CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
Institutional Report Addendum
California State University, Chico
School of Education
Submitted to National Council on Accreditation for Teacher Education
January 8, 2015
1
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
STANDARD 1. CANDIDATE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND PROFESSIONAL
DISPOSITIONS
Evidence for the BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
1. What is the school psychology program’s NASP recognition status?
The school psychology program (PPS—Pupil Personnel Services) submitted its NASP report
for continuing accreditation to AIMS in September of 2014. As of the submission of this
report, on AIMS the report status reads as “in process.”
2. Could more information, perhaps just Website URLs to informational pages, be
provided on CBEST and CSET? (Data are provided, but details on the substance of
these admission assessments could not be located.)
The California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST) was developed to meet requirements
of laws relating to credentialing and employment. This test requirement does not replace any
of the other requirements of subject matter knowledge, professional preparation, and practice
teaching or field experience applicable to the issuance of credentials. The CBEST is designed
to test basic reading, mathematics, and writing skills found to be important for the job of an
educator; the test is not designed to measure the ability to teach those skills.
The California Subject Examinations for Teachers (CSET) have been developed by the
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) for prospective teachers who choose
to or are required to meet specific requirements for certification by taking examinations.
Each test in the program is designed to measure a specific set of knowledge, skills, and/or
abilities reflecting the subject area taught. The CSET examination is an approved route to
subject matter competency for all initial credential programs. The sets of subject matter
requirements for all examinations of the CSET were defined in conjunction with committees
of California educators and approved by the CTC. Single Subject Program candidates may
alternatively demonstrate their subject matter competence by successfully completing a CTC
approved subject matter program. Chico State has twelve approved subject matter programs.
3. A variety of acronyms and abbreviations are used throughout the narrative. Can an
alphabetized list of these, including the acronyms/abbreviations and full titles, be
provided for the onsite visit to help decipher data sets and narrative references?
A list of acronyms and abbreviations is provided in exhibit A.1.3 Acronyms and
Abbreviations.
4. Exhibit 1.4.g identifies the PACT and several course-specific assessments in initial
programs used to determine impact on student learning. Can the unit provide onsite all
data, rubrics, and uses of the assessments in programs that were noted in the IR as too
substantive to include in the offsite review?
Key assessment and rubrics files were too large to upload to AIMS. They are available on the
unit’s NCATE accreditation website under the heading “Key Assessments”.
5. What credential is awarded for the RTR program? In AIMS, the program is identified
as post-baccalaureate; however, the IR alludes to RTR being part of the MA in
Education. As presented, the IR does not include specific references to RTR candidate
2
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
performance. Can the unit provide more information to help determine whether the
initial program data reported include RTR candidates?
RTR crosses three degree/credential areas. Candidates in RTR earn a Multiple Subject or
Education Specialist teaching credential together with an MA in Education. Candidates
participate in two groups of key assessments—those of the initial credential programs in the
SOE and those of the MA in Education program. In the data chart (IR Exhibit 1.4.d.2 Unit
Data Table). RTR data is located on tabs 2, 3, 4 and 7.
6. A comparison of the data sets in Exhibit 1.4.d.2 and the program inventory in AIMS
presents some confusion about what programs (on the AIMS profile) lead to what
credentials (in Exhibit 1.4.d.2). (Since the academic catalog hyperlink in Exhibit I.5.a.1
was broken, a clear understanding of the unit’s programs and how each is available is
pending. For example, Exhibit 1.4.d.2 presents data for, perhaps, two RTR program
paths—one listed as “MS” and one listed as “SPED” within the Education Specialist
program. Also, the same data set includes data for three paths of the Education
Specialist (RTR SPED, Concurrent, and Education Specialist). Can the unit provide
data to clarify how these three paths differ?
Exhibit A.1.6 Clarification of Initial Pathways clarifies the pathways and the credentials
offered.
7. Can the system-wide first-year teacher evaluation tool be provided?
Exhibit A.1.7.a Year-Out Survey for Teachers is the survey used in 2013-14 for teachers
who earned a Multiple Subject credential. Exhibit A.1.7.b. Year Out Survey for Employers is
the survey completed by these teachers’ supervisors. Surveys contain core questions
answered by graduates of all programs and their employers. In addition, there are some
specialized questions related to specific credentials.
