,
Des Moines
Ellensburg,
Des Moines
49
80
49
75
59
28
48
36
65
53
132 89
110 83
76
69
68
86
80
75
30
22
13
14
12
25
49
44
40
52
102 99
98
59
69
1
2
4
3
0
182 155 153 124 126
n/a
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Wenatchee
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Wenatchee
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Wenatchee
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Wenatchee
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
# Students
36
40
45
86
10
0
16
15
35
15
89
99
59
105 63
63
55
46
80
47
57
63
43
77
51
56
60
45
62
52
53
58
42
56
40
n/a
Contributing
area
EDSE 426
EDSE 431
ESDE 432
EDSE 433
EDSE 460
EDSE 489
EDSE 495
Reading
EDRD 410
EDRD 411
EDRD 412
EDRD 413
EDRD 414
EDRD 415
EDRD 417
EDRD 419
EDRD 421
EDRD 493
Page 17
4/4/08
Delivery
Location
Wenatchee
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Wenatchee
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Wenatchee
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Wenatchee
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Wenatchee
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Wenatchee
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Wenatchee
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Wenatchee
Instructional Staff
n/a
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Pierce
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Pierce
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Pierce
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Pierce
Ellensburg
Ellensburg
Ellensburg,
Pierce
Ellensburg
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Pierce
Ellensburg,
# Students
0
19
37
28
45
52
57
42
51
37
50
59
38
57
39
12
49
43
55
43
58
48
46
43
52
42
47
29
21
44
37
24
98
25
25
59
80
53
84
73
73
105 69
84
75
55
55
74
51
77
58
50
83
48
70
15
11
12
7
0
49
15
0
17
21
0
43
0
0
49
36
81
35
59
34 30
169 63
19
117
53
48
75
69
n/a
45
Contributing
area
Bilingual
Education/
Teaching ESL
EDBL 312
EDBL 318
EDBL 432
EDBL 433
EDBL 435
EDBL 438
EDBL 439
EDBL 440
EDBL 492
Professional
Education
Program
EDCS 300
Page 18
4/4/08
Delivery
Location
Lynnwood,
Pierce
Instructional Staff
n/a
n/a
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Yakima,
Continuing Ed
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Yakima,
Continuing Ed
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Yakima,
Continuing Ed
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Yakima,
Continuing Ed
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Yakima,
Continuing Ed
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Yakima,
Continuing Ed
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Yakima,
Continuing Ed
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Yakima,
Continuing Ed
Ellensburg,
Lynnwood,
Yakima,
Continuing Ed
68
52
56
75
57
82
105 54
79
89
22
58
97
47
85
70
46
69
67
7
10
22
27
25
57
111 76
113 27
n/a
Ellensburg,
# Students
80
104 76
73
85
109 138 111 91
82
163 93
86
80
71
n/a
555 467 481 444 464
Contributing
area
EDCS 301
EDCS 301 a
EDCS 431
EDF 302
EDCS 431
EDCS 444
Page 19
4/4/08
Delivery
Location
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Moses Lake,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Moses Lake,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Moses Lake,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Moses Lake,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Moses Lake,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Moses Lake,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Pierce,
Instructional Staff
# Students
522 522 520 386 264
23
158 160 286 205
226 217 389 546 470
599 611 597 606 458
226 217 389 546 470
551 569 581 520 500
Contributing
area
EDCS 316
EDCS 311
EDCS 424
EDCS 442
C.
Delivery
Location
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Ellensburg,
Des Moines,
Lynnwood,
Pierce,
Wenatchee,
Yakima
Instructional Staff
# Students
558 520 511 574 457
551 547 518 588 499
287 280 247 269 260
581 517 485 455 516
Required measures of efficiency for each department for the last five years
1.
SFR (FTES/FTEF) disaggregate data (See Table 7)
2.
Average class size; disaggregate upper and lower division and graduate courses
Average class sizes were not available.
Page 20
4/4/08
Table 7 (Section II, C.)
Department FTES
All Locations
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Total
Lower Division
4.8
7.6
5.2
7.4
7.3
Upper Division
760.5
770.6
764.0
790.3
730.7
Undergraduate Subtotal
765.3
778.2
769.2
797.7
738.0
Graduate
116.4
83.6
79.8
64.1
60.1
Grand Total
881.7
861.8
848.9
861.9
798.1
Administration
Graduate
41.6
23.9
26.9
27.2
25.8
Bilingual
Upper Division
24.9
26.9
30.2
36.9
33.3
9.4
10.7
10.4
0.9
0.3
34.3
37.5
40.6
37.8
33.6
383.5
368.9
372.3
378.6
375.0
19.4
16.5
12.6
11.2
13.0
402.9
385.4
384.9
389.8
388.0
Lower Division
4.8
7.0
4.4
7.2
6.4
Upper Division
77.0
69.2
71.4
67.1
59.9
Total
81.8
76.2
75.8
74.3
66.3
Graduate
Total
Curriculum & Supervision Upper Division
Graduate
Total
Early Childhood
Elementary
0.5
Lower Division
Upper Division
34.6
41.4
39.8
41.4
41.2
Undergraduate Subtotal
34.6
41.4
39.8
41.4
41.8
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.1
41.7
40.4
41.5
41.9
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.3
Graduate
Total
Foundations
Reading
Lower Division
Upper Division
82.8
87.8
86.6
83.3
59.0
Undergraduate Subtotal
82.8
88.4
87.3
83.5
59.3
Graduate
30.1
23.1
17.0
18.3
16.5
Total
112.9
111.6
104.3
101.9
75.8
Upper Division
108.9
123.8
117.6
132.4
117.3
6.8
3.2
4.9
1.6
1.1
115.8
127.1
122.5
134.0
118.4
Graduate
Total
Page 21
4/4/08
34.6
All Locations
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Special Education
Upper Division
Graduate
Total
48.8
52.6
46.0
50.7
45.0
9.1
5.8
7.4
4.8
3.3
57.9
58.4
53.4
55.5
48.2
Table 7a (Section II, C.)
Department FTES by Location
Ellensburg
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Total
Lower Division
4.8
7.6
5.2
7.4
7.3
Upper Division
579.5
562.9
542.4
560.9
375.9
Undergraduate Subtotal
584.3
570.5
547.6
568.4
383.2
54.8
38.8
41.0
24.7
23.4
639.1
609.3
588.6
593.1
406.6
Graduate
Total
Administration
Graduate
25.5
15.2
15.5
12.8
14.3
Bilingual
Upper Division
20.2
18.7
21.1
24.4
22.6
4.3
4.2
5.0
0.8
0.2
24.5
22.8
26.1
25.2
22.8
302.0
290.0
266.7
285.2
140.7
6.9
4.6
4.0
3.7
3.4
308.9
294.6
270.7
289.0
144.1
Lower Division
4.8
7.0
4.4
7.2
6.4
Upper Division
32.3
27.0
28.2
28.3
29.3
Total
37.1
34.0
32.6
35.6
35.7
Graduate
Total
Curriculum & Supervision Upper Division
Graduate
Total
Early Childhood
Elementary
0.5
Lower Division
Upper Division
25.5
28.8
30.2
30.3
27.4
Undergraduate Subtotal
25.5
28.8
30.2
30.3
28.0
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.1
29.1
30.7
30.4
28.1
Graduate
Total
Page 22
4/4/08
25.5
Ellensburg
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Foundations
Lower Division
0.2
0.3
60.4
64.7
66.8
61.2
40.4
Undergraduate Subtotal
60.4
65.3
67.5
61.4
40.7
9.9
8.6
8.6
3.8
2.6
Total
70.4
74.0
76.1
65.2
43.3
Upper Division
90.2
90.9
89.1
92.8
72.6
1.8
1.8
1.7
0.8
0.2
Total
92.1
92.7
90.8
93.6
72.9
Upper Division
48.8
42.8
40.3
38.7
42.9
6.3
4.0
5.6
2.7
2.7
55.2
46.8
45.9
41.4
45.6
Graduate
Special Education
0.8
Upper Division
Graduate
Reading
0.6
Graduate
Total
Des Moines
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Total
Upper Division
Graduate
Total
Administration
Graduate
Bilingual
Graduate
Curriculum & Supervision
Upper Division
106.9
110.2
121.1
118.3
123.9
27.7
21.2
21.8
28.5
24.3
134.6
131.5
142.9
146.8
148.2
16.1
8.7
11.4
14.4
11.5
0.1
0.1
43.5
41.3
47.8
48.9
64.8
3.2
3.0
5.4
4.7
4.2
Total
46.6
44.3
53.2
53.6
69.1
Early Childhood
Upper Division
37.5
37.0
38.1
38.7
30.6
Elementary
Upper Division
5.6
7.2
7.7
7.1
6.8
Foundations
Upper Division
10.8
10.8
12.3
9.5
8.2
6.6
7.8
3.2
7.1
7.8
17.4
18.5
15.5
16.6
16.0
9.5
14.0
15.2
14.0
13.5
Graduate
Graduate
Total
Reading
Upper Division
0.1
Graduate
Special Education
Page 23
4/4/08
Total
9.5
14.0
15.2
14.1
13.5
Graduate
1.9
1.8
1.8
2.1
0.6
Lynnwood
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Total
Upper Division
8.1
29.3
Bilingual
Upper Division
Curriculum & Supervision
Upper Division
8.1
Elementary
Upper Division
Foundations
Upper Division
5.5
32.7
28.5
47.6
6.2
3.2
6.2
2.2
9.0
21.4
15.2
40.5
15.2
40.5
1.5
1.3
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.5
3.6
1.1
3.6
1.1
0.1
5.5
2.6
9.0
3.2
Reading
2.6
3.2
2.0
2.3
1.2
Upper Division
0.1
Graduate
Special Education
21.4
0.3
Graduate
Total
47.6
29.3
Graduate
Total
28.5
0.4
Graduate
Total
32.2
Total
1.2
0.1
Upper Division
