INSTITUTIONAL REPORT:
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OPTION
Angelo State University
2011-2012
Dr. John Miazga, Dean College of Education
Dr. Marilyn Eisenwine, NCATE Director
INSTITUTIONAL REPORT: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OPTION
For Continuing Accreditation Visits in Fall 2012 and Beyond
Updated February 2011
INSTITUTIONAL REPORT: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OPTION
I. Overview and Conceptual Framework
I.1
Angelo State University (ASU) is a regional educational institution meeting the local and farreaching needs of learners in West Texas. ASU is a dynamic institution of higher education long
recognized for its strong academic programs, its technological sophistication, and its nurturing
environment, all of which help candidates reach their full potential. In the fall of 2010, ASU
qualified as a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI).
I.2
Angelo State University, a member of the Texas Tech University System, delivers undergraduate
and graduate programs in the liberal arts, sciences, and professional disciplines. In a learningcentered environment distinguished by its integration of teaching, research, creative endeavor,
service, and co-curricular experiences, ASU prepares students to be responsible citizens and to have
productive careers.
I.3
The professional education unit at ASU is the College of Education. Since accreditation in 2011,
the following programs are no longer available due to a Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board rule concerning programs with small numbers of candidates: Chemistry, Math/Physics,
Physical Science, Computer Science, 4-8 Math/Reading, 4-8 Math/Science, and 4-8 English
Language Arts/Social Studies. The Early Childhood-Grade 4 certification was deleted at the state
level and replaced by the Early Childhood-Grade 6 certification. The Kinesiology Department
discontinued their teacher certification program by department decision.
I.4
The over-arching purpose of the Educator Preparation Program is to prepare teacher candidates and
other school-based professionals who believe that all children can and should learn. The programs
enable the candidates to become practitioners capable of reflecting upon the impact and results of
their own practices. Program experiences enable candidates to become critical thinkers and
decision-makers employing current knowledge and effective practices based on professional
outcomes and proficiencies. Therefore, the goals of the program relate to specific outcomes and
proficiencies for candidates.
As reflective practitioners, ASU candidates will:
1. demonstrate their knowledge of the content of disciplines, appropriately applied to the age and
level of the students they teach, to ensure the implementation of effective instruction that leads to
successful development of all students.
2. demonstrate their knowledge of pedagogical skills applied to the development of effective
instruction of all students.
3. demonstrate commitment to and performance of professional dispositions.
4. demonstrate ability to implement defensible instructional decisions, including technology, leading
to effective teaching and learning.
5. adopt active student-centered learning based on the belief that all children can and should learn.
NCATE/ Institutional Report
1
6. implement ethically and culturally relevant and responsive teaching, addressing the continually
changing developmental and educational needs of diverse students, families, and society in
partnership with schools and communities.
These outcomes and proficiencies have been revised since the last visit. Along with the Conceptual
Framework as a whole, they were edited and condensed by the NCATE Steering Committee. The
dean and NCATE Director made corrections to reflect changes made in programs and procedures in
recent years. Faculty members designed and added charts to indicate alignment between Conceptual
Framework Outcomes, institutional goals, state, and national standards for undergraduate and
graduate programs. Then the entire document was sent to public school personnel, graduate students,
and faculty members for review.
I.5
Exhibits
Linked to website
II. Unit Standards
1.
Standard 1. Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals
know and demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills,
pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to
help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and
institutional standards.
AFIs (Areas for Improvement) from April 2011 NCATE Accreditation Decision Report
1. The unit does not clearly articulate the professional dispositions expected of
candidates.
ITP (Initial) AND ADV (Advanced Programs)
The Dean of the College of Education formed a Dispositions Committee in the spring of 2011.
The committee met over the spring and summer of 2011 to review and revise the previous list of
Dispositions employed by the unit. For fall of 2011, the revised Dispositions were distributed for
faculty use in graduate and undergraduate programs. The committee collaborated to construct a
Disposition Assessment Chart, describing where undergraduate and graduate collection points would
occur starting in fall of 2011. A new data point for collection was self-evaluation of candidates at various
points in their program, also listed on the Disposition Assessment Chart. All faculty and candidates
employed TaskStream to complete Disposition Surveys for efficiency of data reporting. The revised
disposition data were collected for the 2011-2012 academic year, then compiled and analyzed by faculty,
the Dispositions Committee, and the Standard 1 Committee in Spring 2012.
2. Limited evidence exists to show that candidates are familiar with or can
demonstrate professional dispositions.
ITP (Initial) AND ADV (Advanced Programs)
As indicated by the Disposition Assessment Chart, all candidates in undergraduate and
graduate programs review the Dispositions as part of their coursework. Since candidates began
Disposition self-evaluations in the fall of 2011, the candidates are aware of and familiar with the
Dispositions. The Unit assesses Dispositions based on observable behavior in educational settings.
NCATE/ Institutional Report
2
Candidates demonstrate classroom behaviors that are consistent with the ideal of fairness and the belief
that all students can learn. By using TaskStream to complete the Disposition Assessments, the faculty
can compare the student self-evaluations to faculty evaluations throughout the candidate’s program. The
Data Comparison Chart facilitates the analysis of the Dispositions across all programs.
Standard 1 Report
1.1 What do candidate assessment data tell the unit about candidates’ meeting professional, state, and
institutional standards and their impact on P-12 student learning? For programs not nationally/state
reviewed, summarize data from key assessments and discuss these results.
The undergraduate elementary program received national recognition by the Association for
Childhood Education International (ACEI). The undergraduate elementary with special education
program received national recognition with conditions by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC).
The conditions report was resubmitted to CEC in March 2012. The Music Department is nationally
accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM). Assessment data illustrate that
candidates meet professional standards by alignment to the national standards of professional
organizations. The EC-6 Generalist program for elementary education certification is aligned to ACEI
standards. The Educational Diagnostician graduate program is aligned to CEC standards. The
institutional goals and objectives are also aligned to programs with ASU graduate and undergraduate
learning goals.
By meeting the 80% pass rate on state certification exams, candidates show their mastery of state
standards. Undergraduate programs maintain high pass rates on certification exams and score in upper
ranges for second measures of content. The secondary math program has had a 100% pass rate on the
content section of the state certification test since 1998; the secondary English program has had a 100%
pass rate on the content section of the state certification test since 2005.
All teacher candidates plan, complete fieldwork, and show effects on student learning during
observations and student teaching in the field. They have a broad knowledge of instructional strategies to
help all students learn, presenting content and integrating technology. Teacher candidates are able to
develop, administer, and analyze appropriate student assessments. One example of the evaluation of the
candidate can be found in the student teaching rubric, standard 3d (candidate assessment of student
learning). During student teaching and graduate program practicums, candidates impact student learning
in P-12 settings, as illustrated on the Program Assessments Chart by program assessments #5. Various
measures for program assessment #6 include capstone course assignments, senior departmental exams,
and cooperating teacher surveys, all of which showcase student mastery. Undergraduate faculty employ
these data, aligned to institutional, state, and national standards, for program improvement.
Candidates in advanced programs also meet the state required 80% pass rate on state certification
exams. They have an in-depth understanding of content and pedagogy in their fields to promote student
learning. Other school professionals are able to create and maintain positive school environments. The
Data Assessment chart displays program assessments #2 consisting of a Candidate Comprehensive
Program Review (CPR), presented before a committee of three faculty members and scored with rubrics
in TaskStream. The outcome of these CPR assessments allow faculty to see that candidates are able to
clearly explain the choices they make in their practice and involvement in professional activities.
Graduate programs have a variety of measures for other assessments, such as case studies, lesson
reflections, and internship/practicum supervisor evaluations. Graduate faculty use these data, aligned to
institutional, state, and national standards, for program improvement.
1.2.b Continuous Improvement
 Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement of
candidate performance and program quality.
NCATE/ Institutional Report
3
Programs have increased data collection since receiving feedback from the last NCATE visit.
The newly created Educator Preparation Information (EPI) Center will continue to be the centralized
location for data management and storage for all programs in the unit. The data used for continuous
program improvement is accessible online on the Program Assessments page created in fall 2011.