8. The EDMA 600 key assessment rubric for the M.A. in Education program appears
general. Can the unit provide information on criteria specific to the assessment
description, and clarifying how candidate performance is rated? Can detail be
provided on how this rubric is used, especially related to inter-rater reliability, and how
it provides data specific enough to make judgment on candidate mastery?
The rubric submitted with the IR was a previous version of the rubric. The updated rubric is
shown in exhibit A.1.8 EDMA 600 Rubric. The course was developed and approved in 20122013. The rubric is continuing to be revised during the 2014-2015 academic year.
9. How do data presented in Exhibit 1.4.d.3 align with the rubrics in Exhibits 1.4.c.3 and
1.4.c.6? For example, the EDMA 600 rubric appears to include three criteria on a scale
of four. The data set in Exhibit 1.4.d.3 presents data organized by Level 1, Level 2,
Level 3, and Level 4. The rubric, though, appears to have a point range up to 30. The
reviewer cannot determine how the data set and rubric are aligned.
Exhibit 1.1.8 EDMA 600 Equity Study Rubric clarifies the rubric levels that correspond to
the EDMA 600 data. Other rubric levels have been clarified in the key assessment documents
that are accessible on the unit’s NCATE accreditation website under the heading “Key
Assessments”.
3
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
10. Can a matrix or additional notations in Exhibit 1.4.c.1 be provided to show a clear
alignment between advanced programs’ key assessments and what is being assessed by
each (i.e. content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, impact on student
learning, or dispositions)?
Exhibit A.1.10 Key Assessments Aligned with Standard 1 shows key assessments and what
is being assessed by each.
11. Data are presented in Exhibit 1.4.d.2 for the M.A. in Education program’s Writing
Proficiency (Advance to Candidacy) assessment. Is this the data set for the Writing
Proficiency: In-program Writing Proficiency key assessment identified in Exhibit
1.4.c.1?
The “In-program Writing Proficiency” and “Writing Proficiency –Advance to Candidacy”
are referring to the same data set.
12. Exhibit 1.4.c.6 includes descriptions and/or rubrics for assessments that are not
identified as key assessments in Exhibit 1.4.c.1. Does one of the two documents contain
misinformation?
In the IR, exhibit 1.4.c.6 contains forms, assignments and rubrics used in the EDAD Program
(Preliminary Administrative Services Credential). Some of these assignments are not used as
key assessments for the purposes of data collection, even though they were labeled “key
assessment”. A corrected compilation of key assessments can be found on the accreditation
website.
13. The following table identifies key assessments in non-SPA advanced programs and
whether rubrics and data were found for each.
The chart provided by the offsite team now includes two new columns, in which we
have written a response to clarify the location of rubrics and data.
4
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
Program
(per AIMS)
M.A. in
Education
Key
Assessment
(per Exhibit
1.4.c.1)
Initial
writing
1
In-program writing
4
Data
(Addendum Response)
✓
N
IR Figure 1.4.d.2 Tab 7, labeled
“Advance to Candidacy”
N
See accreditation website
N
Data submitted, see IR figure
1.4.d.2 Tab 7
EDMA 602
N
See accreditation website
N
Data submitted, see IR figure
1.4.d.2 Tab 7
EDCI 601
N
See accreditation website
Y
Culminating activity
Y
✓
Y
✓
✓
Exit survey
Y
✓
Y
✓
3
Initial writing
N
See accreditation website
N
Data available at visit
In-program
3
writing
N
See accreditation website
N
Data submitted see IR
figure 1.4.d.2 Tab 11
AGED 608
N
See accreditation website
N
Data available at visit
AGED 601
N
See accreditation website
N
Data available at visit
AGED 610
N
See accreditation website
N
Data available at visit
Culminating
activity
Exit survey
N
See accreditation website
Y
N
See accreditation website
N
Y
✓
Y
N
See accreditation website
N
Mid-program
portfolio
N
See accreditation website
N
EDAD 615
N
See accreditation website
N
Data submitted see IR fig
1.4.d.2 Tab 7 line 70
Final portfolio
N
See accreditation website
N
Data submitted see IR fig
1.4.d.2 Tab 7 line 65
Culminating
activity
Exit survey
Y
✓
Y
✓
Y
✓
Y
✓
2
Preliminary
Initial writing
Administrative
Services
In-program writing
3
✓
Data
(Off-Site
Review)
Y
Same rubric used for
Initial Writing and InProgram Writing
M.S. in
Agricultural
Education
2
Rubric (Addendum
Response)
N
EDMA 600
1
Rubric
(Off-Site
Review)
Y
✓
Data available at visit
✓
Data submitted see IR
figure 1.4.d.2 Tab 11
Data submitted see IR fig
1.4.d.2 Tab 7 line 58
See Question #13.