9.8
5.7
Moses Lake
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Total
Upper Division
Page 24
4/4/08
1.7
1.8
1.1
Graduate
3.4
3.1
1.3
2.8
2.9
Total
3.4
3.9
3.0
4.6
4.0
0.5
0.8
1.0
0.7
Curriculum & Supervision Upper Division
Foundations
0.7
Graduate
1.2
2.5
0.6
0.5
2.0
Total
1.2
3.0
1.4
1.5
2.7
0.3
0.9
0.8
0.4
Upper Division
Graduate
2.2
0.6
0.7
2.3
0.9
Total
2.2
0.9
1.6
3.1
1.3
Pierce County
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Upper Division
16.7
66.4
Curriculum & Supervision Upper Division
6.7
45.2
Elementary
Upper Division
1.5
2.1
Foundations
Upper Division
0.5
2.6
Reading
Upper Division
8.1
16.6
Total
Wenatchee
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Total
Bilingual
Upper Division
25.5
28.6
33.2
30.6
40.0
Graduate
11.8
7.3
5.1
2.5
3.8
Total
37.3
35.9
38.3
33.1
43.8
Upper Division
3.0
0.6
1.7
Graduate
Total
Curriculum & Supervision Upper Division
Graduate
Total
3.0
2.3
16.6
12.6
22.2
9.2
30.7
6.1
5.8
1.5
0.9
2.2
22.7
18.4
23.7
10.2
32.9
1.7
0.1
Early Childhood
Upper Division
Elementary
Upper Division
Foundations
Upper Division
4.2
4.9
4.2
4.8
1.8
Graduate
5.6
1.5
1.9
1.6
1.6
Total
9.8
6.4
6.1
6.4
3.4
9.4
6.2
4.6
3.8
12.0
2.0
12.0
2.0
Reading
Upper Division
Special Education
Upper Division
Page 25
4/4/08
1.7
Graduate
0.1
Total
0.1
1.7
Yakima
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Total
Bilingual
Upper Division
40.6
38.8
33.3
33.4
75.9
Graduate
18.6
13.2
10.1
5.6
5.7
Total
59.2
52.0
43.4
39.0
81.5
Upper Division
1.7
2.0
5.3
6.3
8.6
Graduate
5.1
6.5
3.7
Total
6.8
8.5
9.0
6.3
8.6
15.9
15.6
13.5
12.4
52.5
2.0
0.6
1.0
1.3
1.2
17.9
16.2
14.4
13.7
53.7
Curriculum & Supervision Upper Division
Graduate
Total
Early Childhood
Upper Division
5.5
5.2
5.0
Elementary
Upper Division
3.5
3.7
1.9
1.0
1.9
Foundations
Upper Division
4.8
4.0
0.4
4.5
3.2
Graduate
5.8
4.6
2.3
3.5
3.6
10.6
8.6
2.7
8.0
6.8
Upper Division
9.2
8.3
7.1
9.2
9.7
Graduate
5.0
1.4
3.2
0.8
0.9
14.2
9.7
10.3
10.0
10.6
Total
Reading
Total
Special Education
Graduate
0.7
D.
Describe currency of curricula in discipline. How does the curriculum compare to recognized
standards promulgated by professionals in the discipline (e.g., state, national, and professional
association standards)?
All programs within the Department of Education are based on the standards provided by professional
organizations. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education standards are used as the
basis for the Professional Education Program. The State of Washington has developed a set of criteria
that must be met by all teachers in order for them to receive their certificates and endorsements. This
criterion is aligned with the standards set by national professional organizations.
Each program reviews their curriculum on a regular basis. Changes to program and course content are
based on assisting the students meet the standard set by the state and by the professional organizations.
E.
Effectiveness of instruction - Describe how the department addresses the scholarship of
teaching with specific supporting documentation including each of the following:
Page 26
4/4/08
1.
Departmental teaching effectiveness. Report a five-year history of the “teaching
effectiveness” department means as reported on SEOIs, indexed to the university mean on a
quarter-by-quarter basis.
See Table 8
2.
What evidence other than Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) is gathered and used
in the department to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction?
The Department of Education does not have at this time a systematic process for gathering evidence of
teaching effectiveness. Many of the department members participate in peer observation protocols that
allow other faculty members to provide input and guidance in bettering instructional practices.
3.
Effectiveness of instructional methods to produce student learning based upon
programmatic goals including innovative and traditional methods.
The Department of Education recognizes the need for a philosophical underpinning to the university’s
broad efforts in the preparation of teachers and other school personnel. This is identified as
“constructivism” in the Conceptual Framework for the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL).
Social constructivism views all learning as taking place within a social sphere. The language and
culture of a person provides access to the knowledge base by establishing a framework for shared
understanding. This framework allows humans to overcome the natural limitations they have.
Vygotsky (1978) demonstrated the social construction of shared knowledge with the following quote:
“I do not see the world simply in color and shape but also as a world with sense and meaning. I do not
merely see something round and black with two hands; I see a clock and I can distinguish one hand
from the other. (p. 33)
Consequently, learning occurs through social interaction. Vygotsky (1978) stated:
Every function in the child's cultural development appears twice: first, on the social
level and, later on, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological)
and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary
attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions
originate as actual relationships between individuals. (p. 57)
Education in general, and schooling, in particular, needs to be organized around the concept of
students acting as cultural agents. Consequently, instead of providing decontextualized, rote
knowledge through a transmission model, schools should create environments that assist
students in co-constructing their own knowledge. Key to this approach include the processes of
problem-posing and sense-making. When students can collaborate in exploring issues related to
their cultural contexts, they become aware of what is needed and appropriate (Wink & Putney,
2002 pp. 60-84).
One result of faculty adhering to this philosophy is that teacher candidates are engaged in interactive
classroom environments. The form of interaction that takes place varies according to content area and
the specific course outcomes. The following are representative samples of what occurs.
Page 27
4/4/08
Table 8 (Section II.E.1)
Five-Year SEOI Comparison
28: Course
as a whole
was:
Department
1039
1041
1043
1046
1049
1051
4.4
4
4.4
2
4.3
4
4.3
9
4.2
1
College
4.3
9
4.3
7
4.4
0
4.4
9
University
4.2
4
4.2
5
4.2
9
29:
Instructors
teaching
effectivenes
s was:
Department
1039
1041
4.4
9
College
University
Page 28
4/4/08
105
3
1059
1061
1063
1069
1071
1073
1076
1079
1081
1083
4.2
2
4.2
0
4.1
7
4.2
2
4.1
8
4.1
8
4.3
2
4.2
7
4.4
0
4.3
6
4.2
4
4.2
9
4.3
4
4.2
8
4.2
8
4.2
7
4.3
6
4.3
1
4.2
6
4.3
8
4.4
0
4.3
8
4.3
3
4.2
9
4.3
5
4.3
8
4.2
1
4.2
4
4.2
0
4.2
2
4.2
6
4.2
0
4.2
3
4.2
4
4.3
6
4.1
9
4.2
3
4.2
6
4.2
5
1043
1046
1049
1051
1059
1061
1063
1069
1071
1073
1076
1079
1081
1083
4.4
5
4.4
0
4.4
5
4.2
3
4.3
3
4.3
1
4.3
0
4.3
3
4.2
8
4.2
9
4.4
2
4.2
8
4.5
2
4.4
5
4.3
3
4.3
7
4.4
8
4.4
4
4.4
7
4.5
4
4.3
9
4.3
8
4.3
8
4.3
6
4.4
2
4.4
0
4.3
5
4.4
7
4.4
8
4.4
7
4.4
2
4.3
9
4.4
3
4.3
6
4.3
3
4.3
8
4.4
4
4.3
0
4.3
3
4.3
1
4.3
1
4.3
5
4.3
0
4.3
3
4.3
4
4.4
3
4.3
0
4.3
3
4.3
5
4.3
4
105
3
105
6
105
6
106
6
106
6
108
6
108
6
Total
Total
1. Inquiry-based learning experiences: in a class focused on multicultural education the teacher
candidates are required to interact with district personnel in exploring the multiple cultural
entities being serviced by their district.
2. Collaborative research: as part of an introduction to special needs, teacher candidates are
required to choose a specific needs category, conduct research on identifying and servicing
students with such needs, and developing a poster session presentation which is then delivered
to others in the class as well as all who pass by at that time.
3. Practicum/Service Learning: all teacher candidates pursuing a degree in Elementary Education
and/or the minor in Reading are required to complete a course on the basics of instruction. One
of the requirements for this course is that the teacher candidates work with elementary
students. The teacher candidates identify and instruct to the specific needs of the students.
4. Discovery learning experiences: in a class focused on elementary math methodologies, teacher
candidates explore different approaches to solving mathematical problems. This is done
through a "hands-on" approach for the candidates use manipulatives. The candidates also
taught multicultural approaches to mathematical issues and then use such approaches in the
classroom.