The Unit is moving toward all data collection in TaskStream for comparative analyzing and
reporting. Data Conferences are now held annually in August, December, and May. Faculty regularly
discuss data for program improvement in departmental meetings. (Departmental Meeting minutes
available upon request during BOE visit.) The data pages on the College of Education website are now
reorganized, more complete, and available for continuous analysis for program improvement, including
Disposition Data being tracked through TaskStream assessments in both undergraduate and graduate
programs.

Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as
articulated in unit Standard 1.
Many new initiatives started during the 2011-2012 academic year will continue during future
semesters. Data Conferences will be annual events, including Data Summary Reports for faculty review
and discussion. In August, the previous years’ work on all standards is reviewed, including data
collection. At the December Data Conference, a year’s worth of Unit data is displayed in the Data
Summary Report for faculty discussion and analysis. Complete Unit data is available at the December
conference due to the reporting period for state accountability running from September 1 to August 31 of
each year. For May, accumulated data from fall and spring semesters indicate changes necessary for the
following academic year.
The Unit systematically assesses the development of professional dispositions for all candidates.
Disposition Data collection was standardized during fall of 2011. This data will be analyzed at the May
Data Conference each year. More faculty are utilizing the TaskStream approach for systematic data
collection and reporting of programs. A new venue called the College Program Leaders Communication
Committee was started in the fall of 2011 and held monthly throughout the academic year, which
encouraged cooperation and communication among professors for sharing of resources and evaluation of
candidates in all programs. These meetings will also continue in the future.
After analyzing the fall 2011 Disposition Data, the graduate faculty began the process of revising
the descriptors for each of the Dispositions. Data collection for the 2012-2013 academic year will more
accurately reflect graduate candidates’ dispositions appropriate to advanced programs and other school
professionals. The Department Chair for Curriculum and Instruction led the faculty in revising the
descriptors at the May Data Conference. A draft of the revised Dispositions for online courses and
practicum experiences was created and is currently under review by faculty. If approved, new
Dispositions for Advanced Programs will be implemented in fall of 2012.
1.3 Exhibits
Linked to website
2.
Standard 2. 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.
Areas for Improvement (AFIs) from April 2011 NCATE Accreditation Decision Report
NCATE/ Institutional Report
4
1. No procedures are in place to ensure fairness, accuracy, and consistency in assessments of candidate
performance. ITP (Initial) and ADV (Advanced Programs)
In order to increase fairness, accuracy, and consistency in assessments, Unit faculty developed
standardized grading rubrics for use in evaluating all candidates. A concentrated effort was made to
develop rubrics using Blackboard and TaskStream. All programs have rubrics for program assessments
posted online, as illustrated by the assessment data charts.
Many courses at Angelo State University have only one instructor. Others have several
instructors for multiple sections of a course. To ensure fairness, accuracy, and consistency, faculty
teaching multiple course sections conducted inter-rater reliability studies. As an example, in EPSY 3303,
Child and Adolescent Development course, faculty conducted an inter-rater reliability study for the
grading of the Case Study Assignment used as Assessment #6 in the Early Childhood-Grade 6
certification program. Professors separately scored (using standardized rubrics) the same candidates’
work samples and then reviewed overall results analyzing inter-rater reliability. Likewise, student
teaching requires a large number of supervisors for candidates in the field. These supervisors are trained
and tested each year for consistency of evaluation in assessments. In fall of 2011, the supervisors
completed inter-rater reliability ratings through written and video evidence of one candidate. At the end
of the 2012 semester, supervisors analyzed two candidates for inter-rater reliability, scoring one as a
group and one on an individual basis, in order to increase reliability of scoring.
Using Quality Matters (QM) course development protocol, online course development is being
standardized across the Unit to ensure fairness, accuracy, and consistency. The Unit adopted the QM
protocol. During the spring of 2012, one faculty member was trained as a trainer of trainers. She, in turn,
trained faculty who teach online courses in the basics of the QM process. This process will continue until
all faculty have had the training. This was necessary so that faculty could begin the QM peer reviewers
training during summer 2012. The Unit is developing a standard Blackboard template for all online
courses.
2. The unit does not ensure regular and systematic use of data to improve the quality of programs, unit
operations, and the performance of candidates. ITP (Initial) and ADV (Advanced Programs)
Angelo State University’s College of Education developed a system of assessments designed to
provide systematic opportunities for continuous program and Unit improvement. Integrating candidates’
work assessments in Blackboard and TaskStream has been a major focus toward this end. Individual
assessments are scored by standardized rubrics, thereby enhancing fairness, accuracy, and consistency for
all candidates. A website for comprehensive program data collection and review was developed during
the 2011-2012 academic year. The newly created Educator Preparation Information (EPI) Center is the
centralized location for data management and storage for all programs in the unit. The EPI Center houses
all program assessment data, disposition data, state report data, and federal report data.
At the Unit level, Data Conferences for the College of Education involving faculty, staff,
department heads, and the Dean were held on August 17th (2009/2010 data reviewed), December 2nd of
2011 (2010/2011 data reviewed), and May 11th of 2012 (spring 2012 and Disposition data reviewed). All
extant assessment data was reviewed by program managers and supporting faculty. The faculty data
analysis reports and program improvement ideas are posted on the websites developed for each Data
Conference. As the academic year progressed, faculty became more adept at viewing and analyzing data
for the purpose of program improvement. To expedite this process, a Unit Data Summary was developed
for the December conference and posted online. This summary will be an annual data report. This
process for Unit and program data review occurs in August, December, and May of each academic year.
NCATE/ Institutional Report
5
Standard 2 Report
2.1
How does the unit use its assessment system to improve candidate performance, program quality
and unit operations?
The Unit Assessment System has multiple decision points for candidates beginning with admission
to the Educator Preparation Program (EPP) for undergraduates and admission to graduate school for
Advanced level programs. Admission data is found in the Data Summary Report, Part IV, Admission and
Active Data, Tables 18-11. At program completion, the Certification Advisor recommends candidates for
certification, and the College of Education recommends candidates for graduation. Certification results
are in the Data Summary Report, Part III, Certification Data, Tables 12-17. Candidate graduation
information, referred to as Program Finishers, is found in the Data Summary Report, Part II, Program
Finisher Data, Tables 10-11. Program and Disposition data are disaggregated for distance learning
programs because all Advanced level programs are online. The alternate route to initial certification is an
online graduate program that meets the same standards as traditional undergraduate certification
programs.
Data is used continuously to improve candidate performance and program quality. Individual
program managers, department heads, and the Dean continuously review newly acquired data sets. Data
sets are standardized among programs. Each program collects data in the required six to eight categories
as illustrated by the Program Assessment Chart. Other Unit data is displayed on the College of Education
Program Data page and the Certification Data page.
Minutes from regular faculty meetings for the Teacher Education Department and the Department
of Curriculum and Instruction reflect changes made. (Departmental meeting minutes available upon
request for BOE visit.) For example, after reviewing data from the EC-6 Generalist program assessment
for a second measure of content in fall 2011, the Teacher Education faculty decided to form a committee
to search for an improved method of data collection. Grades from content area methodology courses
were previously used, but data analysis for program improvement proved difficult in employing this
simple measure. The faculty committee is developing a rubric for scoring content area lesson plans using
Association for Childhood International (ACEI) standards. Implementation of the new assessment will be
in fall of 2012. Another example involves the modification of the secondary program after faculty
reviewed the graduate survey from the spring 2011 data. The professor teaching the secondary
methodology courses discovered that candidates felt unprepared in the areas of parent communication,
Special Education and English Second Language Learners (ESLs). The professor prepared materials for
instruction and required an assignment of a parent letter to the ED 4322. The ED 4322 and ED 4323
courses for spring 2012 also included the addition of information and differentiation for Special
Education and ESL students in candidates’ lesson planning.
In the Advanced level programs, faculty discovered by analyzing data that state test scores needed
improvement. The program manager for School Administration provided focused study materials for four
candidates during the spring of 2012. Depending on scores from these candidates on the state tests, the
materials may be more widely distributed in summer and fall of 2012. The program manager for
Guidance and Counseling posted practice test questions in Blackboard to assist candidates prior to taking
the exam.
