IR Addendum
Angelo State University
This IR Addendum will address areas mentioned in the BOE Offsite Report,
mirroring the numbering system used in that report. The underlined blue links
included here, as well as the original Institutional Report, are electronic links to
webpages, data, and documents related to supporting information as required by
the IR.
Standard 1
1.1
Of the three programs mentioned for less than 80% pass rates, one was incorrect
data, and improvements are shown in the other two areas for data available so far in
2012. The Superintendent program was cited as saying two out of three passed
certification tests in 2011, but in fact, 10 out of 10 passed for a 100% pass rate.
The unofficial scores for the School Counselor program in 2012 to this point show a
97% pass rate, and History is up from 60% to 66%. History has an average of five
candidates being tested each year.
The Program Assessment Chart was incorrectly cited as showing links to
Professional Organizations. Only the Music Department, nationally accredited
through the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) did not collect data
because of their status. All other programs show data on six to eight assessments
for at least one year, with rubrics included where applicable. Some programs show
as much as five years of data. These data were cited in the original IR reported
submitted May 25, 2012.
The revised Professional Dispositions are included in the Conceptual Framework
section, under Outcome/Proficiency number three – Professional Dispositions.
They are also included in the other places listed in the Offsite Report as well.
The Disposition Assessment Chart indicates the courses in which disposition
assessments are done throughout the candidates’ program. In these courses, both
self-assessment by candidates and professor/supervisor assessments are completed.
Data are then posted by semester on the Disposition Data webpage. Also in every
case, the comparison chart of the data shows the relationship of the candidate
assessment to the instructor assessment. These data are found by scrolling down
the webpage and clicking on the underlined blue links labeled Fall 2011/Spring
2012/etc. The dispositions for all programs for the 2011-2012 academic year are
also listed in the Disposition Program Comparison Charts for fall 2011, spring 2012,
and average for the 2011-2012 academic year.
Because all graduate courses are taught online, these are now specifically
designated on the Disposition Data webpage chart near the bottom of the page
under the title of Graduate Disposition Data: “All graduate courses are online.”
1
Analyses of the disposition data collected for each program are found on the Data
Review webpage for May 2012. This was the first point in which faculty had a year’s
worth of data to assess and discuss. Faculty met in groups to analyze data and agree
upon how these data might be used for program improvement. After one question
relating to program data, the remaining questions for program reports related to
disposition data collected for each program. These separate reports by program are
also listed here as follows:
 Early Childhood – 6
 Early Childhood – 6 with Special Education
 Secondary Certification programs
 Guidance and Counseling
 School Administration
 Curriculum and Instruction
 Educational Diagnostician
It was on the May 2012 Data Review Day that the Other School Professional faculty
decided to adapt the descriptors for the four Professional Dispositions to more
accurately include Online Courses and Practicum experiences. These revisions were
begun on the May 2012 Data Review Day and approved for fall 2012
implementation in all graduate programs. For the first year of disposition
assessment, 2011-2012, the Dispositions for Online Courses and Practicum
experiences were the same as all other courses. For the 2012-2013 academic year,
Online Courses and Practicum experiences will include revised dispositions tailored
specifically for these special cases. These new disposition documents are found on
the Disposition Data webpage, entitled: Graduate Dispositions-Online Courses
(Effective fall 2012) and Graduate Dispositions-Practicums (Effective fall 2012)
A list findings by groups that reviewed the 2011-2012 Disposition Data has been
compiled, which illustrates the amount of input and feedback from various groups
of individuals related to dispositions, in addition to each program analyzing their
own data for changes needed.
1.1a
The AIMS Institutional Information page has been edited to include the Hispanic
Serving Institution status.
The original IR narrative had the correct information concerning expired programs.
The IR report was not silent on this matter, but clearly stated which programs were
no longer offered in Section I.3 of the Overview. The current programs were also
listed on the Program Assessments webpage, cited in several places in the original
IR.
The AIMS Program page was incorrect concerning the number of expired programs.