5. Guided discussions: in an introductory course for working with English Language Learners,
teacher candidates are engaged in guided discussions. The discussions are often preceded with
activities such as "role-playing." One example is when the candidates are divided into four
distinct groups, each representing an identified perspective on the failure of minorities in
education. These groups then are involved in the debate over what the district should do to
assist English Language Learners. After the role-play is over, the candidates are then involved
in a guided discussion as to what each of the perspectives represent and how it impacts on
education of English Language Learners in today's schools.
6. Practicums: all teacher candidates at Central Washington University have at least one
practicum before entering the student teaching stage. All teacher candidates seeking degrees
through the Department of Education have at least two practicums. These practicums allow the
candidates the opportunity to practice using the methods and techniques they been taught in an
authentic setting.
F.
Degree to which distance education technology is used for instruction.
1.
ITV
The Department of Education at Central Washington University has a strong presence at the different
University centers located throughout the state of Washington. The department has function under the
belief that whenever possible, courses should be delivered by full-time faculty. This is done in order
to maintain the integrity of the program curriculum and to assure adherence to the assessment
procedures that have been developed.
The majority of the time courses are delivered by faculty members who have made the trip to the
centers or are actually located at those centers. Nevertheless, regularly there are occasions when
distance education technology is needed. The one that is most commonly used is the interactive
television (ITV). ITV is most commonly used for courses at the graduate level or small numbers of
students are located at different centers. This system is used on average for one or two classes each
quarter. In addition, during the winter quarter, when travel conditions can be dangerous, ITV is used
with the Professional Core Sequence program located at the Wenatchee and Moses Lake centers to
limit the amount of travel required by the students.
Page 29
4/4/08
2.
Online
The use of online resources vary significantly between professors. Central Washington University is
connected through Blackboard services. Approximately one quarter of the professors in the
Department of Education use Blackboard for services such as "dropbox" and record-keeping. Other
professors use online resources such as the Internet to assist students in locating significant resources
related to their assignments and projects.
Online courses specifically aimed at being used in relation to distance education are at the beginning
stages. The only online course that has been implemented by programs under review is EDF 301a, a
one credit course specifically aimed at students who have been introduced to basic concepts of
education, but have not been trained in the specific technologies needed at Central Washington
University.
The movement to online courses is in progress. One program, Library Media Endorsement, has been
approved to move their entire course of study online. It is anticipated that this will begin during the
fall quarter of 2009. Other programs are examining which courses can make the transition to online.
G.
Assessment of programs and student learning
1.
List student learner outcomes for each graduate and or undergraduate degree program
and note how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.
a.
Describe the specific method used in assessing each student learning outcome.
Also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place, and the standard
of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessments
The Department of Education has a system for course and program evaluations. Each program has
determined what evidences are needed in order document students progress. This evidence has been
gathered into an electronic portfolio system, LiveText, whether that is evaluated according to
standards-based assessment rubrics. The results of this these rubrics are then available for faculty and
staff members to help guide their instruction and program development.
The student learner outcomes for the undergraduate programs can be located in Table 9. Student
learner outcomes for graduate programs have not been fully articulated. One result of this self-study is
that the graduate programs will more fully develop their student learner outcomes in the assessment
procedures that accompany them.
2.
List the results for each student learning outcome.
a.
Provide results in specific quantitative or qualitative terms for each learning
outcome.
b.
Compare results to standards of mastery listed above.
c.
Provide a concise interpretation of results.
The Department of Education at Central Washington University, in conjunction with the Center for
Teaching and Learning, has been actively engaged in collecting, analyzing, and reporting data
associated with student learning outcomes. This is been done in a systematic format in order to meet
Page 30
4/4/08
requirements for NCATE accreditation and reauthorization from the PESB. The following sections are
a program specific analysis that was conducted in line with these previous requirements.
Table 10 provides documentation for the results of the student learner outcomes of the three
undergraduate degree programs. It should be noted that each of the programs aimed at a 95%
successful completion rate. Elementary Education and the Early Childhood Education programs met
this goal, while the Special Education program exceeded the goal.
3.
Based upon the results for each outcome listed above describe:
a.
Specific changes to your program as they affect student learning (e.g.,
curriculum, teaching methods.
The Department of Education at Central Washington University, in conjunction with the Center for
Teaching and Learning, has been actively engaged in collecting, analyzing, and reporting data
associated with student learning outcomes. This is been done in a systematic format in order to meet
requirements for NCATE accreditation and reauthorization from the PESB. The following sections are
a program specific analysis that was conducted in line with these previous requirements.
Specific changes due to the combination of factors include:
TESL:
Increasing requirements for assessment and testing;
Develop new coursework for Sheltered Instruction
Elementary
Education:
Increase focus on mathematics pedagogy, art pedagogy, and science pedagogy;
Review and possibly rework Elementary Education program
Special
Education:
Reworking of course structures to eliminate redundancy
Reading/
Literacy:
Changing the name of the program to reflect standards;
b.
List specific changes related to assessment process if any.
Two factors are impacting the development of a new assessment process at this point in time. First,
NCATE will be conducting a follow-up site visit during the fall of 2009. This is required is to
maintain the assessment procedures we are using at the current time until the review is completed. It
will be at that time that program based learner outcomes will be revised.
Second, under the direction of the Dean of the College of Education and Professional Studies and the
Provost, the Department of Education is undergoing a significant structural change. All preliminary
planning procedures been completed to reorganize the department into four distinct department
entities. It is anticipated that this will occur before the beginning of the 2009-10 academic year. At
that point, each of the new departments will be able to fully develop and implement their department
level student learning outcomes.
Page 31
4/4/08
Table 9
CWU Student Learning Outcome Assessment Plan Preparation Form
Department of Education
Elementary Education Program
Student
Learning
Outcomes
(performance,
knowledge,
attitudes)
1.Teacher
Candidates will
successfully
complete state and
professional
standards.
Related
Program/
Departmental
Goals
Related
College
Goals
Related
University
Goals
Method(s) of Assessment
(What is the
assessment?)*
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses – population)**
When
Assessed
(term,
dates) ***
Standard of Mastery/
Criterion of Achievement
(How good does
performance have to be?)
1. Graduates
will be
prepared to be
outstanding
educational
leaders and
facilitators of
learning
Goals 1
“outstanding
academic and
professional
growth
experience”
Goals I & II:
“outstanding
academic
life”
Each course has one or
two required artifacts that
demonstrate meeting of
standards. These are
submitted via LiveText.
Teacher Candidates will
be evaluated by
professors and
instructors using
program approved
electronic rubrics.
Fall, Winter,
Spring terms
Teacher Candidates are
expected to reach the “Meets
Expectations” level of the
assessment. Program goals
are for a 95% meeting this
standard.
Department of Education
Early Childhood Education Program
Student
Learning
Outcomes
(performance,
knowledge,
attitudes)
1.Teacher
Candidates will
successfully
complete state and
professional
standards.
Page 32
4/4/08
Related
Program/
Departmental
Goals
Related
College
Goals
Related
University
Goals
Method(s) of Assessment
(What is the
assessment?)*
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses – population)**
When
Assessed
(term,
dates) ***
Standard of Mastery/
Criterion of Achievement
(How good does
performance have to be?)
1. Graduates
will be
prepared to be
outstanding
educational
leaders and
facilitators of
learning
Goals 1
“outstanding
academic and
professional
growth
experience”
Goals I & II:
“outstanding
academic
life”
ECE has a program
portfolio that requires
artifacts that demonstrate
meeting of standards.
These are submitted via
LiveText.
Teacher Candidates will
be evaluated by
professors and
instructors using
program approved
electronic rubrics.
Fall, Winter,
Spring terms
Teacher Candidates are
expected to reach the “Meets
Expectations” level of the
assessment. Program goals
are for a 95% meeting this
standard.
Department of Education
Special Education Program
Student
Learning
Outcomes
(performance,
knowledge,
attitudes)
1.Teacher
Candidates will
successfully
complete state and
professional
standards.
Related
Program/
Departmental
Goals
Related
College
Goals
1. Graduates
will be
prepared to be
outstanding
educational
leaders and
facilitators of
learning
Goals 1
“outstanding
academic and
professional
growth
experience”
2005-2009
Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Special Education
Page 33
4/4/08
Related
University
Goals
Goals I & II:
“outstanding
academic
life”
Method(s) of Assessment
(What is the
assessment?)*
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses – population)**
When
Assessed
(term,
dates) ***
Standard of Mastery/
Criterion of Achievement
(How good does
performance have to be?)
Special Education has a
program portfolio that
requires artifacts that
demonstrate meeting of
standards. These are
submitted via LiveText.
Teacher Candidates will
be evaluated by
professors and
instructors using
program approved
electronic rubrics.
Fall, Winter,
Spring terms
Final
evaluation
takes place
during
practicum
experience
Teacher Candidates are
expected to reach the “Meets
Expectations” level of the
assessment. Program goals
are for a 95% meeting this
standard.
Table 10
Student Outcome Results for Undergraduate Programs
Average Meeting or
Meets or Exceeds Does Not Meet
Total
Exceeding
590
31
621
95%
12723
699
13422
95%
469
5
474
99%
PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Program assessment data for Bilingual/Teaching English as a Second Language, Early Childhood
Education, Elementary Education, Reading, and Special Education are included on the following
pages. Also included in program reports are interpretations of the data and conclusions.