Data reviewed at the December 2011 Conference impacting Unit operations included surveys of
graduates done at the end of their program and an employers’ survey done by principals after their first
year of teaching. Federal reports for Title II include demographics and certification pass rates. The
Texas Education Agency annual state data report reviewed includes annual reviews disaggregated by
gender, ethnicity, and program. The Unit participates in a consortium called CREATE (Center for
Research, Evaluation, and Advancement of Teacher Education) and is provided comparative data from
public schools within a 150 mile radius of San Angelo. The CREATE data also supplies comparative
information about the Unit’s candidates with regard to other Texas universities. This Performance
NCATE/ Institutional Report
6
Analysis System for Colleges of Education, or PACE data, provides a point of reference for faculty to
analyze and compare information about the Unit with other teacher preparation programs in the state.
A new component of Unit data for analysis at the May 2012 Data Conference was Disposition
Data. During the 2011-2012 academic year, a more systemized method for Dispositions was established.
The Unit has four dispositions: Professional Practice, Professional Qualities, Professional Relationship
with Others, and Professional Development. A common form for dispositions was created and used.
Graduate and undergraduate faculty employed the same form for self and supervisor/professor disposition
surveys. Due to the nature of graduate courses, faculty wanted to revise the Disposition descriptors for
fall 2012 to be more meaningful to their programs. The graduate faculty met to determine new
dispositions appropriate for online courses and practicum experiences. The revised advanced level
disposition data will be collected beginning in the fall 2012 semester and will be evaluated as to their
adequacy to determine that candidates are meeting the dispositions established by the unit.
2.2.b Continuous Improvement
 Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement of
candidate performance and program quality.
During the spring of 2011 an Education Assessment Committee was formed to review the Unit
assessment system. Based on NCATE reports of the Unit’s needs, this committee evolved on June 17,
2011 into the NCATE Standard 2 Committee. Work from this committee resulted in the development of
a web-based data gathering and dissemination system of assessments. Integrating candidate rubrics in
Blackboard and TaskStream was a major focus toward this end. Individual assessments were scored by
standardized rubrics enhancing fairness, accuracy, and consistency for all candidates. Data from these
assessments were mapped and posted on the College of Education website. Individual program
managers, department heads, and the Dean continuously review data. Data Conferences are a component
of the Unit resulting in program improvement recommendations. Data Conference reports of changes
made are posted on the webpage by program according to the month of the meeting, such as August,
December, and May.

Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as
articulated in Unit Standard 2.
The Unit website for data collection and review developed during the 2012 academic year
presents all available data. Data will be added, reviewed, and recommendations for program
improvement will continually evolve. A record of these reviews and resulting recommendations are
posted in the faculty meeting minutes (available on site).
At the Unit level Data Conferences will continue to be conducted. Written reports of program
improvements are the outcomes of the Data Conferences and posted on the website by conference date.
As a continuous improvement model, this Unit and program review methodology reoccurs each August,
December, and May.
2.3 Exhibits
Linked to website
3.
Standard 3. 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.
NCATE/ Institutional Report
7
AFIs (Areas for Improvement) from April 2011 NCATE Accreditation Decision Report
1. The unit does not align assessment proficiencies for field experiences and clinical practice to the
conceptual framework.
ITP (Initial) AND ADV (Advanced Programs)
The Angelo State University College of Education Conceptual Framework was revised during the 20112012 academic year to reflect current best practices and research. In response to those revisions the Unit has
completed a table entitled, “Alignment of Assessment Proficiencies/Outcomes for Field Experience and
Clinical Practice to Angelo State University Conceptual Framework,” including examples from both the
initial and advanced programs.
2. Limited evidence exists to show that candidates in other school professional programs are able to
create environments that have a positive impact on student learning.
ADV (Advanced Programs) only
Effects on student learning in the advanced programs are demonstrated by the evaluative data collected
during teaching internships and practicums in the field. This data is then reported and collected in
TaskStream by the university supervisors and clinical supervisors and can be found on the Angelo State
University website at the College of Education homepage under the NCATE Data and Program
Assessments link for Advanced level programs’ Assessment #5 (Impact on Student Learning).
Standard 3 Report
3.1 How does the unit work with the school partners to deliver field experiences and clinical practice to
enable candidates to develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions to help all students
learn?
The Unit has a very collegial and collaborative relationship with public school partners to deliver
field experiences and clinical practice at a high quality level to enable candidates to develop the
knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions to help all students learn. Candidates have the
opportunity to interact with adults, children, and youth from their own and other ethnic/racial cultures
throughout their college careers. They also work with adults and students with exceptionalities. All of
the policies and procedures relating to the process of field experience are outlined in the Angelo State
University College of Education Field Experience Handbook. In addition, the exhibit table includes an
example of the Memorandum of Understanding used with the ASU cooperating school district partners
and a current list of the districts.
To ensure that ASU teacher candidates and other school professional candidates develop the
knowledge and skills necessary, data are collected at the initial and advanced program level to specifically
address professional standards. University and public school personnel measure professional dispositions
of ASU teacher candidates and other school personnel candidates. The Unit data are collected
electronically and are available through the Educator Preparation Information (EPI) Center. Unit data are
available on the College of Education Field Experience Data page. Data are displayed on the website as
Program Assessments and Disposition Data. Individual programs generate reports at least annually for
data analysis and program improvement. These reports are posted on the Data Conference pages linked
to the College of Education’s webpage.
The ASU College of Education believes in the power of field experiences. For the initial
programs, ASU teacher candidates are expected to complete field experiences in accredited school
classrooms. Field experiences actively engage ASU teacher candidates. The classroom teacher assesses
candidates’ knowledge and skills in a senior level Early Childhood course field experience. This
NCATE/ Institutional Report
8
evaluation is shown in Assessment #7 for the EC-Grade 6 Generalist program. The semester before
student teaching, candidates spend at least 132 hours in accredited schools planning and teaching lessons.
Classroom teachers evaluate knowledge, skills, and dispositions of candidates during this semester. The
data are displayed for the EC-6 Generalist program in Assessment #8. The final stage for ASU teacher
candidates is a 15-week student teaching internship. Knowledge and skills assessed during field
experience evaluations for student teachers are illustrated by Assessment #4. Supervisors and student
teaching candidates’ self-assessments of dispositions during this final semester of field experience are
listed in the Disposition Data chart.
One post-baccalaureate program for initial certification at ASU is the Master of the Arts in
Curriculum and Instruction with Certification. For this program, candidates may complete their final
semester as student teachers or complete a one-year internship in the classroom. Field experience data for
knowledge and skills are disaggregated in this program according to Student Teaching Evaluations or
Internship Evaluations. Disposition Data are displayed for all candidates in the program.
For the advanced level, other school professional programs require the ASU graduate candidate to
complete 160 hours in an accredited school. Field supervisors assess candidates in the Educational
Diagnostician, Guidance and Counseling, and School Administration Programs. Rubrics for assessment
of knowledge and skills can be viewed at the following links: Educational Diagnostician, Guidance and
Counseling, Principal, and Superintendent. Disposition Data for advanced level candidates are displayed
on the College of Education webpage.
3.2.b Continuous Improvement
 Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement of
candidate performance and program quality.
Based on the data collected, several changes have been made that lead to continuous improvement of
data collection, candidate performance and program quality. During the August 2011 Data Conference,
advanced level programs discovered a discrepancy in the number of field experience hours for graduate
practicums. A new state requirement effective in December 2012 mandated 160 clock hours. All
program managers adjusted candidates’ field experiences accordingly beginning with the spring 2012
semester, increasing candidate performance and enhancing program quality.
Program quality was further enhanced by the revision of the ASU Field Experience Handbook (FEH)
during the fall of 2011. The FEH now contains all the necessary information for teacher candidates and
clinical faculty to complete successful field experiences and clinical practice. The undergraduate field
experiences were previously well documented, but this revision allows for documentation of advanced
level programs as well.
A new database was created and implemented to ensure diversity of experiences for internships and
practicums completed by graduate students. Beginning fall 2011, a systematic method for data collection
was put in place based on the need for a central data housing location from the previous NCATE report.
The recently formed Educator Preparation Information (EPI) Center took over as the physical repository
for Unit data. In order to facilitate data review for program improvement, all data are available in an
online format, including Program Data, Disposition Data, and data reported to federal and state agencies.
