AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: The School of Education
Program Reviewed: Childhood and Childhood Special Education MSED SI
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
N/A
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
N/A
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
N/A
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_MSED_SI
Self- Study Template 1
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
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 2011
edu-si
old
340
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2011
edu-si
old
357
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 200-800(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
Test-Takers
Mean Score (Verbal)
Mean Score (Quantitative)
Elementary*
2,331
150
148
Secondary*
2546
154
151
Special Education*
1,375
149
146
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions.
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
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.
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_MSED_SI
Self- Study Template 2
Fall
Number of
Students
2005
2006
2007
2009
Majors
4
4
6
6
17
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
Total
4
4
6
6
17
S
CSPE
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MSED
14
19
NM
13
7
13
7
1
Total
2h.
2008
14
20
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
MSED
0
0
0
1
1
EDU-GR-SI
Childhood & Childhood Spec Edu
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_MSED_SI
MSED
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
4
5
6
Self- Study Template 3
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.
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
Masters
Local
3,756
3,619
3,242
National
182,139
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.
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)
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_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_MSED_SI
Self- Study Template 4
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_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_MSED_SI
Self- Study Template 5
Fastest growing occupations and occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment by level of education
and training projected.
Change, 2010-20
Occupations having the
Change, 2010-20
Fastest Growing Occupations
largest numerical increase
Percent
Numeric
Percent
Numeric
in employment
Special Education Teachers,
Preschool, Kindergarten and
Elementary School
17%
77,400
Special Education
Teachers, Preschool,
Kindergarten and
Elementary School
17%
77,400
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much faster than average – Increase 15 to 20.9%
Special Education Teachers, Preschool, Kindergarten and
Elementary School
Percent
Numeric
17%
77,400
*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)
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_MSED_SI
Self- Study Template 6
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)
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
2
2
4
Minors
FT
PT
2
Total
2
2
2
# of FTE Students
(Majors & Minors)
2.00
0.67
FT
4
0
Majors & Minors
Combined
Fall 2007
PT
2
Fall 2008
Total
4
FT
6
0
PT
1
Fall 2009
Total
5
FT
6
0
PT
10
Total
7
17
0
0
4
2
2
4
2
4
6
1
5
6
10
7
17
2.67
2.00
0.67
2.67
2.00
1.33
3.33
1.00
1.67
2.67
10.00
2.33
12.33
# of FTE Faculty
assigned to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE Student/ FTE
Faculty Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
Fall 2010
MAJORS
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
10
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_MSED_SI
4
14
10
10
20
8
5
13
3
4
7
Self- Study Template 7
Fall 2010
FTE MAJORS
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
10
1.333
11.333
10
3.333
13.333
8
1.667
9.667
3
1.333
4.333
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
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
Taught
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
1610
23%
1496
22%
2241
34%
2070
31%
2762
38%
PT Faculty
5345
77%
5177
78%
4332
66%
4665
69%
4587
62%
Total
6955
100%
6673
100%
6573
100%
6735
100%
7349
10%
FT Faculty
% consumed
by
Non-Majors
9%
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_MSED_SI
10%
13%
6%
6%
Self- Study Template 8
Credit Hrs Taught
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
2,403
50.0%