Bilingual/Teaching English as a Second Language
Program Interpretations and Conclusions: After examining the program assessment reports, we
feel that the program is preparing the students well. Overall, the competencies are being met, and
students who are struggling are able to receive the assistance needed in order to meet the
competencies. The one area that we need to address more aggressively is the use of language
objectives.
Page 34
4/4/08
The chart and graphics all demonstrated that the students have been successful in meeting the
standards. EDBL 435 will need to reexamine the standards and assess appropriate CTL standards. The
success rate is consistent with other measures, except for the West-E (the Praxis). The TESL Praxis
exam was not based on the Washington States standards, consequently the pass ratio for our students
does not reflect the students' capability in meeting competency.
Early Childhood Education
Page 35
4/4/08
Program Interpretations and Conclusions:
A review of the data collected in the LiveText portfolio suggests that there are emerging trends that
include:
1. The Des Moines cohort students received ratings that are slightly above the Ellensburg campus
students. This discrepancy may be attributed to one or a combination of many factors. The program
review and discussion by faculty yielded the following possibilities.
A. Cohort students have more of a support network since they are moving through the program
together each term.
B. Faculty members are more familiar with the cohort students since they would have them in several
different classes over their program career.
C. The ratio of faculty to instructors is much lower for cohort students than the main campus students
at this time, as has been the situation since 2003.
D. The required double major cohort students at the Des Moines center are better prepared compared
to the major/minor students typically found on the main campus.
E. Variances in the individual faculty members scoring of the artifacts maybe skewing the data. A
suggestion of scoring the same artifacts by different faculty was discussed as well as an end of
program review of the artifacts by a faculty team.
F. The rubrics may not be detailed enough to produce fine discriminations in the outcomes.
2. The candidates’ artifacts addressing the learning outcomes, as evidenced by their electronic
portfolio, are relatively consistent across the standards. These data are within the bounds of what was
expected by the program faculty.
3. The Field Experience standard indicates an expected discrepancy between the cohort and main
campus students. The Des Moines cohort data represents 2 senior field experiences (EDEC 493
Practicum and Student Teaching) where the Ellensburg campus has students in an introductory
practicum (EDEC 292) included in the data set. Students entering the cohort program complete their
introductory practicum at a community college while approximately 60% of the main campus students
take EDEC 292 as part of their CWU campus program. Hence, the discrepancy in the Field
Experience standard is expected as the main campus program includes data on novice as well as end
of program students.
4. The curriculum development appears to be a weak area judging from the program outcome
artifacts. This is an area that the faculty discussed during our program meetings and will investigate
further as the end of the year program meeting. One of the options discussed was to increase the
number of curriculum development credits required in the ECE minor from 3 to 6 as it is for the ECE
majors.
5. Given that the ECE program converted from a course based to a standards based assessment it was
felt that we should collect data through the Spring quarter before making any major changes in the
assessment rubrics. This will be revisited at the end of year program meeting when the data is more
populated.
Page 36
4/4/08
Elementary Education
Page 37
4/4/08
Page 38
4/4/08
Page 39
4/4/08
Program Interpretations and Conclusions:
The Advisory Council discussed some of the reports on several occasions and found them to be
accurate, consistent and, therefore, fair. Some changes in the rubrics have been made so that some
have a 3-category rubric now when the original was 5-point for a wider possibility for more accurate
designation of category. The criterion for the rubrics and the weighting of the points in categories on
the rubrics varies from instructor to instructor. Sometimes, one instructor has been delegated to a
course, its artifact, and its rubric. There continues to be discussion and tweaking the artifacts and
rubrics as instructors work toward consensus of all of the people who teach the course. An example is
EDRD 308 Beginning Reading. The delegated person chose the Basal Reader Review. As the faculty
who teach the course use this choice, the assignment seemed too trivial. A reflective response paper
was added. Now, this artifact activity is even being considered to be changed to another assignment
that is more representative of the major concepts of the course.
In regards to the example above, there are changes are in progress to remedy the issues identified in
the data. The three areas of particular weakness were identified as 1) Skills-based Objectives, 24% did
not meet the competency, 2) Democratic and Constructivist Learning Opportunities, 21% did not meet
the competencies, 3) Use of Technology, 31% did not meet the competencies. The course has been reevaluated with adjustments to create an improvement in these areas but other areas as well. The data is
Page 40
4/4/08
giving us information that has been used to improve our courses and programs.
Another important acknowledgement from the reports was that there was a definite weakness of
teacher candidates’ writing skills. The discussion included several ideas:
1) Send the teacher candidates to the Writing Center.
2) Use a common rubric for writing conventions or like the 6+1 Trait Writing rubric in all of our
courses and ask instructors to give feedback on writing to all of the teacher candidates. By getting the
same message from many instructors, teacher candidates may change, but having the consistency of
grading may be problematic.
3) Require a spontaneous writing sample to be graded by the Testing Center in addition to the two
short questions with a general rubric and multiple-choice questions of the West B and E. If teacher
candidates score low, require them to take ENG 320 English Grammar or other writing classes.
4) Add ENG 320 to the pre-requisites or electives. More options are being considered for all the
teacher education programs. The accuracy of the assessment is as good as the representation of the
artifact for authentic aspects of the course. The lack of consistency between instructors of the course
may indicate that the lead teacher needs to take more of a leadership role so that the content and
activities within a course are similar in the delivery of each section whether they are taught by
tenure/tenure-track or part-time faculty or are on main campus or in one of our centers. This area
needs work. Right now, there is a great deal of variation and academic freedom which may need a bit
of harnessing. Some faculty groups work on many drafts of the artifact to bring it to an acceptable
standard with consensus. Others put their first attempts in as a finished products. Some faculty meet
the standards independently; others have guidance and assistance. We are trying to gain more and
more consensus and team spirit in working toward our goals. We need more uniform and standard
ways of doing these procedures to really see the effects and results across the population, while
allowing academic freedom and creativity at the same time.
As the data is giving us information in all of our courses, we are discussing the issues, reaching
consensus as possible, and making changes. We also recognize that the part-time people may need
more support and specification to conform to the syllabi for the courses as developed by the lead
faculty.
Page 41
4/4/08
Reading
Program Interpretations and Conclusions:
LiveText Data: All courses/artifacts have been submitted for Fall, 2007. Reading faculty looked at the
courses/data and reflected on these questions: What are the data telling/showing us? How can we
improve our courses/program based on the data?
EDRD 308
We did notice that language ‘mechanics’ seemed to be a problem for our students, but faculty stated
that the Livetext reports did not really show us anything. The artifact reports did not show us
meaningful data. An artifact that better reflects standards and students’ abilities needs to be developed.
EDRD 309
The faculty seems to be satisfied with the lesson plan as an artifact. For the most part students (from
the data) seem to be on track. They are making decisions, implementing and reflecting. Students are
able to use GLEs when planning and are able to reflect on the lesson plan as a whole. What we did
notice was an inability to follow written directions, a learned work habit.
EDRD 420
Students have ideas, and can organize them, however, language conventions/writing skills are weak.
Professor Donahoe recommended a program change: students must pass a writing test, or take a
grammar course (English 320?) as a prerequisite to EDRD 420. We should also use OSPI rubrics with
grade level conventions.
Page 42
4/4/08
EDRD 421
It was noted that the artifacts for many courses (EDRD 420, 421 in the EL. Ed. sequence) are
instructor specific. These artifacts need to be generalized as they are difficult for instructors across the
seven (7) sites to utilize.
EDCS 424
It seems that the artifact chosen (anticipation guide) is working fairly well. Following directions (work
habit problem), and language mechanics seems to be a problem for students. A text for this course is
now required for all instructors of 424 and is listed on the syllabus. (On line)
EDRD 410
Again it was noted that the artifact for this course is instructor specific and needs to be generalized.
From the data of one class it was noted that students had difficulty with the
rational/research/background information.
Students had difficulty connecting readings/philosophies to the project, or making the connections
specific. The rubric will be given to students at the beginning of the course to assist them.
EDRD 411 – Ellensburg – seems to have a weakness in Lesson Plan and Student Directions.
EDRD 413
The data indicated that the students seemed to do well on the artifact (research brochure). Writing
mechanics was once again a problem for students.
EDRD 493
The data indicate that students are able to organize and reflect. However, once again, writing
mechanics are weak.
SUMMARY:
1. It was noted that many of the chosen artifacts are instructor specific, confusing and need to be
changed/modified to reflect standards more accurately.
2. The data indicate that students have a wide spread problem with grammar, writing conventions and
over-all language mechanics. It was suggested that writing tests, or grammar courses need to be
implemented as a prerequisite for Reading courses.
3. The data indicate that students have study skills/work habit weaknesses, i.e., following directions.
4. The data also indicate that many artifacts (lesson plans, brochures) indicate that students can make
decisions, organize, plan, implement, reflect and incorporate GLEs into their thinking and planning.
Page 43
4/4/08
Special Education
Program Interpretations and Conclusions:
For EDSE 495/490, 14 of the 17 students completing the special education practicum/field experience
are represented in the Fall 2007/Winter 2008 data exhibited in Livetext at this time. The 3 remaining
students successfully completed the practicum and demonstrated competency on identified standards.