The move to TaskStream increases the use of the data for program improvement. Two examples of
EC-6 Generalist program data changed to TaskStream beginning in fall of 2011 are the classroom teacher
surveys from field experiences for Early Childhood 4350 (Assessment #7) and Reading 4602
(Assessment #8). In both cases, classroom teachers originally completed printed surveys delivered to
their school that were picked up by the professor or mailed in to the department. The move to
TaskStream surveys provided for individual emails delivered to teachers completed, returned, and
compiled electronically into reports previously done by hand each semester by faculty. One other
example of a move to TaskStream data collection is the Early Childhood 3350 lesson series (Assessment
#3), which was created during the fall of 2011 for implementation during the spring of 2012. With the
NCATE/ Institutional Report
9
online format, the lessons in the series could be reviewed, modified by candidates, and evaluated more
effectively by the faculty member.
Another significant change has been the addition of dedicated days during the academic year for
faculty across the Unit to meet and review all collected data, which includes the data for field experiences
and clinical practice. As each degree program faculty review the data the field experience/clinical
practice, changes are made accordingly based on program specific requirements (standards and/or
competencies measured).
Due to the need for additional data in the EC-6 Generalist Program Assessment #2 collected in the
Block I courses (content area practicums), faculty decided at the August 2011 Data Conference to form a
committee to develop a rubric to assess candidates. Changes will be made beginning fall 2012,
implementing TaskStream data collection on new lesson rubrics. Field experience data for the Social
Studies Block I course (practicum) was lacking, so a six-week field experience was added beginning in
fall of 2011. Course days and times were changed to enhance the field-based experience for candidates.

Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as
articulated in unit Standard 3.
The codified collection and review of data is now part of the continuous improvement procedures for
the unit. The changes effective fall 2011 and academic year 2012-2013 will be reviewed to see if they
produced the appropriate outcomes. With the implementation of a data review three times each academic
year, the “continuous improvement” model will be sustained into the future years. Other school
personnel programs’ centralization of data will continue as well. The collection and online display of
Disposition Data has seen changes in the first year, and others will continue into the 2012-2013 academic
year and beyond. Candidates Unit-wide are now more aware of professional dispositions through self and
supervisor/professor surveys. The school-based evaluation of dispositions is an added feature to provide
additional data of field experiences for continuous improvement. This continuous improvement will
allow flexibility to address best practices and research based standards that will lead enhancing the
performance of teacher candidates and other school professionals trained at ASU.
3.3 Exhibits
Link to website
4.
Standard 4. 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 faculty, candidates, and
students in P-12 schools.
AFIs (Areas for Improvement) from April 2011 NCATE Accreditation Decision Report
AFI: No system in place to ensure that field experiences and clinical practice for other school
professionals occur in settings with students from diverse groups. (ADV Advanced Programs)
Newly implemented efforts were put into place to ensure that field experiences and clinical
practices for other school professionals occur in settings with students from diverse groups. The Unit
established the Educator Preparation Information (EPI) Center and revised field placement procedures
and guidelines for advanced programs. The EPI Center provides support staff and data services in field
placements for advanced and initial certification programs to ensure that field experiences for candidates
NCATE/ Institutional Report
10
include diversity in physical settings, P-12 student demographics, SES levels, cultures, and academic
levels.
Advanced programs for other school professionals in the Unit include Principal, Superintendent,
Guidance and Counseling, Educational Diagnostician, and Curriculum and Instruction/Advanced
Instructor. The following system is used to ensure that field experiences and clinical practice for the
advanced programs occurs in settings with students from diverse groups. The system is divided into four
steps.
Step One: Candidates are required to complete a Graduate Practicum Application, which is
submitted to the Educator Preparation Information (EPI) Center for the field experience
practicum. In addition, all advanced programs require a letter of commitment from the certified
site supervisor at the campus/district. Guidance and Counseling candidates and Educational
Diagnostician candidates must also provide liability insurance coverage during the clinical
practice/field experience practicum.
Step Two: A Field Placement Affiliation Agreement is required for all candidates doing clinical
practice/field experience practicums. This is an agreement between ASU and the school districts
in which candidates are placed.
Step Three: On the Graduate Practicum Application form, the candidate indicates the district in
which he/she plans to do the field experience practicum. Typically this location is at the
candidate’s district/campus in which the candidate is currently employed (i.e., Candidate is a
teacher in the district and is seeking principal certification). Due to employment obligations and
restrictions, the diversity of the setting is a reflection of the demographics of each candidate’s
“home” district/campus. See Appendix C “Diversity/Demographics of P-12 Students in Schools
used for clinical practice sites for undergraduate and Advanced Programs.”
Step Four: In cases where the candidate’s “home” placement (district/campus) is not
significantly diverse, the ASU Program Advisor arranges a portion of the clinical field experience
practicum placement in another site that is more diverse within the region. The link to 2010 U.S.
Census data allows the reader to view the demographics of West Texas by county to understand
the racial and ethic patterns and the population density of this region.
4.1 How does the unit prepare candidates to work effectively with all students, including individuals of
different ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual
orientation, and/or geographical area?
The Unit’s commitment to preparing all candidates to help all students to learn can be found in
the Unit Mission Statement – “prepares professional education leaders to have the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions to meet changing societal needs in diverse school and community settings.” Diversity is an
integral component of the Educator Preparation Program at Angelo State University for initial and
advanced candidates. The design, implementation, and evaluation of curriculum and field experiences
provide a well-grounded framework for assisting candidates in understanding diversity, including English
Language Learners, and students with exceptionalities. Candidates have the opportunity to interact with
adults, children, and youth from their own and other ethnic/racial cultures throughout their college
careers. They also work with adults and students with exceptionalities. Over the past two years the Unit
updated course content, obtained additional materials and resources, and encouraged faculty professional
development in areas related to diverse learners.
The Unit aligned candidate outcomes/proficiencies from the Conceptual Framework with all
programs to address continuous progress by candidates on diversity issues throughout their courses of
study. Undergraduate program field experiences begin during the second semester of the sophomore
year and continue through to graduation utilizing the local and regional school districts and other
accredited schools in the immediate area. Advanced programs rely on local and regional P-12 school
districts for clinical field sites. Course curricula combined with diverse field experiences help candidates
connect lessons, instruction, and services to students, thereby, developing a sensitivity to and value for
NCATE/ Institutional Report
11
diversity. Candidates demonstrate classroom behaviors, as measured during Student Teaching, consistent
with the ideas of fairness and the belief that all students can learn.
Additional evidence of continuous improvement by the Unit is found in the solidification of
tracking Professional Dispositions including candidate self-evaluation and instructor benchmark
evaluations. Disposition statements to assess candidates’ understanding of diversity issues include:
“understanding that all children can learn through differentiated lesson plans, materials, and teaching
strategies”, “values diversity and demonstrates fairness through inclusive non-discriminatory materials,
lessons, and assessments….”, “promotes success for all students through best practices, informative
assessments, and inclusive environments”, “establishes rapport with EC-12 students and their families”,
and “affirms perspective and contributions of diverse students, teachers, families, instructors, and peers.”
Candidates have opportunities to interact with higher education and school-based faculty from
representative groups, such as Native-American, African-American, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic. The
Unit faculty diversity increased recently with new faculty hires (two African-Americans). In addition, the
College of Education through the Department of Teacher Education, participates in the Texas
International Education Consortium - Korea Fulbright Teachers of English program hosting 2-4 Korean
Teachers of English during a two-week period. These visiting teachers interact with ASU teacher
candidates, visit local P-12 campuses and make cultural presentations at ASU and the local P-12 schools.
ASU was designated a Title V Hispanic Serving Institution (HIS) in 2010. This designation recognizes
ASU as an institution with at least a 25% Hispanic student body. Finally, the candidates have the
extraordinary opportunity to participate in ASU Study Abroad Programs to countries around the world.
Study Abroad trips sponsored by the Unit have included trips that visited England, Germany, France,
Australia, New Zealand, and Fiji. Candidates have the opportunity to engage with university faculty, P12 teachers, and students from these nations in schools and cultural settings. The Center for International
Studies helps with the Study Abroad trips, as well as bringing a variety of interesting speakers to campus.