This information has now been updated to include only our two nationally
2
recognized programs: Early Childhood - 6 (elementary) and Early Childhood – 6
with Special Education. The original CEC report stated conditions that were met in
between the May 2012 IR report and the fall 2012 semester beginning in August
2012. The Special Education program received full recognition from CEC until 2020.
Other programs produced SPA reports for the 2009 NCATE visit. They were not
recognized and will begin a new process of SPA report writing once the current 18
month full visit has taken place. These other programs are collecting data. The data
are posted on the Program Assessments webpage.
Listed below are undergraduate programs offered during the 2011-2012 academic
year:












BA Art
BA English
BS Early Childhood – 6
BS Early Childhood – 6 with Special Education
BS Generalist 4-8
BA Mass Media (Journalism or Speech)
BS or BA Math
BA Music
BS Biology (Life Science)
BA History
BA History (Composite Social Studies)
BA Theater
The following are graduate programs offered during the 2011-2012 academic year:






Educational Diagnostician
Guidance and Counseling
MA Curriculum and Instruction with initial certification
MA Curriculum and Instruction – Advanced Instructor
Principal
Superintendent
Because of low enrollment numbers in the program, the Educational Diagnostician
program has been discontinued as of fall 2012.
The number of program completers has steadily decreased due to the fact that
numbers of teachers in all levels of education are decreasing because of budget cuts
nationwide. Many local teachers have lost their jobs over the past few years.
Candidates know that a teaching certificate does not guarantee them a job when
they graduate. In recent years, the economy, as well as increased tuition costs, have
also been factors in enrollment numbers. Because of the rise of alternative
3
certification programs available in Texas, enrollment in university teacher
preparation programs has been declining.
1.3
Although disposition data were collected in previous years, subsequent to the
feedback from the initial NCATE visit, disposition data collection has been expanded
and done more systematically throughout all programs. The unit collected
Disposition Data through multiple assessment points in Initial and Advanced
Programs, including online courses, for the 2011-2012 academic year. Data
collection will be continuous from that point. These data are posted on the
Disposition Data webpage. Scrolling down this page, there are charts indicating
semesters of data collection, which are blue links to the data tables for each course
listed. The Graduate Disposition Data is specifically labeled to show that “All
graduate courses are online.” These data were posted to show distant/online
learning in the original IR.
There should be no rubrics for any program listed as “under development.” All
program data were complete when submitted online in May of 2012. Links were
checked again in all reports during September of 2012.
The Program Assessment webpage shows three columns: Key Assessments, Data
Collected, and Evaluation Method. Concerning the Evaluation Method,
rubrics/scoring guides/grade criteria are listed for all assessments except the state
certification exams through ETS. The intent was for the BOE Offsite Team to see our
specific state tests on that site. At the time of this Addendum submission, each
program certification test will have a specific link to the test preparation manual for
that content area instead of the general ETS site in the Evaluation Method column of
the Program Assessments webpage. Each of the other six to eight program
assessments include rubrics/scoring guides/grade criteria for data in that column.
The actual data are included in every instance under the central column of the
Program Assessment webpage, labeled “Data Collected.” These words contain
underlined blue links to the actual data for every program on six to eight
assessments.
AFIs
1. Professional Dispositions are consistently articulated in all courses listed on
the Disposition Assessment Chart labeled for data collection on the
Disposition Data webpage. In all of these undergraduate and graduate
courses, representing all programs in the unit, both the candidate and the
professor/supervisor complete Disposition Evaluations in TaskStream. All
data for the 2011-2012 academic year are posted as TaskStream reports in
charts on the Disposition Data webpage. Also, a Program Disposition
Comparison Chart for fall 2011 and spring 2012 is posted on the webpage.
The distance/online data are clearly marked as being for ALL graduate
programs. These programs have recently converted to ALL online, so these
data are our disposition data for distance/online courses.
4
2. The data collected for dispositions are somewhat limited due to the fact that
the 2011-2012 academic year was the first year that systematic disposition
assessment was conducted throughout all programs. Data collected are
posted for all initial and advanced candidates through links in the Disposition
Assessment Charts. By clicking on the underlined blue links, such as “Fall
2011” and “Spring 2012” near the bottom of the Disposition Data webpage,
all data are displayed according to program titles.