See Question #11.
Exhibit 1.4.d.2 (tab 11) includes data for Writing Assessment; however, which of these two assessments align with the data set is not identified.
See Question #14
5
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
(Note: The Offsite Report did not have question #14 or #15)
16. Can the unit clarify whether the RTR program is required to earn state approval?
The Rural Teacher Residency is an experimental pathway that was externally funded by a Teacher
Quality Partnership grant through the Office of Innovation and Improvement, US Department of
Education from 10/2009-9/2014. In 2010, we were told that the RTR program did not require a
separate review process because we already had approval for both Multiple Subject and Education
Specialist Programs (A.1.16 RTR Approval Email). Instead, it would be approved in the regular
accreditation cycle, beginning with the program narratives due in 2011. Please note that the last
year of funding of the program is 2014-2015, with the last cohort of RTR candidates finishing in
spring of 2015. SOE faculty are working to integrate aspects of the RTR pathway (such as the coteaching model) into other multiple subject and education specialist pathways.
17. Can the unit provide supporting documentation that it noted was too substantive to include
for the offsite review? (This documentation relates to the examination of data,
descriptions, and rubrics for all related assessments for all initial programs that will be
conducted during the onsite review.)
Many of the key assessments and rubrics were too large to upload to AIMS. They are available on
the unit’s NCATE accreditation website.
18. Can the unit detail specific evaluation criteria for the evaluation in Exhibits 1.4.i and
1.4.j.1 showing mean results on reflective evaluations from the first-year teachers (former
candidates) and from evaluators?
The scale includes four levels describing one’s perception of preparation:
4 Well prepared
3 Adequately prepared
2 Somewhat prepared
1 Not at all prepared
The percentages reflect collapsed levels 3 and 4, “adequately to well-prepared”.
19. Can the unit provide additional information related to documentation in the IR and
exhibits related to advanced programs?
Please see answers to previous questions that supplied additional information in regard to
advanced programs. The location of additional information related to advanced programs can
be found on the accreditation website.
20. Can the unit clarify which key assessments evaluate candidate 1)content knowledge, 2)
pedagogical content knowledge, 3) impact on student learning and 4) dispositions for each
of the unique program areas?
Exhibit A.1.10 Key Assessments Aligned with Standard 1 shows key assessments and what is
being assessed by each.
6
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications,
candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the performance
of candidates, the unit, and its programs.
2.3 Evidence for the BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
1. When, how, and by whom are candidate data shared with candidates?
Candidate performance data is shared with candidates in multiple ways. Through the online CSU
Chico Portal, candidates have access to a dashboard connected to their records and courses, as well
as university announcements and supports. Within the online learning system, Blackboard Learn,
instructors post assignment and course grades for candidates to view. This feature, called the Grade
Center, provides candidates the means to keep updated on their progress. In addition, other web
tools allow candidates to check progress. Initial program candidates can view PACT assessment
data by logging on to the scoring platform website (STEPS) which gives them feedback and scores
on PACT. Candidates receive formal and informal written and verbal feedback from their field
supervisors following each observation. Mid-term and final TPE-disposition evaluations, conducted
with supervisors and cooperating teachers, are shared with candidates and uploaded to STEPS.
Initial and Advanced candidates who are not meeting at least satisfactory performance and whose
GPA falls below a 3.0 receive letters from the graduate school and their department requiring them
to meet with their faculty academic advisor to develop a plan. In advanced programs, candidates
review their progress toward the degree at the Advancement to Candidacy checkpoint, 12-15 units
into the degree. Additionally, in advanced credential programs such as Educational Administration
and Pupil Personnel Services, candidates meet with faculty for midterm and final portfolio reviews.