The program has followed up to ensure the aggregate data reflects this. It appears that the assessment
for the EOP is accurately reflecting student competence and that relevant standards are being met
(CTL, State, NCATE). For changes, prior EDSE meeting minutes indicate discussion by EDSE
Page 44
4/4/08
faculty members to consider the potential addition of student reflection in the Livetext data system.
These reflections are already generated in a written format, kept within the hard copy portfolio, and
shared at the Exit Interview. Please note that evidences supporting student outcomes on each of the
competencies measured on the Livetext rubric are available in 2 formats: 1) hardcopy evidences in
each student’s written portfolio and 2) a video/DVD of student Exit Interview from the end of the
practicum experience.
III.
Faculty
A.
Faculty profile – Using attached chart show faculty participation for mentoring student
research, professional service activities, scholarly activities including grant writing and teaching?
(Designate graduate or undergraduate publications or creative activities.) (See Table 9a)
The number of respondents was small. Consequently, we have included Table 9b that includes
information gathered for the 2007 NCATE review.
B.
Copies of all faculty vitae.
See Appendix 6
C.
Faculty awards for distinction: instruction, scholarship, and service
College of Education and Professional Studies
Excellence in Teaching:
2007- Yukari Amos
2008- Keith Salyer
2009- Steve Nourse
Excellence in Scholarship:
2007- Ian Loverro
2008- Christina Curran
2009- Dan Fennerty
Excellence in Service:
2007- Cathrene Connery
2008- Cory Gann
2008- James Pappas
2009- Sharryn Walker
D.
Include in appendices performance standards by department, college and university.
See Appendix 1
Page 45
4/4/08
Table 11a (Section III)
Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty Profile
2004-2005
#
faculty
TT - T
% of
faculty
2005-2006
#
faculty
TT - T
% of
faculty
2006-2007
#
faculty
TT - T
2007-2008
% of
faculty
#
faculty
TT - T
% of
faculty
2008-2009
# faculty
% of
faculty
Annual
avg
5-yr
total
% of
faculty
TT - T
* Scholarship Measures: (Use categories applicable to your departmental & college criteria)
(e.g. peer reviewed
articles)
6
28.57%
5
23.81%
6
27.27%
8
33.33%
Not
Available
Not
Available
25
6.25
28%
(e.g.
abstracts/conference
proceedings)
3
14.29%
1
4.76%
2
9.09%
1
4.17%
Not
Available
Not
Available
7
1.75
8%
14
66.67%
12
57.14%
13
59.09%
18
75.00%
14.25
64%
4.17%
Not
Available
Not
Available
57
1
Not
Available
Not
Available
1
0.25
1%
Not
Available
Not
Available
3
0.75
4%
Not
Available
Not
Available
79661
19915.25
0%
Not
Available
Not
Available
0
0
0%
Not
Available
Not
Available
0
0%
(e.g. conference
presentation)
Other, etc.
* Grants: (Use categories applicable to your departmental & college criteria)
External
Funded /
Unfunded
2
9.52%
3-Feb
Internal
1
4.76%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Jan
0.00%
0.00%
Funded /
Unfunded
0.00%
0.00%
1/
* Service measures: (Use categories applicable to your departmental & college criteria)
CWU Committees
21
100.00%
21
100.00%
22
100.00%
24
100.00%
Not
Available
Not
Available
88
22
100%
State Committees
6
28.57%
5
28.57%
5
27%
8
33.33%
Not
Available
Not
Available
24
6
29%
14
58.33%
Not
Available
Not
Available
49
12.25
55%
13
54.17%
Not
Available
Not
Available
45
11.25
51%
Not
Available
Not
Available
0
0
0%
Leadership &
Service Professional
Organizations
10
Community Service
10
Other
Page 46
4/4/08
11
47.62%
47.62%
10
14
52.38%
47.62%
12
63.64%
54.55%
* Faculty Mentored Research: (Use categories applicable to your departmental & college criteria)
Undergrad projects
/ SOURCE
Page 47
4/4/08
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Not
Available
Not
Available
0
0
Graduate
Committees –
Supervising
thesis/projects
19
N/A
14
N/A
14
N/A
12
N/A
Not
Available
Not
Available
59
14.75
Graduate
Committees –
Participation
thesis/projects
28
N/A
24
N/A
26
N/A
19
N/A
Not
Available
Not
Available
97
24.25
Table 11b Tenure and Tenure-Track Data from 2007 NCATE Review
IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS:
Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty: 30
How many of the following did you publish?
sum
avg
26
0.87
Books
23
0.77
Book chapters
65
2.17
Refereed journal articles
12
0.40
Non-refereed journal articles
12
0.40
Monographs
18
0.60
Newsletter articles
35
1.17
Book reviews
Other, such as:
9
0.30
Curriculum programs
19
0.63
Program reports (external)
13
0.43
Program reports (internal)
14
0.47
Article published with a national clearing house
How many of the following did you accomplish?
sum
avg
96
3.20
Presentation at an international meeting
96
3.20
Presentation at a national meeting
126
4.20
Presentation at a regional meeting
88
2.93
Presentation at local meeting
Organize session/act as a facilitator/discussant at a professional meeting? Sum: 7 Avg. 3.5
Did you write a grant?
sum
avg
10
0.33
External under $40,000
18
0.60
External over $40,000
24
0.80
Internal
Page 48
4/4/08
IV.
Students – for five years
A.
Student accomplishments (include SOURCE, career placement information, etc.). List
students working in field; students placed in master’s or doctoral programs.
Five-year data is presented in the following tables and discussions. In some cases, five-year data is not
available. Therefore, the available data is presented.
Students admitted into initial teacher preparation: (Note: All students who are admitted to teacher
preparation do not enroll in majors in the Department of Education. However, all initial teacher
preparation students are required to complete the Professional Education Core, including Pre-Autumn
and Student Teaching field experiences, which are housed in the Department of Education.)
Table 12
Student Demographics
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
White
M
F
341
357
392
387
305
258
236
277
296
303
292
365
299
713
757
775
805
758
665
594
705
816
798
781
1027
953
Hispanic
M
F
Asian
M F
Amer
Indian
M
F
N/R Alien
M
F
Black
M
F
15
18
23
14
15
11
22
22
19
19
23
35
33
9
5
6
5
4
7
3
8
11
11
12
16
12
5
6
7
3
4
5
2
4
2
2
1
5
6
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
3
3
4
0
0
5
4
4
5
5
2
4
4
4
5
7
8
9
33
25
35
35
38
32
38
41
40
43
54
52
61
12
18
15
18
21
16
23
20
24
24
26
27
26
10
13
17
19
21
14
11
14
13
14
14
15
11
1
3
4
3
4
5
7
8
1
4
27
0
0
Multicul
M
F
1
1
5
7
9
9
5
2
3
3
6
12
11
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unknown
M
F
Total
1
7
14
18
24
22
21
34
27
28
4
30
29
1154
1243
1335
1356
1246
1080
1008
1215
1333
1332
1256
1632
1508
8
29
34
33
37
34
40
74
74
75
4
40
58
First year teaching certification for the past five years include the following:
Year
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
Page 49
4/4/08
Fall
85
122
120
75
87
Winter
72
115
85
45
116
Spring
229
248
253
275
216
Summer
36
74
69
71
63
Total
422
559
527
466
482
Endorsements earned through the Department of Education include the following:
Program
Bilingual Ed
Early
Childhood
Ed
Elementary
Ed
Reading
Special Ed
ECE-Special
Ed *
02-03
7
65
03-04
14
139
04-05
13
135
05-06
4
120
06-07
5
112
249
337
291
297
287
38
19
1
50
18
2
40
29
NA
61
29
NA
29
26
NA
*The Early Childhood Special Education program was discontinued at the end of 2003-04.
Pre-Autumn is a field experience candidates must complete at the beginning of their teacher
preparation programs. The numbers of candidates who successfully completed the Pre-Autumn
experience are:
Year/Fall
Total
2003
537
2004
451
2005
482
2006
426
2007
428
Student teaching, as well as Pre-Autumn, occurs in one of 166 school districts with which the Office of
Field Experience has signed contractual agreements. The school districts are rural, suburban, and
urban. During the past five years, the number of candidates placed in student teaching includes the
following:
Fall
Winter
Spring
Totals
2003-04
155
179
252
586
2004-05
137
145
241
523
2005-06
121
135
250
506
2006-07
114
123
234
471
2007-08
126
175
214
515
To be certified in the state of Washington, candidates must pass a subject content test, WEST-E. The
2007 candidate pass rates for the Department of Education students are:
Program
Bilingual/TESL
Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Library Media
Reading
Special Education
*Programs with a pass rate under 80% do not meet NCATE criteria.
Page 50
4/4/08
Candidate Pass Rate*
60%
92%
93%
100%
63%
100%
The next four tables present data on program completers and their placements in full-time teaching
positions in the state of Washington. Please note that there was a very low response rate for years
2003-04 and 2004-05.
2003-04: Total number of students for all CWU teacher preparation programs contacted was 296 (53%
of total); total number of students for all CWU teacher preparation programs “unable to contact” was
263 (47% of total).
Program
Bilingual Education
Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Reading
Special Education
Full-time Placement
9%
1%
36%
9%
100%
2004-05: Total number of students for all CWU teacher preparation programs contacted was 232 (44%
of total); total number of students for all CWU teacher preparation programs “unable to contact” was
295 (56% of total).