1.4
The letter received from NCATE on the actions of the UAB after our initial visit in
2009 stated that Angelo State University was accredited for 18 months. It also
reported that we would use the Continuous Improvement Option for the upcoming
visit of the BOE Team at the conclusion of the 18 month period. In the NCATE
guidelines for the Continuous Improvement Option, we found under Data
Expectations, Section 3, Paragraph 2, that “Units are required to report only
assessments and data on (1) Professional Dispositions (2) Proficiencies identified in
the unit’s Conceptual Framework.”
At this time, two programs are recognized by SPA organizations. The Early
Childhood-6 (Elementary) has been recognized by ACEI since 2009. The Early
Childhood-6 with Special Education met the conditions for CEC recognition in
August 2012 and are now nationally recognized until 2020. These are the two
largest programs for initial preparation. Other programs wrote to their SPAs for our
last NCATE visit. Because we were given only 18 months before another full visit,
no attempts were made to rewrite these SPA reports at this time. Therefore, the list
of programs in AIMS was not correct. It has been corrected since the Offsite Report
was received. The list on our Program Assessments webpage was correct at the
time of IR submission, showing 12 undergraduate and 6 graduate programs. Since
that time, the Educational Diagnostician program has also been discontinued for the
2012-2013 academic year.
The Program Assessments webpage includes a large amount of data to show that
candidates are meeting standards. Some programs are currently in the process of
including national standards in their rubrics for the six to eight assessments for
which data is collected, and other programs have already included professional
standards, such as ACEI, CEC, and INTASC, on rubrics linked to the Program
Assessments webpage.
All programs including certification are required to cover the Texas Educator
Standards and complete the Texas Examination of Educator Standards (TExES)
certification exams. The Educator Standards identify the content and skills that the
Educator Preparation Curriculum must address. The TExES consists of two parts for
initial certification: content and pedagogy. Scores for content and pedagogy exams
are posted on the website at the completion of each testing year.
5
State standards are covered in all courses, as listed on specific syllabi for each
undergraduate education course. The state of Texas requires current syllabi and
faculty vitae to be submitted every semester for online posting. Syllabi for all
courses are found on the webpage, entitled: Courses and Faculty. The courses are
listed alphabetically by title, so the unit’s course offerings are found under the Early
Childhood, Education, Educational Psychology, and Reading links. The
undergraduate syllabi also include alignment to NCATE Outcomes/Proficiencies and
Institutional Goals.
The state of Texas requires teacher preparation programs to be accredited by the
Texas Education Agency (TEA) every five years. The unit must be in compliance
with the Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, by showing that the programs meet
state standards. The program report for ASU showing TEA compliance was October
2009. In order for a program to be compliant, data are collected and presented to
TEA site visitors. The data collected for the last monitoring visit are on the TEA
webpage. Data continue to be collected until the completion of the five-year cycle in
2014.
The educator preparation programs must also meet the state Assessment System for
Educator Preparation (ASEP) standards. Each educator preparation program must
meet the standards in the following four areas:
1. TExES Certification exams – pass rate by demographic group and by test
2. Principals’ survey on first year teachers from our program
3. Value-added assessments of candidates’ effect on student test scores (in
development at the state level)
4. Survey of candidate experiences after completion of the program
These data for our program are found in the Data Summary Report and direct links
to College of Education webpages:
1. TExES Certification exam pass rates - page 11-13
2. Principals’ survey – page 33
3. Value-added assessments – still in development at state level
4. Candidate Survey when completing program
In preparation for the state accreditation report, the EC-6 program submitted a
Curriculum Content Matrix indicating the courses and assignments covering each
state standard. Evidence for our candidates meeting the state standards are not
only on the state certification tests, but also in all the assignments listed in these
courses.
Additional evidence of candidates meeting professional standards is collected
during the student teaching semester. The Texas Beginning Educator Support
System (TxBESS) is the approved mentoring program for first year teachers in
Texas, following the Danielson model. Supervisors and classroom teachers evaluate
student teaching candidates using this system throughout the semester. The Four
6
Quadrants of the TxBESS system include standards that parallel other professional
standards such as “Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy” and
“Assessing Student Learning.” Results of assessments in the TxBESS system are
posted in all undergraduate programs Assessments #4 and #5 on the Program
Assessments webpage. Rubrics for scoring these assessments include TxBESS
standards.