Program data is communicated to candidates in several ways. Candidates receive electronic copies
of the School of Education newsletter that includes a regularly featured assessment column. The
School of Education website includes an accreditation and performance data link where candidate
performance data by program and indicators of success are posted. Candidates, constituents, and
colleagues are encouraged to send questions, suggestions, comments, or feedback to
soefeedback@csuchico.edu .
2. What documentation can the unit provide concerning candidate complaints and the
resolution of those complaints?
Documentation of specific candidate complaints and the resolution of those complaints will be
available at the site visit.
Candidates who express concerns are initially encouraged to attempt to seek resolution through
communication with the faculty or individual in question. Should the concern not be resolved, a
complaint can then be filed with the department and the Office of Student Judicial Affairs.
Credential candidates are expected to come forward with complaints to an appropriate
administrator, usually the program coordinator or director. In the event that a candidate does not
feel comfortable sharing a concern, the School of Education website includes an email address to
which questions or complaints can be sent. If the nature of the complaint is anything other than a
dismissal from a credential program (e.g. grade dispute, etc.), the candidate will be encouraged to
7
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
report to Student Judicial Affairs and file a "Notice of Inquiry" to record information to start the
informal resolution procedures. The "Notice of Inquiry" will contain a description of the complaint
and the desired outcome (written by the affected student).
In the event of grievance due to an impending dismissal, the School of Education informal
grievance process provides credential candidates with an opportunity to complain about any aspect
of the decision. The meeting is designed to gather any additional information and to review the
dismissal decision. A decision on the grievant’s request will be made and communicated by the
director to the grievant by letter, through certified, receipt requested, mail. That letter, a written
summary of the meeting, and the Notice of Inquiry is placed in the grievant’s file. Copies are
forwarded to the CME Dean and the Director of Student Judicial Affairs. The grievant will be
referred to the CME Dean’s office if he/she wishes to pursue a further appeal (see exhibit A.2.2
Grievance Policy).
Formal grievances are initiated only after informal attempts have been found unsatisfactory in
reaching a just solution. A request for a formal hearing must be filed with the Coordinator within
thirty instructional days after the student has discovered or reasonably discovered the action. All
complaints that lead to grievances follow Student Grievance Procedures (EM 05-10).
8
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
Standard 3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
The unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical
practice so that teacher candidates and other school professionals develop and demonstrate the
knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn.
3.3 Evidence for the BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
1. Can the unit clarify criteria for the selection of clinical faculty for both initial and
advanced programs?
The criteria for the selection of clinical faculty include a minimum of five years of teaching
experience, a masters degree or equivalent in the field of education, and appropriate licensure for
the position. To be considered for an interview, clinical faculty must meet minimum requirements
and have a complete application on file that includes ranscripts, a resume, and letters of
recommendation. Exhibit A.3.1 Clinical Supervisor Qualifications lists the qualifications and
responsibilities of clinical supervisors.
2. What documentation can the unit provide on the collaborative process between unit and
P-12 schools?
One specific example that highlights the process of collaboration was the development of a
Classroom Environment Survey for initial program candidates to provide feedback about the
quality of their field experience placements. The instrument was developed with school partners
including School of Education advisory board members and local teacher union representatives.
Exhibit A.3.2 Collaboration Process Example shows evidence of this process, including one
advisory board agenda, feedback gathered from advisory board members, and the revised survey.
3. Can the unit provide scoring guides used for and data collected from field experiences?
Yes, scoring guides and data for field experiences can be provided during the visit. The field
experiences chart (below) will assist with finding field data for each program.
Program/Pathway
Initial Programs,
all pathways
Advanced Programs
Educational
Administration
(EDAD)
Pupil Personnel
Services (PPS)
Field Experiences Key Assessments and Data
Key Assessment Key
Data Title
Title(s)
Assessment/Rubric
Location(s)
TPE Data
Website, Initial
TPE-Disposition
Disposition Data Program Key
Data (midpoint
Assessments #1 and #2 and final)
EDMA 615 Field
Work
Website, EDAD Key
Assessment #4
Practicum,
Internship
Website, PPS Key
Assessment #1 and #2
Communication
Sciences and
Disorders (CMSD)
Practicum,
Internship
Website, CMSD Key
Assessment #3
MA in Education
EDMA 601
Action Research
AGED 610 Unit
Assessment
Design and
Evaluation
Website, MA in Ed
Key Assessment #5
Website, MA in Ed
Key Assessment #5
MS in Agriculture
EDAD 615
(Field
Evaluation)
Practicum (Psy
688)
Internship, yr 2
Assessment #3
(2nd Years)
Assessment #3
(1st Years)
EDMA 601
Action Research
Not available
Location IR
exhibit
1.4.d.2
Tab 3
Tab 7, line 69
Tab 9
Tab 10, Rows
16 and 12
Tab 7, line 22
N/A
9
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
Standard 4: Diversity
The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and provides experiences for candidates
to acquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help
all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates can demonstrate and apply proficiencies
related to diversity. Experiences provided for candidates include working with diverse
populations, including higher education and P-12 school faculty, candidates, and students in P12 schools.
