AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: The School of Education
Program Reviewed: Educational Administration/School Building Leadership MSED/EDD Q
Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair:
Overview and Program Review Summary: Please summarize this program’s mission and its relationship to the vision
and mission of St. John’s University, and the program’s School/College. Identify similar programs regionally and
nationally and distinguish this program from them. In addition, summarize your findings as they relate to (1) program
quality, (2) market growth potential, and (3) student learning. Also, summarize any significant changes, achievements
(by faculty and students and the program itself), and plans for the future. Finally, based on the information gleaned
from the data in the self-study, give an overall rating of the program’s Enrollment/Market Potential by categorizing it as
one of the following: (1) Enhance; (2) Maintain; (3) Reduce support, Phase out, Consolidate, or Discontinue.
(Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 1. The purpose of the program reflects and supports the strategic vision and mission of St. John’s
University, and the program’s School/College.
1a.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the Catholic, Vincentian, and
metropolitan identity of St. John’s University? www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
1b.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the University’s vision.
www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission/vision-statement. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
1c.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the vision and mission of the
program’s School/College? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 1.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 1
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Fall
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
452/489
474/497
469/523
N/A
N/A
N/A
Program
School/College
Average Rate
486/568 427/565
Regional
Comparison
N/A
N/A
National
Comparison
See below
The National Overall Average for verbal is 150.6 and a quantitative of 151.9, based on those tested between August 1,
2011 and April 30, 2013.
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score Ir Grev Score Ir Grev Score Ir Grev Score
Educational Admin &
Supervsn
EDD
old
481
466
new
453
360
150
152
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score Ir Greq Score Ir Greq Score Ir Greq Score
Educational Admin &
Supervsn
EDD
old
new
532
533
530
610
144
148
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to 8/1/11 on a scale of 200800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 2
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
EDU-Q
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
old
453
459
new
424
399
149
149
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative Mean Scores
EDU-Q
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
Ir Greq Score
Ir Greq Score
Ir Greq Score
old
489
535
new
531
480
145
145
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to 8/1/11 on a scale of 200800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
General test percentage distribution of scores within intended graduate major field that is based on the performance of
seniors and non-enrolled college graduates who were tested on the verbal and quantitative examination.
GRE
Intended Graduate Major
TestTakers
Mean Score (Verbal)
Mean Score (Quantitative)
Administration*
196
150
149
Higher Education*
934
152
149
*For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf
Comments: Refer to Charts 2a – 2d in your response. (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions.
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 3
2f.
If applicable, describe the program’s student performance over the past five years on licensure or professional
certification exams relative to regional and national standards. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number
of
Students
2005
2007
2008
2009
Majors
397
397
313
242
245
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
397
397
313
242
245
Total
Online
SBL
MSED
MAJORS
EDAS
EDD
SBL
MSED
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Total
2h.
2006
22
24
91
86
88
95
108
97
65
52
199
183
175
171
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Comments : Based on the data in 2g and 2h, how do these trends compare to institutional, regional and national
patterns? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
MSED
6
19
50
100
90
EDD
10
13
16
16
18
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 4
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Degrees
Degrees
Conferred Conferred Conferred
EDU-GR-Q
Educational Admin & Supervsn
EDD
20
21
18
School Building Leadership
MSED
53
61
57
Below is comparison degrees conferred data for local and national institutions based on data retrieved from the IPEDS
website. This is based on the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) Code of 13-Education.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Masters
Local
3,756
National 182,139
3,619
3,242
185,009
178,062
1
Local institution include: Adelphi University, Columbia University, CUNY Queens College, Fordham University,
Hofstra University, Iona College, C.W. Post University, Manhattan College, New York University, Pace University,
Seton Hall University, Stony Brook University, and Wagner College.
2i.
What mechanisms are in place to monitor students’ progress toward degree? And, to what extent is there a
collaborative effort to provide quality advising and support services to students? (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
2j.