Program
Number of
Completers
Rate of Full-time
Placements
12
126
Number Full-time
Placements
(Responders)
2
29
Bilingual Education
Early Childhood
Education
Elementary
Education
Reading
Special Education
272
61
22%
39
26
2
11
5%
42%
17%
23%
2005-06: Total number of students for all CWU teacher preparation programs contacted was 350 (75%
of total); total number of students for all CWU teacher preparation programs “unable to contact” was
114 (25% of total).
Program
Number of
Completers
Bilingual Education
Early Childhood
Education
Elementary
Education
Reading
Special Education
Page 51
4/4/08
Rate of Full-time
Placements
3
68
Number Full-time
Placements
(Responders)
2
39
224
172
77%
25
16
13
14
52%
88%
67%
57%
2006-07: Total number of students for all CWU teacher preparation programs contacted was 456 (92%
of total); total number of students for all CWU teacher preparation programs “unable to contact” was
41 (8% of total).
Program
Number of
Completers
Rate of Full-time
Placements
5
76
Number Full-time
Placements
(Responders)
4
34
Bilingual Education
Early Childhood
Education
Elementary
Education
Reading
Special Education
262
152
58%
17
33
7
24
41%
73%
80%
45%
Post Bachelor and Graduate Programs: The Department of Education offers a graduate program
under the Master of Education (MEd), as well as an endorsement program in Library Media. In
addition to these two programs, a Professional Certification is offered through the Office of Continuing
Education.
The master’s students accepted into the MEd programs include the following:
Quarter
Fall 2003
Winter 2004
Spring 2004
Summer 2004
Fall 2004
Winter 2005
Spring 2005
Summer 2005
Fall 2005
Winter 2006
Spring 2006
Summer 2006
Fall 2006
Winter 2007
Spring 2007
Summer 2007
Fall 2007
Winter 2008
Spring 2008
Summer 2008
Page 52
4/4/08
Master Teacher
24
16
11
24
20
10
6
28
9
3
7
19
11
3
5
9
11
9
9
9
Reading Specialist
5
1
4
8
3
0
1
3
0
0
1
6
4
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
Special Education
2
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
The master’s candidates who successfully completed the MEd program include the following:
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
F W Sp Su F W Sp Su F W Sp Su F W Sp Su F W Sp Su
1 8 19 40 5 2 15 30 6 6 18 25 7 4 4 26 2 6 14 Na*
*Data not available as of August 2008.
Professional Certification (Pro Cert): The state of Washington’s teacher certification policy requires
the Residency Certification as the initial certificate. By year five of initial certification and
employment, teachers must earn the Professional Certificate. Dr. Andrea Sledge, Associate Professor
in the Department of Education, is the Director of the Pro Cert program, which is offered through the
Office of Continuing Education.
Candidates admitted to the Professional Certification program during the past five years:
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
Fall
11
38
41
34
1
Winter
28
27
16
24
16
Spring
28
26
30
23
Summer
29
39
36
7
Totals
96
130
123
88
17
Candidates who successfully completed the Professional Certification program:
Fall
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
1
19
7
14
Winter
Spring
12
2
5
7
32
25
11
Summer
14
30
23
20
Totals
14
38
86
54
30
Library Media: The Library Media program is a “summer only” endorsement program. Students
enrolled in the past five summers include the following:
EDCS 450*
EDCS 516
EDCS 526
EDCS 536
EDCS 548
EDCS 558
EDCS 568
EDCS 578
2004
27
27
14
23
14
14
13
22
*EDCS 450 became EDCS 514 Summer 2006.
Page 53
4/4/08
2005
12
12
20
13
23
19
23
12
2006
47
21
27
45
27
1
17
2007
20
25
19
19
19
24
24
24
2008
18
19
17
18
18
19
19
19
SOURCE: SOURCE is the Symposium on Research and Creative Expression and is an annual oneday CWU venue for undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty to present their scholarly
work. Undergraduate and graduate students are mentored by faculty members. The SOURCE
participation by students in the Department of Education includes the following:
2004
0
2005
2
2006
2
2007
1
2008
4
Career Services: The CWU Office of Career Services offers workshops and sponsored and
coordinated events. The teacher education focused events include the following:
Workshops:
Year
Date
2007 Feb.13
Feb. 14
Feb. 15
2008 Feb. 19
Feb. 20
Feb. 26
Event
Resumes and cover letters
How to work a career fair
Interviewing for educators
Resumes and cover letters
Interviewing for educators
How to work a career fair
Number of Students
7
7
7
18
12
8
2003-04: Career Services sponsored and coordinated events.
Event
Date
Description
Majors Fair
Nov. 5 Students meet academic faculty and advisors to learn
about majors, minors and career pursuits.
Education
Feb. 7 District/employer-led educator workshops, resume
Connections
critiques, and mock interviews.
Educators Career Fair May 4 District and agency representatives discussing job and
career opportunities with candidates.
22 Districts/agencies participated
78 students participated
2004-05: Career Services sponsored and coordinated events.
Event
Date
Description
Majors Fair
Nov.
Students meet academic faculty and advisors to learn
14
about majors, minors and career pursuits.
Education
Feb. 5 District/employer-led educator workshops, resume
Connections
critiques, and mock interviews.
6 districts/groups offered workshops
66 students participated
Educators Career Fair May 4 District and agency representatives discussing job and
career opportunities with candidates.
24 Districts/agencies participated
94 students participated
2005-06: Career Services sponsored and coordinated events.
Page 54
4/4/08
Event
Majors Fair
Get Hired Day
Educators Career Fair
Date
Nov. 2
Description
Students meet academic faculty and advisors to learn
about majors, minors and career pursuits.
Mar. 2 District Administrator speakers and new educator
panel, presenting career and job search issues
74 students participated
Apr 20 District and agency representatives discussing job and
career opportunities with candidates. Held in
conjunction with Career Quest, CWU’s all-campus job
fair
16 Districts/agencies participated (weather affected
event)
92 students participated
2006-07: Career Services sponsored and coordinated events.
Event
Date
Description
Majors Fair
Nov. 1 Students meet academic faculty and advisors to learn
about majors, minors and career pursuits.
Educator Career Fair
Mar 1 District and agency representatives discussing job and
& Mock Interview
career opportunities with candidates.
Workshop
Interview Prep workshop
17 Districts/agencies participated (weather affected
event)
98 students participated
2007-08: Career Services sponsored and coordinated events.
Event
Date
Description
Majors Fair
Feb.
Students meet academic faculty and advisors to learn
13
about majors, minors and career pursuits.
Educator Career Fair
Feb.
District and agency representatives discussing job and
& Mock Interview
28
career opportunities with candidates.
Workshop
District administrators and educators discussing career
and job search issues.
37 Districts/agencies participated (weather affected
event)
126 students participated
B.
Provide one masters project (if applicable); two will be randomly selected during site visit.
Available in either the library or through the departmental office.
C.
Describe departmental policies, services, initiatives, and documented results for successful
student advising.
Policies: For teacher preparation students who are enrolled in initial certification programs, student
policies are under the auspices of the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), the Teacher
Certification Office (TCO), and the Office of Field Experiences (OFE), which is housed in the
Department of Education (DOE). The Center for Teaching and Learning is the CWU governance unit
Page 55
4/4/08
for all professional education and includes administration and faculty participation from the Colleges
of Arts and Humanities, Education and Professional Studies, and the Sciences.
Policies are included in the following publications:
Publication
CTL Policy
Manual
Teacher
Preparation
Program –
Student
Handbook
Teacher
Certification
Policy Changes
Source
CTL
TCO
TCO
Pre-Autumn
OFE
Student
Teaching
OFE
Yearlong
(Internship)
Program
DOE
Description
www.cwu.edu/~ectl/CTL_Policy_Manual_2006-2007.pdf
All policies for professional education programs.
www.cwu.edu/~cert/docs/Student _Handbook.doc
All policies related to the curriculum, program of studies,
processes and procedures related to teacher preparation
programs.
www.cwu.edu/~cert/docs/Policy_changes.doc
All policies related to CWU and state of Washington
requirements for initial teacher certification and subject area
endorsements.
www.cwu.edu/~education/fieldexp/students/pa.html/
Policies related to the first field experience required for all
teacher preparation candidates.
www.cwu.edu/~education/fieldexp/students.html/
All policies, processes, and procedures related to the
candidates’ student teaching experiences.
www.cwu.edu/~education/yearlong%invite%20to%20join.doc
A web site which invites teacher preparation candidates to a
year-long internship and student teaching field experience.
Policies related to graduate students are included in the Graduate Handbook, which is located
through the Department of Education at www.cwu.edu/~education/graduatehandbook.doc.
Services: Services offered to the candidates in the Department of Education overlap with services
through the Center for Teaching and Learning. The services include:
Service Type
Admission to Teacher
Education
LiveText Help Desk
Education Technology
Center
Page 56
4/4/08
Description
The Teacher Certification Office determines when a student has
met the requirements for admission to a teacher education.
program; notifies the department.
Provides training and technical assistance to candidates who
need help posting assignment artifacts to LiveText software for
the CTL Assessment System.
Provides curriculum electronic and print media for candidates
who need to develop course assignments and projects; houses
technology for student use.