4.3 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs)
4.3.a What AFIs are continued from last visit?
2.Candidates have limited
ITP,ADV
While the unit has programs in place that
opportunities to interact
give candidates opportunities to interact with
faculty from diverse groups, additional data are
with faculty from diverse
needed to remove this AFI .
groups.
4.4 Evidence for the BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
1. What is the diversity of P-12 clinical faculty?
The diversity of clinical faculty (university supervisors) is included in the Institutional Report in IR
Exhibit 4.4.d. The chart below shows the diversity of cooperating teachers.
Clinical Faculty Demographics, Fall
2014(N=335)
African American
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian
Hispanic-Latino
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White, non-Hispanic
Other
Decline to State
Total
Cooperating Teachers
N
%
0
0%
8
2.4%
3
.9%
21
6.3%
1
.3%
297
88.7%
3
.9%
14
4.2%
335
10
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
2. Are all candidates required to participate in special events that bring in speakers of
diverse backgrounds/culture/ethnicity or are these optional experiences for the
candidates?
As part of required coursework, all candidates participate in required events in which they
interact with others from diverse backgrounds/culture/ethnicity. In initial programs, for
example, all candidates take the course EDTE 302 Access and Equity and are required to
complete a personal experience investigation. This assignment requires candidates to put
themselves in an unfamiliar situation where they are a minority/outsider in some way in
order to give candidates a better understanding of a conceptual category and a personal
experience of being a minority participant. After at least three such events with the same
event/organization, candidates write a paper that summarizes their experiences and directly
draws from class content. Exhibit A.4.2 Personal Experience Assignment provides a
complete description of the assignment and a student work sample.
11
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development Faculty are qualified
and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching, including the
assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance; they also
collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systematically evaluates
faculty performance and facilitates professional development.
5.3 Evidence for the BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
1. While the IR states that two “highly qualified faculty” have been added across the unit
and that the unit plans to continue recruitment and hiring of talented faculty, specific
evidence or plans for this were not found in the IR or in the exhibits. What plans does the
unit have for recruiting qualified faculty? What is the process for hiring temporary
faculty? What is the university ratio of T-TT and temporary faculty?
The IR states that “all departments in the unit have been granted at least two T-TT hires for
2014-15 academic year.” To clarify, that means that a minimum total of ten new tenure track
faculty will be hired in the unit beginning in AY 2014-2015. The university president has made a
commitment to hire 100 tenure track faculty over three years across the institution. That promise
is on track since fall 2013 with thirty-six new hires in 2013-2014 and about the same number
anticipated for 2014-2015. In addition, the SOE has hired a number of clinical supervisors to
keep up with our reduced ratio of candidates to their university supervisors (as of fall 2013 the
ratio dropped from three candidates for every unit of workload for university supervision to two
candidates for every unit of workload).
The School of Education has hired 30 temporary part-time instructors/supervisors since 20112012. Temporary faculty complete a part-time pool application process that includes listing years
of experience teaching, credentials held, and highest degree awarded (MA is the minimum).
Applicants must submit transcripts, resume, and letters of recommendation. They must meet
minimum qualifications to be considered for an interview. For a sample of interview questions
see exhibit A.5.1 Supervisor Interview Questions.
According to the most recent data reported under “faculty and staff” on the CSU, Chico website,
there are 49% full-time faculty to 51% part-time faculty. The percent of full-time faculty with
doctorates/terminal degrees is 83%.
2. How do faculty at both initial and advanced levels support candidate reflection, critical
thinking, problem solving and professional dispositions?