If available, provide information on the success of graduates in this program as it relates to employment or
attending graduate school. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 5
2k.
Please comment on the students’ competencies in the program. Support your responses using data provided
below and any other data available. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 2.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 3. The program engages in ongoing systematic planning that is aligned with the University and
School/College planning, direction, and priorities.
3a.
How does your program’s strategic goal/objectives link to your School/College plan and the University’s strategic
plan? http://www.stjohns.edu/about/leadership/strategic-planning.
3b.
What is the evidence of monitoring the external and internal environments, specifically what are the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the program? How were they identified? What actions have been taken
in response to these findings? What characteristics of the program suggest a competitive edge against other programs
regionally and nationally?
3c.
What is the current and future market demand for the program? Support your response using the data
provided below or any other internal or external sources to justify your response.
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 6
Fastest growing occupations and occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment by level of education
and training projected.
Change, 2010-20
Fastest Growing Occupations
Percent
Education Administrators
10%
Numeric
23,200
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Education Administrators
Change, 2010-20
Percent
10%
Numeric
23,200
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much faster than average – Increase 7 to 14.9%
Education Administrators
Percent
Numeric
10%
23,200
*For more information please visit: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm
Standard 3.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 4. The program provides a high quality curriculum that emphasizes and assesses student learning and
engagement.
4a.
Please indicate how the program curriculum is in alignment with the following three items:
(Suggested limit 1/2 page for each of the three categories below)
1. Standards within the discipline
2. Curriculum integrity, coherence, academic internships, teaching excellence, teaching vibrancy, and study
abroad experiences.
3. The University Core competencies
4b.
The syllabi for the courses within this program incorporate the suggested elements of a syllabus – an example of
which can be found at the following St. John’s University Center for Teaching and Learning link. (Suggested limit 1/3
page) http://stjohns.campusguides.com/content.php?pid=71651&sid=984766
4c.
Describe the assessment model currently in place for the program and indicate the extent to which disciplinary
and core knowledge, competence, and values are met, as well as findings and action plans for improvement. For
reference, visit WeaveOnline – https://app.weaveonline.com//login.aspx; Digication – https://stjohns.digication.com/.
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
4d.
What, if any, external validations, e.g. specialized accreditations, external awards, other validations of quality
has the program received? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 7
Standard 4.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 5. The program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission and goals.
5a.
Below you will find the number of students enrolled as majors and minors in the program. Please complete the
table by adding the number of full-time faculty assigned to the program. Then calculate the student to full-time faculty
ratio.
# Majors/
FT Faculty
Majors
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
FT
PT
Total
4
393
397
Minors
FT
PT
9
Fall 2007
Total
388
397
0
Majors &
Minors
Combined
4
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
4.0
0
393
FT
PT
4
Fall 2008
Total
309
313
0
FT
7
Fall 2009
PT
Tota
l
235
242
0
FT
13
PT
Tota
l
232
245
0
0
397
9
388
397
4
309
313
7
235
242
13
232
245
131.0 135.0
0
0
9.0
0
129.3
3
138.3
3
4.0
0
103.0
0
107.0
0
7.0
0
78.3
3
85.3
3
13.0
0
77.3
3
90.3
3
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
Fall 2010
F
P
Majors
MAJORS
Fall 2011
Total
F
P
Fall 2012
Total
F
P
Fall 2013
Total
F
P
Total
Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors
8
191
199
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
8
187
195
5
170
175
7
164
171
Self-Study Template 8
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE MAJORS
8
63.667 71.667
Fall 2010
8
62.333 70.333
Fall 2011
5
Fall 2012
56.667 61.667
7
54.667 61.667
Fall 2013
# of FTE faculty assigned
to the program
FTE Student/FTE Faculty
Ratio
Important Notes:
FTE Students = Number of FT Students + (number of PT Students/3)
FTE Faculty = Number of FT Faculty + (number of PT Faculty/3)
This methodology is used by SJU for all external reporting.