For the end of programs at the Advanced levels, candidates complete a
Comprehensive Program Review (CPR) to illustrate their mastery of state standards.
This evaluation is counted Assessment #2 on the Program Assessments webpage.
The rubrics listing state standards, or competencies are also linked below, by
program.
 Guidance and Counseling
 Principal
 Superintendent
Other Advanced programs link to national standards, such as INTASC and CEC.
 MA Curriculum and Instruction, Advanced Instructor
The initial certification program at the Advanced level employs the Texas Beginning
Educator Support System (TxBESS) beginning Texas teacher mentor standards, in
accordance with the Initial preparation candidates. These standards are included
on rubrics for Assessments #4 and #5.
 MA Curriculum and Instruction, Initial Certification.
In general, all programs, both Initial and Advanced levels, show evidence of meeting
professional and state standards through Rubrics and Data Collected columns of the
Program Assessments webpage, as well as alignment on course syllabi in individual
courses. All programs show knowledge and understanding of Professional
Dispositions on the Disposition Data webpage, measured multiple times throughout
the programs by candidates and supervisors/professors. Data for fall 2011 and
spring 2012 is displayed on this webpage in charts listing programs near the bottom
of the page. Comparison data for each semester and averages for the year are also
given in charts on the webpage.
7
Standard 2
IR Addendum
2. 1
Grade grievance policies are published in an Operating Policy 10.03 for all ASU
candidates. Grievances are rare.
The Unit Assessment System collects data on candidates at various points in their
program as reported in the Data Summary as follows:
1. Admission to program GPA – page 16
2. Admission to Educator Preparation Program – page 17
3. Admission to Student Teaching – page 19
4. Recommendation for certification – page 4
At any of these points, candidates may be denied admission or recommendation
needed to proceed in their program. Any candidate complaints or grievances are
referred to the Admission, Review, Dismissal, and Disposition Subcommittee of the
Teacher Education Council, as outlined on this webpage. The candidate may appeal
the decision to another subcommittee of the Teacher Education Council called the
Appeals Subcommittee.
Procedures and reasons for dismissal from the Educator Preparation Program are
outlined in the Field Experience Handbook, pages 29-30. These procedures are
based on the Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 7, Chapter 249.
Data on candidate grievances, complaints and appeals are kept at the departmental
level and are available onsite.
AFI and 2.4 (2)
Processes for establishing that candidate assessments are accurate, consistent, fair,
and non-biased include the following examples:

Grading rubrics, which are standardized among faculty members, are used
for assessment of candidate work. These grading rubrics are based on
national and state standards. Additionally, these grading rubrics are posted
in all Blackboard courses. Pertinent examples are found on the Program
Assessments webpage.

Quality Matters (QM) training was provided in the spring of 2012 to all
faculty and these QM standards are being followed for all online course
delivery. One ASU faculty member is a certified QM trainer, and additional
members are working toward that goal. Multiple QM trainer-certified faculty
will provide the Unit with enhanced peer review procedures.
Process used by Initial programs:
8

Inter-rater reliability studies are done each semester by student teaching
supervisors. Data from fall 2011 and spring 2012 studies are shown here. In
the EPSY 3303 Human Growth and Development course for Initial
certification candidates, multiple professors share teaching responsibility for
this course. An inter-rater reliability study was also conducted for professors
teaching this course during the fall of 2011.
Process used by Advanced and Other School Professionals:
 The validity of the grading rubrics used to evaluate the assessments
implemented in the Advanced programs in the College of Education
was established through a jury of experts. Preliminarily, the program
managers developed and critiqued each rubric. After resolving any
initial issues, the rubrics were then piloted in the appropriate courses.
After the first implementation, the program managers met to
reexamine and amend the rubrics based on instructor feedback and
candidate results. A subsequent trial followed to confirm that any
newly applied modifications resolved the presenting issues.

At the end of Advanced programs candidates must present a
Comprehensive Program Review (CPR) to multiple faculty members.