The Unit is committed to maintaining and improving the diversity of its faculty and the diversity of P-12
settings in order to enhance the performance of candidates to better serve the ever-changing
developmental and educational needs of diverse students, families, and society. When conducting a
faculty search, recruiting includes a variety of job posting sites and honors the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines. ASU has been successful in recent years in diversifying its
faculty.
4.2.b Continuous Improvement
 Summarize activities and changes based on data that have lead to continuous improvement of
candidate performance and program quality.
Recruiting efforts are focused on encouraging students from diverse groups to become educators.
The pool of candidates continues to improve by recruiting from diverse socioeconomic groups, all
achievement levels, diverse ethnic/racial groups, and gender groups. Diverse candidates work together in
face-to-face, online, and group situations as they learn with and from each other. As reflective
practitioners they develop a sense of community supporting each other in the belief that all children can
and should learn through focused and engaged active learning. A continuous improvement effort during
the candidates’ field experiences has been to increase the opportunities to be placed in schools with
diverse populations, the field supervisors’ assessments of candidates through observations, conferences,
and differentiated assessments based on multiple specific program requirements. In addition, candidates
do self-assessments related to their own teaching and learning and dispositions. Initial and advanced
candidates’ field placements are tracked by the Educator Preparation Information (EPI) Center to ensure
they are placed in diverse environments.

Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as
articulated in Unit Standard 4.
NCATE/ Institutional Report
12
The Unit continues to make improvements that benefit candidates and the P-12 students they work
with now and in the future. Advanced and initial candidates must complete disposition self-assessments
at designated benchmarks during the specific program of study. University faculty, field supervisors, and
P-12 faculty assess candidates’ commitment to the belief that all children can learn to prepare
professionals who can focus on student learning to ensure all children can be successful. All candidates
have field experiences at multiple sites. Placements are monitored and tracked by the Educator
Preparation Information (EPI) Center and the Director of Field Experiences. The initial teacher
preparation programs have on-site teaching incorporating direct work with students under the supervision
of university faculty and P-12 faculty as indicated in the P-12 School Diversity (Appendix C). Currently
the Unit is moving toward a true Professional Development School (PDS) model for the undergraduate
initial teacher preparation programs. Faculty have attended workshops and conferences, networked with
and visited with other professional school personnel to collect information and develop a model that
works for the ASU situation. Many current faculty members in the Unit possess experiences in
Professional Development Schools in education, thereby, bringing past experiences and expertise to the
structuring of the ASU Professional Development School in teacher preparation. All programs are
working to increase preparation of candidates for working with students from diverse populations and
specifically with English Language Learners and students with exceptionalities. Initiatives include
addition of courses, such as ED 3314 Linguistically Diverse Learners, the expanding of field sites to
include more middle school grades in diverse neighborhoods, and redesigning course content to include
ESL standards and criteria, redesigning courses to address expanding knowledge of autism, dyslexia, and
gifted and talented students (see course descriptions for SPED 2361, SPED 4362, SPED 4363).
The Unit is working to continuously improve by
 recruiting and retaining a more diverse faculty and more diverse candidates.
 building support groups and networks for candidates within and outside of the Unit through
professional student organizations, community service activities, and events that engage
candidates and strengthen their commitment to the profession.
 providing a variety of experiences within the course work, in P-12 schools, and in the community
through fieldtrips, study abroad programs, outdoor school activities, and service events.
 regular professional development of faculty to serve as models and leaders in support of the
diversity elements within the mission statements for the university and the Unit.
4.3 Exhibits
Linked to website
5.
Standard 5. 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.
5.1 How does the unit ensure that its professional education faculty contributes to the preparation of
effective educators?
The College of Education at Angelo State University has a line and staff organization. The Dean
of the Unit supervises two academic department heads and the Educator Preparation Information (EPI)
Center that work together to prepare effective teachers. The two academic departments, Curriculum and
Instruction and Teacher Education, are comprised of accomplished teachers, experienced principals,
educational diagnosticians, school counselors, and school superintendents. Faculty have earned
doctorates or advanced degrees with exceptional expertise in a field that qualifies them for specific
NCATE/ Institutional Report
13
teaching assignments. Unit clinical faculty have graduate degrees and contemporary professional
experiences in school settings at the levels that they supervise. School faculty are licensed in the fields
that they teach or supervise and have a minimum of three years experience. A Cooperating Teacher
Application or Practicum Supervisor Agreement letter must be completed for securing school faculty
supervising candidates in the field. The school principal makes the final decision about school faculty on
each campus. The third subunit, the Educator Preparation Information (EPI) Center, is the focal point for
data: data collection, data analysis, and data reports. The EPI Center is also in charge of candidate
advising, certification recommendations, field experiences, and providing support to all faculty and
candidates.
The Unit systematically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.
Each fall, faculty reflect on accomplishments in scholarship, service, and teaching, from the previous
academic year. As per University Operating Policy, candidates evaluate faculty each semester through
the use of the nationally standardized Individual Development and Educational Assessment (IDEA). The
course instructor can include additional questions. Department Chairs evaluate faculty every academic
year, as required by the Operating Policy for Annual Faculty Evaluations. The faculty member prepares
the Faculty Evaluation document with supporting evidence, which is first submitted to a Department Peer
Review Committee. This committee is elected from tenured faculty each academic year. After
evaluation by the Department Peer Review Committee, the Department Chair and Dean of the College
review the documentation. If there is an unsatisfactory rating, a Growth Plan is completed by the
Department Chair and faculty member jointly. Members of the Peer Review Committee then observe the
faculty member teaching a course at the beginning and ending of the semester to document completion of
the Growth Plan. The College of Education provides an additional form for encouraging Professional
Development Goals. Faculty list three areas for improvement and ways to increase knowledge and skills
in these areas. The following year the faculty member reflects on the goals and plans goals for the
coming year.
Based upon needs identified in faculty evaluations, the Unit provides opportunities for faculty to
develop new knowledge and skills. The College of Education specifically provides training in
TaskStream, Second Life, and Quality Matters. The University supports faculty through the Center for
Innovation in Teaching and Research (CITR) with a variety of professional development opportunities
such as IDEA, Blackboard, and rubric building throughout the academic year. They also provide training
in innovative technology such as Lecture Capture. The CITR regularly requests faculty input concerning
topics for professional development. Unit faculty often provide campus-wide training such as rubric
development and how to teach via distance education. Faculty continue to develop their skills in using
technology to facilitate their own professional work and to help candidates learn. Faculty participate in
professional development activities through their own initiatives or those conducted, sponsored, or
arranged by the unit.
Professional education faculty have a thorough understanding of the content. Faculty planning,
teaching, and evaluation help candidates develop the proficiencies outlined in professional, state, and
institutional standards and guides candidates in the application of research, theories, and current
developments in their fields and in teaching. Faculty expertise is related to candidate success. Data from
the following key assessments reflect the faculty’s influence on candidates’ success: Professional
Standards (Association of Childhood Education International – ACEI for elementary teacher candidates),
Texas State Standards (Texas Examination of Educator Standards Exams- TExES), and University
Learning Goals.
Professional education faculty value candidates’ learning and assess candidates’ performance as
evidenced in the Program Assessments. Their teaching encourages candidates’ development of reflection,
critical thinking, problem solving, and professional dispositions. Professional Dispositions are assessed
each semester in a variety of course levels and program benchmarks. Professional education faculty use a
variety of instructional strategies that reflect an understanding of different learning styles. They integrate
diversity and technology throughout their teaching. The chart for Curricular Components of Diversity
illustrates the courses emphasizing this important element. All classrooms in the Carr Education and Fine
NCATE/ Institutional Report
14
Arts building are equipped with computer podiums, document cameras, Smart boards, LCD projectors,
and wireless access. The College of Education provides all faculty with iPads, Mac laptops, and desktop
computers in their offices. Two professors received an internal grant to conduct a research study on the
integration of iPads in local public school classrooms. All courses are required to have a Blackboard
component, and many employ TaskStream as well. Two professors use Second Life in online graduate
courses. All online course instructors are presently being trained in Quality Matters (QM). Technology
Standards are integrated in all course work through faculty teaching and candidate learning.