5b.
Below you will find the credit hours the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time faculty
(including administrators) and the total credit hours consumed by non-majors.
Credit Hours
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Taught
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
FT Faculty
1671
51%
1416
53%
1107
41%
963
40%
975
50%
PT Faculty
1602
49%
1272
47%
1617
59%
1451
60%
989
50%
Total
% consumed by
3273 100% 2688 100% 2724 100% 2414 100% 1964 100%
Non-Majors
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
14%
3%
4%
1%
3%
Self-Study Template 9
Credit Hrs
Taught
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
693
37.0%
762
42.3%
891
52.8%
807
47.9%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
1,179
63.0%
1,039
57.7%
798
47.2%
879
52.1%
0.0%
Total
1,872
0.0%
100.0%
1,801
Fall 2010
% Consumed
by Non-Majors
141
0.0%
100.0%
1,689
Fall 2011
8%
298
100.0%
0.0%
1,686
Fall 2012
17%
321
100.0%
Fall 2013
19%
191
11%
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
Courses
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Taught
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
FT
Faculty
32
46%
36
49%
30
40%
27
35%
27
49%
PT
Faculty
37
54%
37
51%
45
60%
51
65%
28
51%
Total
69
100%
73
100%
75
100%
78
100%
55
100%
Courses Taught
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Percent
Fall 2013
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
24
42.1%
33
43.4%
25
51.0%
26
50.0%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
33
57.9%
43
56.6%
24
49.0%
26
50.0%
0.0%
Total
57
100.0%
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
0.0%
76
100.0%
0.0%
49
100.0%
0.0%
52
100.0%
Self-Study Template 10
5d.
What is the representative nature of faculty in terms of demographics, tenure and diversity? (See departmental
information on next page). How well does this support the program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 11
Departmental Data
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
8
62%
11
58%
Female
5
38%
8
Total
13
100%
Black
2
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
19
7
64%
10
48%
42%
13
4
36%
11
19
100%
32
11
100%
15%
0
0%
2
2
0
0%
2
11%
2
Asian
1
8%
0
0%
White
9
69%
17
Unknown
1
8%
Total
13
100%
Tenured
9
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
17
7
54%
12
48%
52%
15
6
46%
13
21
100%
32
13
100%
18%
1
5%
3
1
0
0%
3
14%
3
1
1
9%
0
0%
89%
26
8
73%
17
0
0%
1
0
0%
19
100%
32
11
100%
69%
9
8
3
23%
3
Not Applicable
1
8%
Total
13
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
19
6
46%
12
50%
52%
19
7
54%
12
25
100%
38
13
100%
8%
1
4%
2
1
0
0%
3
12%
3
1
2
15%
0
0%
81%
25
9
69%
21
0
0%
0
1
8%
21
100%
32
13
100%
73%
8
8
2
18%
2
1
1
9%
13
11
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
18
6
50%
9
64%
15
50%
19
6
50%
5
36%
11
24
100%
37
12
100%
14
100%
2
8%
0
0%
1
1
8%
0
0%
1
0
0%
3
13%
3
0
0%
2
14%
2
2
2
15%
0
0%
2
2
17%
0
0
2
84%
30
9
69%
21
88%
30
8
67%
12
86%
20
0
0%
1
1
8%
0
0%
1
1
8%
0
0%
1
25
100%
38
13
100%
24
100%
37
12
100%
14
100%
26
62%
8
8
62%
8
7
58%
7
2
15%
2
2
15%
2
2
17%
2
1
3
23%
3
3
23%
3
3
25%
3
11
13
100%
13
13
100%
13
12
100%
12
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 12
2010
FT
2011
PT
T
#
%
#
%
Male
4
36%
10
59%
Female
7
64%
7
41%
Total
11
FT
2012
PT
T
#
%
#
%
14
4
44%
13
62%
14
5
56%
8
38%
28
9
FT
2013
PT
T
#
%
#
%
17
7
64%
13
65%
13
4
36%
7
35%
30
11
FT
PT
T
#
%
#
%
20
8
67%
12
55%
20
11
4
33%
10
45%
14
31
12
Gender
17
21
20
22
34
Ethnicity
Black
0%
0%
0
0%
2
10%
2
0%
3
15%
3
0%
5
23%
5
Hispanic
0%
6%
1
0%
2
10%
2
0%
1
5%
1
0%
1
5%
1
18%
0%
2
22%
1
5%
3
18%
0%
2
17%
0
0%
2
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
94%
25
76%
23
80%
24
75%
16
73%
25
2 or More Races
0
0%
0
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0
0%
0
0
0%
1
Asian
2
American Indian/Alaskan Native
White
9
82%
Unknown