Advising: Advising is available to candidates for each stage of the teacher education program and
includes:
Advising Purpose
Admission to
Initial Teacher
Certification
Pre-advising
Program
Requirements
Field Experience
Teacher
Certification
Graduate Studies
D.
Source and Description
Teacher Certification Office Staff – Provides students with
information about requirements, processes, and procedures about
admission into a degree offering or certification only teacher
education program; informs students concerning their admission
status.
Tina Clark, Program Coordinator – Provides candidates with initial
information concerning teacher education programs and the
professional education core, which is required of all teacher
preparation candidates; directs candidates to appropriate faculty
advisors.
Department Program Coordinator (faculty member) or other
assigned faculty -- provides appropriate advising to candidates as
they progress through their respective certification/endorsement
programs.
Dr. Rexton Lynn, Director, Office of Field Experience – Assigns
candidates to school district and school, as well as appropriate field
supervisor and cooperating teacher; field supervisor advises
candidates throughout the student teaching process.
Teacher Certification Office Staff – Provide CWU and state of
Washington information to all teacher certification and
endorsement candidates.
Faculty Chair and Members of candidate’s Graduate Committee –
Provides guidance and approves the candidate’s program of studies
and the candidate’s capstone project (project, thesis, or
examination).
Describe other student services offered through the department including any
professional societies or faculty-led clubs or organizations and their activities.
The Department of Education has five faculty-led clubs or organizations.
Club or Organization
Kappa Delta Pi (KDP)
Phi Delta Kappa (PDK)
Student Association for
Bilingual & English Language
Learners (SABELL)
Student Council for
Exceptional Children (SCEC)
Student Washington Education
Association (SWEA)
Page 57
4/4/08
Annual Activities
Chapter Initiation Program; Recruitment; Scholastic
book fair
Quarterly membership meetings
Inactive at present; during the review period annual
activities included Dias de los Ninos, and multilingual
valentines.
Monthly membership meetings; national conference;
member recruitment
Monthly membership meetings; fundrasiers
V.
Facilities & Equipment by location
A.
Describe facilities available to department and their adequacy (program delivery location, size,
functionality, adjacencies, lighting, ventilation, finishes, plumbing, electrical outlets, etc.). Describe
anticipated needs in the next three to five years.
Overall, the facilities used by the Department of Education are well planned and developed. Black
Hall, where the majority of courses taught by the Department of Education are located, was developed
with an understanding of the constructivist approach to education. Consequently the classrooms are
structured to facilitate that type of interaction needed. The technology of Black Hall are adequate in all
aspects. Efforts have been made to assure that the computers in the classrooms are current and that the
needed applications are available.
The Department of Education use facilities at six of university centers. All of the center facilities are
new, with the one at the Yakima Community College being the oldest (6 years old). They been
equipped with the technology needed at the centers, as well the technology needed to interact with
other centers.
At this point in time, it is just a matter of the facilities been maintained and kept up to date. With such
updating and maintenance occurring, there should be no need for drastic improvements.
The only significant change that will be required during the next five years will be in relation to the
separation into four departments. When this occurs, some of the departments will remain in the current
office location for the Department of Education but others will move to other locations within Black
Hall.
B.
Describe equipment available to department include program delivery location and its
adequacy (office furniture, instructional fixtures, lab equipment, storage cabinets, specialty items, etc.)
Describe anticipated needs in the next three to five years.
The Department of Education has long used its self-generated funding to supplement equipment
supplied through general funding. Consequently, students, faculty, and staff have had access to
equipment needed. Some of this equipment has been maintained in the office of the Department of
Education while other has been delegated to the Education Technology Center.
C.
Describe technology available to department include program delivery location and its
adequacy (computers, telecommunications, network systems, multi-media, distance education, security
systems, etc.). Describe anticipated needs in the next three to five years.
The anticipated needs for the next five years are summarized best by the statement of maintaining
program needs. As we proceed forward with online courses and programs, we will need the technology
required to support such efforts. We will also need to maintain state-of-the-art technology for
classrooms and faculty offices.
Page 58
4/4/08
VI.
Library and Technological Resources by location
A.
Describe general and specific requirements for library resources by program and location that
assist in meeting educational and research objectives. Indicate ways in which the present library
resources satisfy and do not satisfy these needs. Describe anticipated needs as to the next 5 year period.
All of the undergraduate programs in the Department of Education have similar needs and
requirements for library and technological resources. All programs require at least one significant
research paper based on theories and/or methodologies related to that particular field.
For students at the Main campus in Ellensburg, research material is housed in the Brooks Library.
Many of the holdings/resources specific to education are outdated. In the last few years, there has been
input and more recent resources have become available. This pattern of acquiring recent and
recommended materials must continue. The DOE Library Representative has provided opportunities
for faculty input to suggest new holdings as they become available. Often times, for research
purposes, student’s must utilize other sources such as SUMMIT because adequate recent resources on
the topics are just not available at the CWU library.
Brooks library has very adequate online resources to electronic data-bases which represent best
practice journals in special education. Continuing access to the full spectrum of journals is necessary
for our students to have access to current evidence-based practices in education.
Another significant need of our undergraduate teacher candidates is access to curricular materials and
resources. Curricular materials, necessary to support prospective educators, such as textbooks,
instructional manipulatives, kits and games, curricular and educational assessments, and educator
curricular resource books are housed within the Curriculum Library at the Educational Technology
Center housed in Black Hall. Because of the lack of a budget to obtain materials and adequately
develop the curriculum library, this collection is not comprehensive, is very dated and not reflective or
supportive of best-practices for students soon to be teachers in the field. The collection is dependent
on donations and faculty who are able to write publishers to obtain donations. Current materials
supporting statewide education curriculum, such as a comprehensive library of recent recommended
curricular materials supporting evidenced-based practices across all core curriculum served by the
DOE and that supports the unique learning of all students is necessary. An adequate budget, faculty
input and stewardship, and adequate resources such as staff to catalog newly acquired materials within
a timely manner would benefit students both undergraduate, graduate and faculty.
For our students located at the centers, graduate as well as undergraduate, access to quality materials is
much more limited. The students have access to the libraries at the community colleges, but the
holdings that these libraries are minimal in regards to education. For the students, electronic resources
have even greater importance. Having access to electronic journals and training on how to access them
is paramount.
Another resource consistently used by our students epicenters is the interlibrary loan system. Through
the use of these two systems, interlibrary loan and SUMMIT, students can access materials needed for
their coursework in their individual studies.
Page 59
4/4/08
In regards to our graduate students, their needs are very similar to the undergraduate students at the
different centers. The vast majority of our graduate students are full-time practicing teachers.
Consequently, you have limited time to access the Brooks Library in Ellensburg or the libraries at their
community colleges. For them, electronic access is greatly needed and appreciated.
B
Technological Resources
The use of technology is tightly integrated into the instruction provided by the Department of
Education. Classroom use of technological tools such as Internet, PowerPoint, and video/DVD occurs
on a regular basis. In addition to the use of technology in the delivery of curriculum, all faculty
members use electronic resources for record-keeping purposes. All programs have developed
electronic formats for gathering and analyzing program specific data used for program improvement.
Educational facilities used by the department education at the Ellensburg campus and the different
centers located around the state are all very current in regards to technology. Central Washington
University has made a concerted effort to remain as up-to-date as possible. The one outcome that
would be needed for the next five years would be that Central Washington University maintain this
vision as financial hardships appear.
C
Describe technology available to department and its adequacy. Describe anticipated needs as to
the next five year period.
The Department of Education has set aside a significant portion of their self generated monies to
ensure that the technological needs of faculty and students are met. Newly hired faculty members are
awarded a substantial fund to be used in purchasing the technological needs. The department itself has
purchased and maintains items such as laptop computers, projectors, digital cameras, and video
recorders that are available as needed by faculty and students.
In anticipation of the restructuring of the Department of Education many of the more recent electronic
acquisitions were transferred to the Educational Technology Center. This will allow for faculty and
students from each of the new departments to have access to equipment.
The restructuring of the Department of Education into four distinct departments will have an impact on
the future needs of technology. Each of these departments will need to evaluate their electronic and
technological needs as well as their access to the needed resources.
VII. Analysis of the Review Period
The department retreat occurred on Friday, December 5, 2008. We held a retreat in the distance
education classroom in Black Hall with ITV connections made to the Des Moines, Lynnwood, and
Pierce County centers.
A.
What has gone well in the department and each degree program(s)?
1.
Explain accomplishments of the past five years.
Hiring of new faculty: In relation to tenure-track faculty, many of the programs in the Department of
Education have been understaffed for several years. The lack of faculty contributes to the lack of
Page 60
4/4/08
course offerings and/or the use of instructors that are not adequately prepared. The hiring of new
faculty members allows all of the programs to run their entire programs.
Program coordination: the Department of Education currently includes four bachelor degree programs,
four master degree programs, three certificate programs, a professional core sequence program, and the
five undergraduate minors. The coordination of these programs would have little probability of success
if attempted at the department level. Consequently, each of the programs are coordinated at the
program level under the direction of faculty members within that specialty area. Each of these
programs coordinates the scheduling of classes, the development of curriculum, and the mentoring of
new faculty members.
Coordination across departments has primarily occurred through the Center for Teaching and Learning
governance system. Beginning in Fall 2007, elementary education and professional core faculty have
developed a coordinating committee that includes representatives from other departments on campus.
This has allowed for the input of programs and other departments, as though the opportunity to address
their concerns and needs.