While Angelo State University is primarily a teaching institution, faculty research and scholarly
activity are aligned with the teaching fields. The professional education faculty are actively engaged in
contributing to the literature and professional practice in their specialty areas. Faculty members are
supported and encouraged to attend state and national conferences in their area of specialization. The
summary of faculty activities such as Scholarly Work and Service Activities demonstrates how faculty are
actively engaged in professional conferences, collaborative activities, volunteer service with P-12 schools,
and involvement in the professional community. Another example of the active collaboration is the
annual meeting of all Superintendents in this region at ASU sponsored by the College of Education. The
purpose of this meeting is to exchange information about state policies and to solicit ideas for changes
that need to be made to the educator preparation programs. The Educator Preparation Advisory
Committee (EPAC) composed of elementary, middle school, and high school teachers; school
administrators; Education Service Center (ESC) Region XV personnel; and members of the College of
Education. This collaborative group meets twice a year to discuss educational issues for P-12 and higher
education.
Faculty contribute to improving the teacher education profession. All scholarly inquiry includes
submission of one’s work for professional review and evaluation by peers outside one’s own institution.
National presentations of faculty research in the past three years include contributions to seminal
professional organizations such as the National Council for Teachers of English (NCTE), the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), the American Education Research Association (AERA),
and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). Publications by faculty during the past three years
include recognized journals such as the Kappa Delta Pi (KDP) Education Forum and English in Texas.
The Unit participates in state level stakeholders’ committees on teacher education practice, as well as the
local P-16 council. Guidance and Counseling professors take an active role in the local Three Rivers
Counseling organization. Professors serve as officers in the Concho Valley Chapter of Phi Delta Kappa
(PDK), which has recently completed service projects for Head Start and middle school campuses. The
Pearl of the Concho Writing Project is one of over 150 sites of the National Writing Project (NWP),
which continues to supply trained Teacher Consultants presenting information on improving the teaching
of writing at the local, state, and national levels. Faculty are actively involved in a multitude of
professional associations such as the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD),
the International Reading Association (IRA), and the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). A
complete list of professional organizations is available on the Qualifications of Professional Faculty list.
They inquire systematically into and reflect upon their own practice and are committed to lifelong
professional development.
Faculty know and understand the professional, state, and institutional standards identified in the
unit’s Conceptual Framework and work to ensure that candidates master these standards. Both
undergraduate and graduate programs align to all three levels of standards, as well as outcomes and
proficiencies listed in the Conceptual Framework.
Faculty introduce candidates to recent research and best practices that counter myths and
misperceptions about teaching and learning. Myths about teaching and learning are addressed through
studies in undergraduate and graduate courses such as Child and Adolescent Development (EPSY 3303)
and Human Growth and Development (CI 6351). Other courses, which by definition dispel myths about
cultural issues, are Linguistically Diverse Learners (ED 3314) for undergraduates and Social and Cultural
Issues in Learning (CI 6327) for graduate students. In addition to course work, candidates’ fieldwork
engages them in experiencing a range of ages and working with diverse groups of students.
NCATE/ Institutional Report
15
5.2.b Continuous Improvement
 Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement of
candidate performance and program quality.
Faculty regularly review data for program course improvement. For example, one professor in
the Department of Curriculum and Instruction describes modifications using data from various program
and Unit assessments. Faculty assess their own effectiveness as teachers, including the positive effects
they have on candidates’ learning and performance through the use of annual faculty review and IDEA
evaluations. The Educator Preparation Information (EPI) Center staff provides state test score data
throughout the year to appropriate stakeholders (samples available on site). Continuous presentation of
data provides information for discussions at regularly scheduled faculty meetings in both the Teacher
Education Department and the Department of Curriculum and Instruction (meeting minutes available on
site). Many program changes are a result of discussions at the faculty meetings. Starting in the 20112012 academic year, three Data Conferences were held to review unit, program, and disposition data. In
August 2011, faculty reviewed 2009-2010 data and wrote reports on findings, which can be found on the
College of Education website. The December 2011 faculty conference focused on 2010-2011 data. For
the May 2012 conference, faculty analyzed 2011-2012 academic year data and also reviewed Disposition
Data for the first time as a unit.

Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as
articulated in unit Standard 5.
The newly created Educator Preparation Information (EPI) Center will continue to be the
centralized location for data management and storage for all programs in the unit. The data used for
continuous program improvement is accessible online.
The Center for Research, Evaluation and Advancement of Teacher Education (CREATE)
provides the Unit with comparative statewide research data. At the Annual Data Conference the Unit
uses this information for program improvement. Faculty will continue to generate improvement reports
after each conference.
5.3 Exhibits
Linked to website
6.
Standard 6. 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.
AFIs (Areas for Improvement) from April 2011 NCATE Accreditation Decision Report
Standard 6 AFI Report
Standard 6 had four AFIs. Each of these AFIs is addressed through establishing an action plan
for each. The Unit has established a formal data conference at the end of the fall semester. A follow-up
review will occur annually at the end of the spring semester and the beginning of the fall semester.
Numerous committees have been established to facilitate communication among the programs and
faculty. Effective the fall of 2012, the College of Education will reorganize with a program focus instead
of a department focus. The Unit will be organized around undergraduate and graduate programs. To
better address the undergraduate programs needs and faculty communication, an undergraduate program
NCATE/ Institutional Report
16
advisory committee was formed. To better address the graduate programs needs and faculty
communication, a graduate advisory committee was formed. To better address communication among
programs, a program leaders committee was formed to enable faculty to communicate with one another
concerning common problems and needs. The program leaders committee is composed of leaders from
all undergraduate and graduate programs. Eight committees were formed to help guide the NCATE
process. An NCATE steering committee oversees accreditation issues.
Corrective Accomplishment in Standard 6 Action Plan for AFIs
1.
The unit governance structure does not facilitate effective unit planning and operation across programs of
study for other school professionals.
ADV (Advanced Programs) only
Graduate Advisory Committee formed to advise and communicate across the Unit.
At Department Meetings discuss graduate program issues, data use, and program improvement
(minutes available onsite)
Program leaders meetings held to assure coordination and cooperation across Unit.
Effective reviews of Graduate Programs to determine program improvement (see data reviews for
August, December, and May)
Weekly Department Head meetings to discuss and address concerns of programs and
administrative coordination within the unit
A common core of courses for graduate programs established
All graduate courses will be unified under a new prefix – EDG.
All graduate programs will be administered under one chair within the Unit, effective fall 2012.
2.
The unit governance structure does not ensure the review and use of data to improve the quality of
programs, unit operations, and the performance of candidates.
ITP (Initial) AND ADV (Advanced Programs)
Data sessions to analyze data - Department meetings have data issues as a regular feature of their
meetings.
August Data Conference featured data analysis by programs with reports
December Data Conference presented annual data, analysis by Unit and programs, and reports by
programs
Data sessions to analyze data - specific, focused sessions at December Data Conference to review
all Unit data. College meetings in August, and May follow-up meetings
Annual data conference to improve the quality of programs, Unit operations, and the performance
of candidates
Annual data available at the end of the fall semester
Annual data conference scheduled on Friday of dead week at the end of the fall semester.
Report on the status of the Unit - completed and presented at the College meeting in August.
3.
The unit governance structure does not facilitate collaboration among unit faculty to plan, deliver, and
operate coherent programs of study.
ITP (Initial) AND ADV (Advanced Programs)
Quality Matters (QM) review of all blended and online courses to insure common, standard, Unit
focus
Common format and standard of quality in establishing curriculum review
Faculty trained as trainer of trainers.
Quality Matters Peer Review Training - All faculty trained as peer reviewers by end of spring
2014.
Established Graduate Advisory Committee to the Dean
Collaborate in developing a Common Graduate Core completed with implementation in fall 2012
NCATE/ Institutional Report
17
Established Undergraduate Advisory Committee to the Dean
Program Leaders Committee established to enhance communication across programs at the
graduate and undergraduate level.
Educator Preparation Staff attend department, college, and university meetings.
4.
The unit governance structure does not ensure effective use of unit-wide assessment data.
ITP (Initial) AND ADV (Advanced Programs)
Established Master Data Collection System - all candidate data is being collected in central
location. Continuous dissemination of data as it arrives throughout the year
Data presentation web page revised (link is in left frame on CoE home page - Unit Data
Resources)
All aggregated data available publically
TaskStream for data collection - complete use of TaskStream for collection of data for example
student teaching, dispositions, and undergraduate learning goals
All courses and program evaluation data moving to TaskStream data warehouse
Data analysis and program reports occur annually at Data Conference in December with followup analysis and application in May and August.