Total
1
16
0%
11
0%
17
2
0%
7
0
78%
16
0%
28
9
0%
21
2
8
0
1
30
11
73%
16
9%
0%
20
2
9
1
1
31
12
8%
22
34
Tenure Status
Tenured
6
55%
6
7
78%
7
7
64%
7
8
67%
8
Tenure-Track
2
18%
2
1
11%
1
2
18%
2
2
17%
2
Not Applicable
3
27%
3
1
11%
1
2
18%
2
2
17%
2
Total
11
11
9
9
11
11
12
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 13
12
5e.
What evidence exists that the program’s faculty have engaged in research and scholarship on teaching and/or
learning in the program’s field of study? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
5f.
What initiatives have been taken in the past five years to promote faculty development in support of the
program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
5g.
The table below shows the amount of external funding received by the department. If available, please provide
the dollar amount of externally funded research for full-time faculty supporting the program under review. (Program
dollar amounts are available through departmental records.)
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
18,000
2,284,000
840,210
1,903,278
1,695,985
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
1,255,456
1,122,639
938,462
970,338
5h.
Please comment on the table below that shows trends in overall course evaluation and instructional vibrancy for
your program (if available), your college and the university. (Suggested limit ½ page)
Admin &
Instructional
Leadership (Q)
School of
Education
Total Graduate
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.39
4.36
4.39
4.41
4.53
4.51
4.24
4.33
4.3
4.4
4.48
4.49
4.14
4.16
4.3
4.37
4.39
4.52
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 14
Note: Instructional Vibrancy is the average of the first 14 questions on the course evaluation, with questions pertaining
to course organization, communication, faculty-student interaction, and assignments/grading. All course evaluation
questions range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
5i.
What percentage of full time faculty assigned to this program have terminal degrees or industry certifications
renewed within the past 2 years? Comment. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 5.
Comments: Indicate to what extent the program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission
and goals. Include references from 5a – 5i. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Standard 5.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 6. The program has adequate resources to meet its goals and objectives. And, it is cost-effective.
6a.
Narrative/Supportive Technological Environment - Comment on classrooms and labs meeting industry-standards
for quality and availability of hardware, software, and peripherals; library space, holdings and services; science
laboratories, TV studios, art/computer graphic labs; etc. (Suggested limit 1 page)
6b.
Narrative/ Supportive Physical Environment - Comment on level of faculty and student satisfaction with HVAC;
faculty and student satisfaction with classroom lighting, crowdedness, and acoustics; flexible teaching environments,
and faculty offices, etc.. (Suggested limit 1 page)
6c.
To what extent has the University funded major capital projects, e.g., renovations, which are linked directly to
the program during the past five years? (Bulleted list)
6d.
If external data that describes the cost effectiveness of the program has been provided by your School/College
Dean, please comment on the program’s cost-effectiveness. (Suggest limit 1 page)
Standard 6.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 7. Effective actions have been taken based on the findings of the last program review and plans have
been initiated for the future.
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 15
Comments: (Suggested limit 1page)
EDU_AIL_ED.ADMIN_MSED&EDD_Q
Self-Study Template 16