2,556
51.4%
2,544
48.8%
2,136
47.9%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
2,403
50.0%
2,421
48.6%
2,664
51.2%
2,325
52.1%
0.0%
Total
4,806
0.0%
100.0%
4,977
Fall 2010
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
0.0%
100.0%
5,208
Fall 2011
1,785
37%
1,821
100.0%
0.0%
4,461
Fall 2012
37%
1,932
100.0%
Fall 2013
37%
25%
1,134
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
Courses
Taught
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
22
26%
35
39%
41
32%
40
44%
FT Faculty
26
31%
PT Faculty
58
69%
62
74%
55
61%
88
68%
51
56%
Total
84
100%
84
100%
90
100%
129
100%
91
100%
Courses Taught
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
45
49.5%
58
49.6%
48
46.6%
44
47.3%
P-T Faculty (inc Admin)
46
50.5%
59
50.4%
55
53.4%
49
52.7%
0.0%
Total
91
100.0%
0.0%
117
100.0%
0.0%
103
100.0%
0.0%
93
100.0%
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_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_MSED_SI
Self- Study Template 9
Departmental Data
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
2
14%
23
64%
Female
12
86%
13
Total
14
100%
Black
2
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
25
2
13%
30
46%
36%
25
13
87%
35
36
100%
50
15
100%
14%
2
6%
4
2
1
7%
1
3%
2
Asian
1
7%
0
0%
White
9
64%
33
Unknown
1
7%
Total
14
100%
Tenured
8
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
32
2
13%
32
49%
54%
48
14
88%
33
65
100%
80
16
100%
13%
7
11%
9
2
1
7%
1
2%
2
1
1
7%
0
0%
92%
42
11
73%
55
0
0%
1
0
0%
36
100%
50
15
100%
57%
8
9
5
36%
5
Not Applicable
1
7%
Total
14
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
34
1
7%
38
54%
51%
47
14
93%
32
65
100%
81
15
100%
13%
4
6%
6
2
2
13%
1
2%
3
1
1
6%
0
0%
85%
66
11
69%
59
2
3%
2
0
0%
65
100%
80
16
100%
60%
9
11
6
40%
6
1
0
0%
14
15
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
39
2
11%
32
53%
34
46%
46
16
89%
28
47%
0
70
100%
85
18
100%
60
100%
0
13%
5
7%
7
2
11%
3
5%
5
2
13%
1
1%
3
2
11%
1
2%
3
1
1
7%
0
0%
1
1
6%
0
0%
1
91%
70
10
67%
62
89%
72
13
72%
55
92%
68
1
2%
1
0
0%
2
3%
2
0
0%
1
2%
1
65
100%
81
15
100%
70
100%
85
18
100%
60
100%
78
69%
11
11
73%
11
11
11
4
25%
4
4
27%
4
7
7
0
1
6%
1
0
0%
0
0
0
15
16
100%
16
15
100%
15
18
18
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_MSED_SI
Self- Study Template 10
2010
FT
2011
PT
T
#
%
#
%
Male
7
44%
11
37%
Female
9
56%
19
63%
Total
16
FT
2012
PT
T
#
%
#
%
18
7
39%
11
35%
28
11
61%
20
65%
46
18
0%
2
2
11%
10%
4
1
6%
2
FT
2013
PT
T
#
%
#
%
18
7
35%
10
31%
31
13
65%
22
69%
49
20
0%
2
2
10%
13%
5
1
5%
11%
0%
2
3
0%
0%
0
87%
40
FT
PT
T
#
%
#
%
17
9
43%
10
28%
19
35
12
57%
26
72%
38
52
21
0%
2
2
10%
0
0%
2
13%
5
1
5%
3
8%
4
15%
0%
3
3
14%
0
0%
3
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
84%
41
71%
33
92%
48
2 or More Races
0
0%
0
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
Gender
30
31
32
36
57
Ethnicity
Black
2
13%
Hispanic
1
6%
Asian
2
13%
0%
2
0%
0%
0
87%
37
American Indian/Alaskan Native
White
11
69%
Unknown
Total
0%
16
3
26
1
30
3%
13
1
72%
4
27
0%
46
18
0%
31
14
0
70%
0%
49
20
4
27
1
32
3%
15
1
0%
52
21
36
57
Tenure Status
Tenured
11
69%
11
11
61%
11
11
55%
11
11
52%
11
Tenure-Track
5
31%
5
6
33%
6
8
40%
8
10
48%
10
0%
0
1
6%
1
1
5%
1
0%
0
16
18
18
20
Not Applicable
Total
16
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_MSED_SI
20
21
21
Self- Study Template 11
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
$ Amount
Program
0
0
0
0
0
$ Amount Department
1,664,288
1,329,166
2,247,935
736,181
603,505
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
2,245,957
2,906,930
3,102,531
3,852,394
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
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 only available through departmental records.)
Comments (Suggested limit ½ page)
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_MSED_SI
Self- Study Template 12
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)
Childhood Ed
&Special Ed (SI)
School of
Education
Total Graduate
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.50
4.42
4.33
4.46
4.56
3.6
4.24
4.33
4.3
4.4
4.48
4.49
4.14
4.16
4.3
4.37
4.39
4.52
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)
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_MSED_SI
Self- Study Template 13
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.
Comments: (Suggested limit 1page)
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_MSED_SI
Self- Study Template 14