Exhibit A.5.2 Supporting Reflection gives examples of faculty support of candidate reflection,
critical thinking, problem solving, and professional dispositions.
3. How do faculty in initial and advanced programs integrate technology and diversity in
their teaching?
Evidence describing the integration of technology and diversity in teaching is shown in Exhibits
A.5.3a Technology in Teaching and A.5.3b Diversity in Teaching.
4. How are courses aligned to the Common Core and ELD standards?
One example of alignment can be seen in the initial program fieldwork courses. In 2005, the
School of Education, together with school partners, developed a rubric based upon the California
12
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs). This rubric is used by faculty, students and
supervisors as a way to operationalize the TPEs. As such, it is used during observations of
student teachers and is an important part of the assessment system. In March of 2013, when the
Commission on Teacher Credentialing revised the TPEs to align with the common core
standards, the School of Education revised the SOE TPE Rubric for use in the 2014-2015
academic year. A copy of the rubric with highlighted Common Core State Standards elements is
included in A.5.4a TPE Rubric Highlighted Common Core.
Both the ELD and Common Core Standards are introduced in prerequisite coursework, so that
candidates can observe instruction and plan instruction that aligns with these new standards. In
methods courses, instructors address various aspects of the ELD and Common Core standards.
For example, in EDTE 522 Reading Comprehension and Content Literacy, the instructor focuses
on how candidates can teach their students to read complex text, a focus of the common core
English Language Arts standards. In addition, candidates learn how to choose appropriate
strategies to support English Language Development and access to the curriculum for English
language learners. Candidates use the common core standards and instructional strategies to
create unit plans and instructional interventions for students. Exhibit A.5.4b Syllabus
Highlighted Common Core and ELD shows how the syllabus reflects these standards.
5. The IR states that there is a goal-driven focus on professional development opportunities
and sharing across the unit occurs at department meeting as well as other professional
development venues noted in the IR. Specific evidence of this sharing is not noted in the
IR. How has professional development helped unit faculty to develop goal-driven
knowledge and skills? How does sharing of this knowledge occur and inform future
goals?
The mission of the School of Education is to create a diverse, democratic, socially responsible
society in which every student is valued. Toward that end, two of the goals that faculty have
focused on for the past three years are: 1) Candidates effectively support students with special
needs, and 2) Candidates effectively support and develop the language needs of English
learners.
The goal of supporting students with special needs has been identified as a unit priority. In
2013-2014, faculty across the unit joined forces to present an assistive technology workshop
for all candidates, initial and advanced, across pathways and programs. When debriefing this
workshop, faculty began to discuss the movement toward inclusive education in the public
schools. Faculty across programs in the unit, particularly in general education programs, felt as
though they needed more experience with how to write Individualized Educational Programs
(IEPs). In response to this request, a special education faculty member has agreed to lead a
workshop about conducting IEPs for faculty at our spring retreat. In addition, this year’s
assistive technology workshop for candidates will include a case study approach where
candidates will experience developing and participating in IEPs.
The following chart summarizes unit activities focused on the Assistive Technology Workshop
and faculty professional development directed toward developing IEPs.
13
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
Date
Fall-Spring
2013-2014
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
May Retreat
Task
Planned Assistive Technology Workshop at EPP unit meeting (see item 3 in
Exhibit A.5.5 Goal Driven Professional Development)
Conducted Assistive Technology Workshop. Candidates across the unit
attended. Coordinators across the unit supported candidate learning.
Reflected on workshop at EPP unit meeting (Education Preparation
Providers), with coordinators across unit programs present.
Discussed plans for professional development with faculty member Steve
Koch (see item 7 in Exhibit A.5.5 Goal Driven Prof Dev.).
Assistive technology workshop, with faculty using new expertise to guide
candidates.
Faculty workshop in writing IEPs.
Specific evidence of how goal-driven professional development has helped faculty develop
goal-driven knowledge and skills for the goal of supporting English Learners is referenced in
IR Exhibit 5.4.g.4, Professional Development Feedback. The goal was first selected in
response to candidate data. Faculty across programs identified a number of actions for
improvement, including professional development. This exhibit includes faculty feedback
following a professional development workshop conducted by faculty with expertise in this
field. The focus was on helping candidates to support English Learners. Faculty shared what
they learned, how they planned to apply the new knowledge to their practice, and asked
questions and/or made suggestions and comments for follow-up sessions.
