AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: The School of Education
Program Reviewed: Childhood Education and Special Education BSED 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)
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_BSED_SI
Self- Study Template 1
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
SAT
High School Average
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Program
1058
990
1008
993
943
86
84
87
88
83
School/
1068
1049
1009
1055
1011
88
88
88
89
87
1068
1075
1075
1087
1092
86
87
87
87
88
College
University
Freshmen SAT Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2012
Computed
childhood ed and special ed
Computed
1,028
1,150
Freshmen High School Average
Fall 2010
Fall 2012
High School
childhood ed and special ed
High School
87
83
SAT Scores
High School Average
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
School/
College - SI
1041
1157
1049
1035
88
89
90
87
Total
University
1097
1087
1096
1104
87
87
88
89
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_BSED_SI
Self- Study Template 2
Intended college major for 2012 college-bound seniors
TestTakers
SAT
Intended College Major
Mean Scores
Number
Percent
(%)
Critical
Reading
Mathematics
Total
8,064
6.0%
472
488
960
Education
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
Fall
2003
2004*
2005
2006
2007
2008**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
Program
75%
100%
83%
67%
60%
4
3
75%
School/
92%
89%
89%
83%
86%
28
26
93%
University 78%
78%
78%
79%
76%
3268
2557
78%
College
Note * The % of students started in Fall 2004 and returned to the program in Fall 2005
** The % of students started ub Fall 2008 and returned to the program in Fall 2009
2009
Total
CEDS
3
2010
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
3
100%
Total
%
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_BSED_SI
4
2011
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
%
3
75%
1
25%
Total
2012
Returned
DNR
#
#
%
Total
Returned
%
1
#
%
1
100%
DNR
#
%
Self- Study Template 3
Fall
2009
2010
2011
2012**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
School/
College - SI
80%
79%
85%
12
11
92%
Total University
78%
78%
76%
2757
2195
80%
* The % of students started in Fall 2012 and returned to the program in Fall 2013
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Fall
1999
2000
2001
Program
2002
2003
0%
50%
School/
College
Average
91%
86%
81%
80%
80%
64%
59%
61%
61%
58%
Rate
University
2004
Total
CEDS
2
2005
Graduated
#
%
2
100%
Total
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_BSED_SI
6
2006
Graduated
#
%
5
83%
Total
3
2007
Graduated
#
%
1
33%
Total
Graduated
#
5
2
%
40%
Self- Study Template 4
Fall
2004
2005
2006
2007
School/College
Average Rate - SI
89%
71%
67%
79%
Total University
58%
58%
59%
55%
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
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.
Fall
Number of
Students
S
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
4
4
6
6
17
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
Total
4
4
6
6
17
CEDS
BSED
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
14
10
5
2
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)
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_BSED_SI
Self- Study Template 5
2h.
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
11/12
Degrees
Conferred
EDU-UG-SI
Childhood Edu & Spec Edu 1-6
BSED
1
Note: there are no students who have graduated from this program in the 10/11 and 12/13 academic years.
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
Bachelors
Local
821
National 101,265
905
955
103,992
105,785
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_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_BSED_SI
Self- Study Template 6
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_BSED_SI
Self- Study Template 7
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
Special Education Teachers,
Preschool, Kindergarten and
Elementary School
17%
Numeric
77,400
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Special Education
Teachers, Preschool,
Kindergarten and
Elementary School
Change, 2010-20
Percent
17%
Numeric
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)
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_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_BSED_SI
Self- Study Template 8
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.
Please complete the table below and provide additional information in 4e if that may help to explain the pattern of this
ratio.
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
# Majors/
FT Faculty
FT
PT
Total
Majors
2
2
4
Minors
FT
2
PT
2
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined
2
2
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
2.00
0.67
Fall 2007
Total
4
FT
2
PT
4
0
Fall 2008
Total
6
FT
1
PT
5
0
Fall 2009
Total
6
FT
10
PT
7
0
Total
17
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
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_BSED_SI
Self- Study Template 9
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MAJORS
14
14
10
10
5
5
2
2
Total
14
14
10
10
5
5
2
2
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
14
14
10
10
5
5
2
2
FTE MAJORS
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.
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_BSED_SI
Self- Study Template 10
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%
Credit Hrs Taught
10%
13%
Fall 2010
Number
6%
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
6%
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
2,004
31.2%
1,806
32.3%
1,686
32.0%
2,196
45.1%
P-T Faculty (inc Admin)
4,426
68.8%
3,792
67.7%
3,581
68.0%
2,668
54.9%
0.0%
Total
6,430
100.0%
Fall 2010
% Consumed by NonMajors
501
0.0%
5,598
100.0%
0.0%
5,267
Fall 2011
8%
586
100.0%
Fall 2012
10%
314
0.0%
4,864
100.0%
Fall 2013
6%
541
11%
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_BSED_SI
Self- Study Template 11
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
2010
Number
2011
Percent
Number
2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
33
40.7%
43
35.8%
25
33.8%
40
51.3%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
48
59.3%
77
64.2%
49
66.2%
38
48.7%
0.0%
Total
81
100.0%
0.0%
120
100.0%
0.0%
74
100.0%
0.0%
78
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_BSED_SI
Self- Study Template 12
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_BSED_SI
Self- Study Template 13
2010
FT
2011
PT
T
FT
#
%
#
%
#
Male
1
6%
37
52%
38
Female
15
94%
34
48%
49
14
Total
16
87
14
2012
PT
T
%
#
%
0%
44
53%
100%
39
47%
FT
2013
PT
T
#
%
#
%
44
1
7%
25
58%
53
14
93%
18
42%
97
15
FT
PT
T
#
%
#
%
26
2
12%
19
63%
21
32
15
88%
11
37%
26
58
17
Gender
71
83
43
30
47
Ethnicity
Black
2
13%
5
7%
7
2
14%
5
6%
7
3
20%
2
5%
5
3
18%
1
3%
4
Hispanic
2
13%
2
3%
4
2
14%
3
4%
5
1
7%
3
7%
4
1
6%
2
7%
3
Asian
1
6%
0%
1
1
7%
2
2%
3
2
13%
3
7%
5
3
18%
0
0%
3
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
62
87%
73
86%
80
81%
44
59%
27
90%
37
1
1%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
American Indian/Alaskan Native
White
11
69%
2 or More Races
0%
9
64%
71
0%
9
60%
35
10
1
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Unknown
Total
0%
16
1
71
1%
1
0%
87
14
1
83
1%
1
0%
97
15
0%
43
0
0%
58
17
30
47
Tenure Status
Tenured
11
69%
11
10
71%
10
10
67%
10
10
59%
10
Tenure-Track
5
31%
5
3
21%
3
5
33%
5
7
41%
7
0%
0
1
7%
1
0%
0
0%
0
16
14
Not Applicable
Total
16
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_BSED_SI
14
15
15
17
17
Self- Study Template 14
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
1,664,288
1,329,166
2,247,935
736,181
603,505
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount Department
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
270,000
296,251
272,859
413,000
$ 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)
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)
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_BSED_SI
Self- Study Template 15
Childhood Ed
&Special Ed (SI)
School of
Education
Total
Undergraduate
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.41
4.43
4.04
4.50
4.53
4.23
4.32
4.24
4.3
4.45
4.36
4.5
4.01
3.21
4.07
4.27
4.29
4.35
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)
EDU_C&I_CHILD&SPEC.ED_BSED_SI
Self- Study Template 16
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_BSED_SI
Self- Study Template 17