Standard 6 Report - Target Level
6.1 How do the unit’s governance system and resources contribute to adequately preparing candidates to
meet professional, state, and institutional standards?
The Unit provides the leadership for effectively coordinating all programs at the institution
designed to prepare education professionals to work in P–12 schools. The Unit is accredited by the Texas
Education Agency/State Board for Educator Certification and the university is accredited by the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools. The Unit recommends the membership of the Teacher Education
Council. Membership is composed of campus leaders responsible for certification programs regardless of
where housed. The Dean of the College of Education heads the council. The Unit is responsible for all
interactions with the Texas Education Agency/State Board for Educator Certification. Through the Unit's
Educator Preparation Information Center, candidates are approved for admission to the educator
preparation program, entrance into student teaching, permission to take licensing examinations, and
recommendation to the state for certification. The Unit is responsible for Title II reporting. The Unit
represents the University in matters related to educator certification.
The unit’s recruiting and admission practices are described clearly and consistently in
publications and catalogs. The Unit is responsible for the content of all literature that describes
certification programs. The Unit approves all brochures, calendars, advertisements, catalogs, and other
information. These efforts are coordinated through the staff of the Unit.
The Unit ensures that candidates have access to student services such as advising and counseling.
The Educator Preparation Information Center (EPI Center) serves all students on campus and the greater
community with accurate information about professional education programs. The staff advisors for
undergraduate and graduate programs, field experiences, and certification provide all services related to
certification, and if mental health counseling is needed, refers candidates to campus health services.
Other services such as tutoring and financial aid are provided to candidates through specific offices on
campus. All candidates are advised prior to enrolling each semester by faculty, chairs, and the staff of the
EPI Center. The undergraduate advisor monitors freshman and sophomore candidates’ progress. Those
candidates that are having academic problems are actively engaged in planning their improvement.
The Unit and other faculty collaborate with P–12 practitioners in program design, delivery, and
evaluation of the Unit and its programs. The Unit has an advisory committee, Educator Preparation
Advisory Committee whose membership includes superintendents, principals, teachers, representatives
from the Educator Service Center, and ASU personnel. This group works with the Unit in the design,
NCATE/ Institutional Report
18
delivery, and evaluation of the Unit and its programs. The Unit is engaged in a partnership with the
Educational Service Center Region XV that enables communication with all school districts and their
personnel throughout Region XV. A new initiative focuses on P-12 student learning. This initiative is an
outgrowth of a model developed by the Center for Research, Evaluation, and Advancement of Teacher
Education (CREATE). The model entitled School/College of Professional Education (ScOPE) focuses on
P-12 learning and greater collaboration among the independent school districts and the College of
Education. This unique project directs a college of professional education to analyze, plan, and
implement work with its public school partners in a collaborative and focused way. This change in the
way the Unit carries out its mission is a significant and purposeful change.
Colleagues in other units at the institution involved in the preparation of professional educators,
school personnel, and other organizations recognize the Unit as a leader. The faculty of the Unit are often
recognized on campus as professors of the year by the students. Our faculty are recognized for
outstanding teaching by both the university community and the Texas Tech University System. Two of
our graduates were recognized at the state level as the Texas Teacher of the Year (2011) and the Texas
Secondary Principal of the Year (2011). We have been a center (Pearl of the Concho Writing Project) for
the National Writing Project since 2004. The Dean regularly participates at stakeholder statewide
meetings held by the Texas Education Agency and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The
Dean led the Texas Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and received their award for Education
Leadership in 2011. Members of the faculty (see Standard 5) regularly present research and programs at
state and national professional meeting.
The Unit provides professional development on effective teaching for faculty in other units of the
institution. The Unit has embarked on the adoption of the Quality Matters (QM) as the standard for
online courses. The university has adopted the QM model as the standard for all new online course. A
faculty member of the Unit has completed the trainer of trainers QM program and trains faculty in the
QM model. When the Unit faculty complete training, the trainer will train faculty from across campus.
After the initial training, the standard for online courses will be the rubrics developed by QM. The
second phase of training will be to train peer evaluators in the QM model. The Unit will lead the way in
this process. Within the next three years all of the unit's online courses will be presented to QM to
receive their seal of quality. The Unit leads the University's Distance Education Council. The Unit is
currently leading the university in the development of a standardized template for Blackboard that will be
used for all distance-learning courses. The Unit is currently developing both the unit's and the university's
portal for distance education. The Unit has adopted the TaskStream system for the evaluation of the unit's
assessments. The Unit has embarked on assessing the Undergraduate Learning Goals using TaskStream.
This measurement at the end of student teaching effectively measures the accomplishment of the
University's Learning Goals. The Unit also measures comparative dispositions using the online
management system, self and supervisor evaluations. The measurement of dispositions is unique to the
unit. These assessment results are provided to all stakeholders in the university.
Unit Budget
Unit budgetary allocations permit faculty teaching, scholarship, and service that extend beyond
the Unit to P–12 education and other programs in the institution. The Unit receives funding comparable
to other clinical programs at ASU. Besides the normal funding for faculty salaries and maintenance and
operations funds, the Unit has three additional fund sources that are used to support faculty, staff, and
candidates. The Graduate Surcharge Fee (Graduate Differential) provides funds dependent upon the
number of graduate students enrolled. A portion of this fee is returned to those that generate the
enrollment. The Distance Education Fee is used to support the costs of distant education. The fee is
distributed based upon the semester credit hours and assists in the training, equipment, and professional
development for faculty. The Instructional Enhancement fee is distributed by the number of semester
hours generated and the formula used by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. These fees
can be used for academic advising and help fund the staff for the Educator Preparation Information
Center. Candidate fees are assessed when the candidate travels outside of 50 miles of San Angelo. A
NCATE/ Institutional Report
19
graduate practicum fee is assessed to support travel and to hire state mandated observers who meet face to
face with the candidate. Student teaching supervisors are paid on a “per-person supervised” basis with a
load equivalent to 18 candidates to one full time equivalent.
The budget for curriculum, instruction, faculty, staff, clinical work, and scholarship supports
high-quality work within the Unit and its school partners. Each faculty member is afforded the
opportunity for professional development both on campus and elsewhere. Sufficient funds are available
to support their work. Faculty are expected to use and share the knowledge gained when they return to
campus. Faculty members submit an annual faculty development plan with their annual evaluations.
Consideration for support is made in light of this plan. Clinical work is differentiated by the amount of
clinical practice required of the candidates. With the adoption of the ScOPE model, the emphasis on
greater collaboration and accountability plays a larger role in the work of the Unit and its faculty.
Resources will be made available to support this effort and when not sufficient, additional funds will be
sought.
Personnel
Workload policies and practices permit and encourage faculty not only to be engaged in a wide
range of professional activities, including teaching, scholarship, assessment, advisement, work in schools,
and service, but also to professionally contribute on a community, state, regional, or national basis. The
graduate and undergraduate teaching loads are established by university policy. These are appropriate to
support faculty in their endeavors. Exceptional assignments are considered when a workload is heavy and
course reduction is considered. The Unit complies with university, system, and coordinating policy.
Formal policies and procedures have been established to include online course delivery in determining
faculty load. The Unit considers the pedagogy demands when setting course size. The university has set
the class size consideration for distance learning.
The unit’s use of part-time faculty is purposeful and employed to strengthen programs. The Unit
uses adjunct faculty judiciously focusing on expertise appropriate to their duties. All part time faculty are
chosen for their expertise in the appropriate area of content. Clinical faculty are included in the Unit as
valued colleagues in preparing educators. Meetings are held prior to the beginning of each semester to
orient and develop expertise. This includes the necessary training in relation to the adjuncts' job.