6. What are specific examples of collaboration of faculty with P-12 partners, professional
organizations and the community?
Exhibit A.5.6 Examples of Partnerships describes examples of collaboration of faculty with
P-12 partners, professional organizations and the community.
7. What are the timelines for unit plans on moving toward target for this standard? For
example, what are the plans for comparing and aligning assessments across the unit, as
noted in the IR?
Areas in which the IR noted that the unit is moving toward target include 5a. “Qualified Faculty”
and 5f. “Unit Facilitation of Professional Development”. The table below provides the timeline
for the completion of identified tasks.
Date
Task
Fall
5f. Strengthening of policies and practices that encourage all professional
2014- education faculty to be continuous learners.
 University-wide Academic Planning Committee (APC) completes its
conversation-driven, participatory action report, which is organized around six
themes and prioritizes actions to be taken. The report will form the basis of the
new Academic Plan for the institution. Areas prioritized include student
success, promoting excellence in teaching and learning, building community,
and faculty and staff renewal, including professional development. See exhibit
A.5.7 APC Action Report for details on Theme 2 “Promoting Excellence in
Teaching and Learning” (p. 9-12) and Theme 4, “Faculty Renewal” (p. 17-19)
including provisions for workload and faculty support and evaluation.
14
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
Fall
2014Spring
2015
Spring
2015
Spring
2015
Spring
2015

Professional Development for faculty increases. Ongoing support continues
from the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) in the form
of workshops and other supports.
 Department Chairs Leadership Institute begins. Chairs, chair-elects, and
associate chairs are encouraged to consider applying. Institute focuses on
developing leadership skills that should directly benefit individuals in current
and future leadership roles. Participants, each of whom will receive $750 for
professional development or stipend for participation in the program.
 Internal research grants announced
5a. Qualified faculty.
New Academic plan is drafted based upon results of APC report. The draft will
include university-wide:
 philosophy on faculty expectations
that emphasizes the teacher-scholar model
 articulation and clarification of faculty expectations
 a focus on faculty renewal and support
5a. Qualified faculty.
RTP alignment and cross-departmental mentoring. Conversation across
departments in the college (Dean and Chairs meetings) and in the unit (EP Unit)
meetings. Draft template of RTP document to be completed in spring.
5a and f. The New Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for faculty settled
that includes support for new probationary faculty employees for workload
reduction of two courses per year for the first two years.
15
CSU Chico IR Addendum 1/8/15
Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resources
The unit has the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources, including
information technology resources, for the preparation of candidates to meet professional, state,
and institutional standards.
6.3 Evidence for the BoE team to validate at the onsite visit
1. What is the delineation of roles between the dean of the college and the director of the
School of Education?
The dean is the administrative head of the College of Communication and Education and
the chief academic and administrative officer. The college includes a number of
departments outside the School of Education and the EP Unit, including Communication
Design, Journalism, Liberal Studies, and Recreation, Hospitality, and Parks Management.
The dean position is a management position. The dean serves at the pleasure of the
president. The director of the School of Education is an elected chair-like position and
serves only the School of Education. Exhibit A.6.1 SOE Director Job Description addresses
the role of director.
2. The associate dean of teacher education and the director of SOE are the same person. The
director is an elected position. Does that mean the associate dean is also elected? Please
clarify how these two positions are filled.
The associate dean is appointed by the dean. There are currently two associate deans for the
college. One of the associate deans provides oversight for all matters related to the EP Unit and
education in local, state and national accreditation efforts, working with and representing the
dean, the college and the university. For example, she chairs the All University Responsibility
for Education Committee (AURTEC) and the Educational Preparation Unit meetings as the
dean’s designee. The associate dean position is a management position. Going forward the
position will be filled by a search, as is typical of all management positions on campus.
The Director of the SOE is an elected position. According to Executive Memorandum 83-0009,
(Exhibit A.6.2 Department Chair Selection), the dean of the school forwards the faculty selection
together with a recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Appointments of
department chairs are made by the Vice President for Academic Affairs as chief instructional
officer. The department chair serves at the pleasure of the President.
3. Can the unit provide more information on state-of-the-art facilities on campus
Exhibit A.6.3 State-of-the-Art Campus Facilities gives examples of university and unit facilities.
16