A related area is the use of program coordinators in a department level council. The program
coordinators meet on a regular basis. These needs are used to coordinate department business and
coordinate items that cross program boundaries. It is also very important that coordination takes place
across the program boundaries. Changes that occur in one program could, and often do, have an impact
on other programs as well. Each mutation between program coordinators allow for this type of
interaction take place.
Alumni survey results: the alumni recognize that the program that central Washington University have
prepared them to be effective teachers in the K-12 classrooms.
The role of department faculty in demonstrating professionalism service and/or scholarly activities:
The faculty members in the Department of Education at Central Washington University have taken
active leadership roles in service at the university, community, and professional organization levels. As
noted previously, the majority of the faculty members have been actively engaged in serving on
committees, assisting community organizations through a variety of ways, and taking leadership roles
in professional organizations. This has increased the visibility of our programs at Central Washington
University at the local, state, national, and even international levels.
In addition to service, but faculty of the Department of Education are actively engaged in the
scholarship efforts. These efforts have appeared in forms ranging from traditional articles in scholarly
journals to the publications, presentations at regional, state, national, and international professional
conferences to study guides for interpretive centers.
Facilities at the centers have been upgraded: over the course of the past five years many of the CWU
centers have had significant upgrades to their facilities. The programs located at the Des Moines
Center, they Yakima Center, the Lynnwood Center, and the Wenatchee Center are all now located in
facilities that have been specifically prepared for our needs. All of these facilities have high-tech
capabilities.
2.
Page 61
4/4/08
How have accomplishments been supported though external and internal resources?
Internal and external support for the accomplishments of the Department of Education has come from
several different resources. The majority of the support has come from internal resources. For example,
the hiring of new faculty, with a couple of exceptions, has been funded by already existing funds.
Another example is the program coordinators. Program coordinators are funded through internal
sources, as they are reassigned from instructional time to service time. The internal funds allow for
instructors to be paid in order to cover the courses that would normally be taught by the program
coordinators.
In addition to internal sources, there have been some external sources used as well. High Needs
funding provided by the Professional Education Standards Board (PESB) and the Higher Education
Coordinating Board (HEC) has assisted in increasing the offerings of programs in Special Education,
Bilingual Education, and Teaching English as a Second Language. This funding paid for new faculty
members, as well as expenses needed to move such programs to the Centers.
Additional external funding has included funded grants. Some of these grants came from the United
States Department of Education (Preparing All Teachers for Linguistic Diversity, 2001-2006) others
from private entities (Puget Sound Energy).
B.
What challenges exist for the department and for each degree program?
Changes in the demographics of the people we are serving: Historically, the programs located in the
Department of Education have required the completion of the Professional Core Sequence, which
include student teaching, in order to complete their degree. An increasing number of our potential
students are looking at using their degrees in ways that do not require the professional licensure from
the State of Washington. Consequently, one challenge we face is to make our programs more
accessible to such students. This is particularly true with the Early Childhood Education program.
Program curriculum changes: the Department Of Education at Central Washington University has been
granted the authority by the State of Washington to prepare future teachers. In order to maintain this
status, our programs must demonstrate that they are meeting the standards developed by the state
governing boards.
Survey data concerns: one area of concern that was visible through the alumni survey was a perceived
lack of need in dealing with quantitative information. Education programs are, and should be, based on
existing research. Graduates who do not understand how to interpret research results are not prepared
to make judgments using such research. We need to increase our graduates’ ability to interpret and
utilize educational research.
It was also pointed out that we need to use the data provided through feedback (i.e. student feedback
on SEOIs, alumni survey results) to systematically review and improve our education programs.
Center Cohort: The students that make up the cohort at the centers often come from different stations
in life. The majority of students at the centers are place bound and/or time bound. Consequently, many
of them are "non-traditional" students. Other cohort members are the more traditional college student,
being younger with fewer life experiences. The combination of the students can be seen as positive
and/or negative depending upon how they interact together.
Page 62
4/4/08
Challenges related to specific programs cannot be adequately addressed at this time. As is explained in
the future direct section of this document, the Department of Education is in the process of being
divided into four departments. Once this has been completed, each of these departments will then need
to examine their perceived challenges and how to best address them. A “New Department Appendix”
will be added to this document from each of the new departments by April 1, 2010.
C.
What past recommendations from the previous program review have been implemented?
The Department of Education has not conducted a previous self-study. Consequently, we do not have
recommendations from the previous program review. However, we have had reviews conducted by
NCATE and PESB. As a result of these reviews, we have developed a systematic form of gathering
data on student learner outcomes and using this data to implement program change and improvement.
VIII. Future directions
A.
Describe the department’s aspirations for the next three to five years.
Reorganization of Department of Education into the four designated new departments: The Department
of Education as it now exists is the largest department on campus at Central Washington University.
As mentioned earlier, the collection of programs housed within the Department of Education limits the
amount of focus that can be paid to any particular program. Beginning in Spring Quarter, 2008 efforts
began to reorganize the department into smaller units. These four units have been designated along
similar conceptual and pedagogical lines. For example, Early Childhood, Elementary, and Middle
School focus on education of the student from preschool through eighth grade. Once the departments
have been officially reorganized, each will be able to focus on the programs within their sphere of
distinction.
Hand-in-hand with the reorganization will be the development of program goals and outcomes based
on the particular needs of these new departments. While many of these golden outcomes will be
similar, the articulation will depend upon the areas of focus located within that department.
Instructional technology center for faculty: Advances in the area technology are occurring at a rapid
pace. Such trends have an impact on teachers and future teachers. In order for teachers and future
teachers to be prepared in such areas, they need to see it in their teacher training programs. In order for
this to happen, education professors need to be aware of and comfortable with the usage of new
technologies, as well as the applications related to such technologies.
The development of an Instructional Technology Center would assist in facilitating faculty
development in this area. Such a center would need the latest technologies and the associated software
programs. It would also need to be staffed by those who could comfortably assist education professors
in developing the ability to use and apply such training in their classroom settings.
Systematic reorganization of course sequencing: As it exists now, the course work required of all
future teachers does not have a particular sequence. There are certain structures in place that require
certain prerequisites and procedures before being allowed to take selected coursework. But, outside of
this Block I/Block II structure there is no sequencing to the coursework.
Page 63
4/4/08
The development of a sequential order for the coursework would assure that certain prerequisites
and/or background experiences needed for successful completion of certain courses will have occurred.
It will lessen the amount of overlap provided in the following courses (professors will not need to do
more than basic review of key concepts if they are sure that all students have completed the class that
included the required information).
One possibility to assist in the development of the sequential order would be the use of cohorts in the
education programs. The movement towards cohorts would a) place all education students in a
program where the courses will be presented in a predetermined sequence; b) assure that all sections
are at capacity and that the students assigned to particular cohort are assured of a seat within that class
time; and c) facilitate field placement with participating school sites.
Development and implementation of curricula in changes based on professional standards:
Professional standards have become a major component in development of program curriculum.
Program changes become a necessity in order to maintain alignment with the changes in these
professional standards. I'll programs located within the Department of Education are currently engaged
in realigning and/or implementing changes based on recent standard changes. One major aspiration is
that we are able to accomplish this without disrupting the progress of our current students.
It is also important to maintain the collaborative relationships with faculty and programs located
outside of the Department of Education. The recent progress we've made in this area needs to continue
in some ways be strengthened. This would assist in ensuring that off teacher candidates receive
adequate preparation and that their progress is adequately documented.
Faculty professional development: In relation to the need to maintain currency with professional
standards, it is important that our faculty be prepared to address the different components of the
professional standards. Historically, many aspects of the professional standards have been
implemented in "standalone" coursework. Many of these need to be implemented across the
curriculum, which would mean that all faculty members need to be comfortable in addressing such
issues.
Preparing teacher candidates for diversity in the classroom: The demographics of the students
attending school through the K-12 system demonstrate a much higher level of diversity than previous
generations. All teacher candidates need to be prepared to effectively deal with these issues of
diversity. Diversity issues have been addressed in the teacher preparation program through the
requirement that all teacher candidates successfully complete two classes. While both these classes
introduce teacher candidates to the needs of diverse student populations, the practical application of
methods and techniques needed to successfully address their issues are very limited. Consequently, the
department will need to analyze and implement the changes needed to assure that all teacher candidates
receive adequate preparation in working with a diverse student population.
B.
In this context, describe ways the department or unit plans to increase quality, quantity,
productivity, and efficiency as a whole and for each program. Provide evidence that
supports the promise for outstanding performance.
As explained above, the Department of Education is in the process of being divided into four
departments. Once this has been completed, each of these departments will then need to examine
program issues mentioned above and how to best address them. A “New Department Appendix” will
be added to this document from each of the new departments by April 1, 2010.
Page 64
4/4/08
C.
What specific resources would the department need to pursue these future directions?
As explained above, the Department of Education is in the process of being divided into four
departments. Once this has been completed, each of these departments will then need to specify the
resources needed. A “New Department Appendix” will be added to this document from each of the
new departments by April 1, 2010.
D.
IX.
What do you want us know that is not included in this self-study.
Suggestions for the program review process or contents of the self-study?
This is the fourth time the Department of Education has been asked to produce similar data and reports
in the past two years. Each of these reports should be coordinated in such a way that it minimizes the
amount of time required to complete them.
Page 65
4/4/08