Unit provision of support personnel significantly enhances the effectiveness of faculty in their teaching
and mentoring of candidates. With the addition of the Educator Preparation Information Center,
candidates, faculty, and the university as a whole are served in an effective manner in educator
preparation. The Center is a physical place where candidates can go and a virtual place where our
distance candidates can receive assistance. It serves the entire campus and community. The staff is
composed of a Director who is responsible for personnel, data systems, web presence, and establishing a
link between programs and people; a certification advisor who is responsible for advising all on
certification requirements, approving candidates to take state certification tests, maintaining state
certification data bases, paperwork to assist candidates in certification in other states; an undergraduate
advisor who works with freshman and sophomore candidates; a graduate advisor who works with all
candidate in graduate programs; and a field-experience advisor who works with accredited school
personnel, candidates seeking field placements, student teaching, graduate practicum placements, and
tracks all candidates and their field experiences.
The Unit supports professional development activities that engage faculty in dialogue and skill
development related to emerging theories and practices. Faculty are encouraged to follow a plan for
professional development that is submitted at the annual review each September (files available in Chairs'
offices). The Unit has consolidated graduate funds to support this effort. Faculty submit proposals for
attendance at training and conferences that includes how that information will be shared upon return to
campus. Adequate funds are available to support faculty professional development. An initiative to
develop faculty online teaching has emerged that begins with the Quality Matters standards for course
development for online teaching. All Unit online teaching faculty have completed the basic Quality
Matters training program. One faculty member has completed the trainer of trainer certification and is
NCATE/ Institutional Report
20
being used as an on site expert for the Unit and the university. Provision for peer reviewer training begins
summer 2012. Another initiative is developing a presence in virtual environments. The Unit has
contracted with a sister institution to provide technical support for developing a presence in Second Life.
Training has been provided for interested Unit faculty. Several class presentations and meetings have
occurred in Second Life. Training has been provided through Webinars for effective TaskStream use, an
online learning management system. Webinars have been provided on a number of different topics
throughout the year. Two faculty from the College are sent annual to the Lily Conference on College
Teaching. These and numerous other examples enable faculty development, sharing of ideas, and skill
development.
Unit Facilities
The Unit has outstanding facilities on campus and with partner schools to support candidates in
meeting standards. Upgrades to classrooms to enhance student learning are constant. New tables and
chairs have recently been purchased. Pedagogy courses are funded so that appropriate equipment and
materials can be purchased. Facilities support the most recent developments in technology that allow
faculty to model the use of technology and candidates to practice its use for instructional purposes. All
classrooms are equipped with Smartboards, a projector, and a computer podium. Sufficient bandwidth for
wireless connectivity is available in all classrooms. A Technology Innovation Center is available to
faculty for classroom instruction. An iPad cart has recently been purchased so that iPads may be used in
the classroom as a part of instruction. Library resources for on campus and online students are superior.
The Unit uses a web-based, learning management system, TaskStream, for the submission of
candidate work, review and revision of that work, and a final posting that can be archived. All classes use
Blackboard enabling both standard and mobile learning to occur. Undergraduate classes can take a
blended approach to learning or be taught completely online when appropriate. Application to the
educator preparation program and its decisions is completely an electronic process. Facilities are
excellent and provide a quality learning environment both on campus and online.
Unit Resources including Technology
The Unit aggressively and successfully secures resources to support high quality and exemplary
programs and projects to ensure that candidates meet standards. The Unit's funding is a mix of funds
based on semester credit hour production and fees assessed by semester credit hour production. The Unit
receives a basic budget to meet its administrative needs. The dean receives a discretionary budget to
assist in special functions. An Instructional Enhancement Fee is collected by the university and is
apportioned to the different colleges. A Distance Education Fee is collected and apportioned to the
College to support distance education programs. A graduate surcharge fee is collected and apportioned to
the college to support graduate education. A distance student teaching fee is collected to support travel
for supervisors. A graduate practicum fee is collected to support travel for graduate supervisors.
Candidate organizations have access to fee money to support the purpose of their organization. Annually
the University seeks and receives Higher Education Infrastructure Funds that are used for technology and
maintenance. The Provost's office maintains a fund for support for accreditation. The annual budget
process allows for requests to support additional staff, faculty, and future projects. Currently the College
has a tech assistant from IT to assist in all areas of technology.
The development and implementation of the unit’s assessment system is well funded. The
Instructional Enhancement funds and the Distance Learning funds enable the Unit to have hardware,
software, and staff to help support the assessment system. The Director of the Educator Preparation
Information Center is charged with maintaining the assessment system. Data gathering is a Unit wide
effort involving faculty program leaders, the field-experience advisor, the graduate advisor, the
certification advisor, the chairs, and the dean. The staff of the Educator Preparation Information Center
are provided with professional development and training opportunities. The Unit maintains an
independent database as well as using the University database Banner.
The Unit serves as an information technology resource in education beyond the education
NCATE/ Institutional Report
21
programs—to the institution, community, and other institutions. The Unit was the first to purchase iPads
on campus and one of the first groups in the nation. Numerous seminars helped faculty develop the skills
to use the device in instruction. The dissemination of information through technology is provided to
stakeholders both on and off campus. Faculty frequently present technology programs at state and
national conferences. The Unit influenced the adopting of the Quality Matters standards campus wide.
The Unit leads an initiative to adopt common standards in online technology, its appearance, and use by
candidates and faculty. The Unit extends the Educator Preparation Information Center to any interested
individual via the web and other online portals. The Unit is planning a campus wide information program
for the use of Second Life in instruction.
Faculty and candidates have access to exemplary library, curricular, and electronic information
resources that serve not only the Unit but also a broader constituency. The Unit regularly asks for its
Library allocation to be used for electronic resources for the past several years. Online web resources are
a major focus for the teaching faculty and the library meets these requests.
Resources for distance learning programs provide exceptional reliability, speed, and
confidentiality of connection in the delivery system. Information technology (IT) provides reliable, fast,
secure, Internet access. Candidates have access to all materials via the learning management platform of
Blackboard. All access is 24/7 with help desk availability 24/7 as well. Mobile learning is fully
supported. The IT staff is concerned with security and any attempted breach is addressed. VPN is
available to work confidentially off campus. Internet services meet the highest level of security.
The adoption of data days has lead faculty to look closely at student performance and how their
programs affect these performances. The collection of exit data on undergraduate learning goals has led
to confidence that these goals are being achieved. Student exit polls and administrative surveys indicate
that the programs are functioning well. Recent participation in the Project on Educator Effectiveness and
Quality reinforces this view. After reviewing data and reporting on this review, faculty have made
changes in programs that better prepare candidates for teaching. The unit is currently negotiating a
contract with the Educational Service Center to enable candidates to attend all training and workshops
provided in our service area Region XV. This will expand what is available to candidates throughout
their program.
The Unit will change from a departmental emphasis to a program emphasis effective fall 2012.
Undergraduate programs will be organized under a chair for undergraduate teacher preparation. Graduate
programs will be organized under a chair for educator preparation. This change in emphasis better
represents how our customers and our accreditors view our services. Additional services will be provided
by the Educator Preparation Center. A graduate advisor will be available to help with the graduate
educator preparation programs. This then enables the undergraduate program advisor to better served
candidates and faculty. The data review days will become institutionalized so that data will be reviewed
three times a year for improvement of programs. This should lead to more rigor and lead to national
recognition by SPA organizations. A much broader committee structure has been established so that
greater input by stakeholders is valued. The next step is to enlarge these committees with members from
the arts and sciences so that all committees are representative of the unit. The standardization of online
courses through the Quality Matters process will continue with faculty completing the peer reviewer
process through 2012-2013, faculty participating as members of QM review teams, and having at least
one Master Reviewer by 2014. The goal is to have QM certified courses by 2014. The Unit is adopting
the ScOPE model created by CREATE. This initiative will enable the unit to focus on relationships with
the public schools. The research, service, and collaboration with public schools is emphasized in the
ScOPE model. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has begun the process of closing low
producing degree programs. Many of our secondary and graduate level certification degree programs
have had to be eliminated. The Unit is working on solutions to enable candidates to be certified in the
degree areas that have been eliminated. All candidates with a bachelor's degree and an appropriate
content area can receive certification by completing the MA Curriculum and Instruction certification
degree program. Graduates with Chemistry and Physics can pursue certification in this program or
through a traditional post-baccalaureate certification plan. The Unit is developing an Interdisciplinary
NCATE/ Institutional Report
22
Science degree that will lead to Science certification. A plan to develop a general degree program with
certification is being developed to serve graduate candidates in low performing areas.
6.3 Exhibits
Linked to website
NCATE/ Institutional Report
23