Standardized rubrics that align with Texas Examination of Educator
Standards (TExES) standards are used to assess each candidate.
2.4
(1) A standing committee including P-12 school personnel, the Education Program
Advisory Council (EPAC), regularly meets and review data and findings from
assessments. Minutes are found on the webpage for this committee, by scrolling
down to the bottom of the page.
(2) See AFI and 2.4 (2) evidence listed above.
(3) There is evidence and data to indicate that the unit regularly uses data to
improve program quality, unit operations, and performance of the candidates. The
data is found on the Program Assessments and Disposition Data webpages. The
analysis is found on the Data Review webpages started during the 2011-2012
academic year in August, December, and May. The 2012 August Data Review Day
has already occurred and is posted as a webpage as well.
For the December Data Review Day, a more comprehensive view of data is available
due to the state data cycle ending in September of each year. For review at this time
is the Data Summary for the Unit, first started in December of 2011, but to continue
in future years.
Further program improvement information is found in the departmental faculty
meeting minutes, available onsite.
9
Standard 3
3.1
There is evidence of a method to assure that all candidates receive diverse,
extensive, and intensive experiences in the field. These data are tracked by the
Educator Preparation Information (EPI) Center for the Initial and Advanced
Programs. They keep databases regarding placement of Initial and Advanced
certification candidates. From the time they enter the Educator Preparation
Program, field placements are tracked by campus diversity and grade level to
ensure candidates receive a variety of each.
Graduate Advisor, Lesley Casarez, has recently been employed to facilitate and
oversee the Practicum/Internship placements and mentors for Advanced
Candidates. She has compiled a comprehensive handbook, Practicum/Internship
Placement Procedures for Graduate Students. This handbook contains the detailed
descriptions of the critical assignments for the Practicum/ Internship experiences
for the Other School Professionals program.
As included in the original IR, collaboration with school districts is achieved by
signing a Cooperating District Agreement. A large number of schools statewide are
now in collaboration with ASU, as indicated by the List of Cooperating School
Districts. Anytime a candidate has a field or practicum placement, a Cooperating
District Agreement must be initiated and completed.
Principal recommendations from each campus assure the quality of the mentor for
candidates in field placements. According to the Texas Administrative Code, a
collaborative decision between the campus administrator and the College of
Education is required.
Standards, rubrics, and data collected provided on the Program Assessments
webpage for Advanced Teacher and Other School Professionals include local, state,
and national standards for each program:
 ASU Graduate Learning Goals – Educational Diagnostician Assessment #2
 State TExES (certification exam) Competencies – Principal and
Superintendent Assessment #4
 State TxBESS (first year teacher mentor model) standards – Curriculum and
Instruction with Initial Certification – Assessment #4
 National INTASC standards – Advanced Instructor Assessment #4
AFI
The rubrics and data collected for evidence are available on the Program
Assessments webpage for Assessment #5 for each program. Each program’s faculty
members review data once each semester for any trends that may need to be
addressed for continuous program improvement, especially with respect to the
10
positive impact on student learning. Assignment descriptions for Impact on Student
Learning, Assessment #5, for Other School Professionals are as follows:
 Educational Diagnostician Program
 Guidance and Counseling
 Principal
 Superintendent
3.4
(1) Regarding the creation of environments that have a positive impact on student
learning, Initial certification candidates follow the Texas Beginning Educator
Support System (TxBESS), taken from the Danielson model, during student
teaching/internship semesters. The model describes Four Quadrants for evaluating
new teachers, including “A classroom environment that promotes equity, excellence,
and learning.” Candidates are evaluated four times during their student teaching or
internship experience by both supervisors and classroom teachers. Impact on
Student Learning is measured at each of the four evaluation points, with evidence
provided from the final evaluation in Assessment #5 on the Program Assessments
webpage.
Other School Professionals employ rubrics and collect data through a variety of
assessment for Impact on Student Learning illustrated on the Program Assessment
webpage as follows:
 Educational Diagnostician – Individual Intellectual Testing rubric
 Guidance and Counseling – Plan to Address Student Needs rubric
 Principal – Campus Improvement Plan rubric
 Superintendent – District Improvement Plan rubric
(2) The Angelo State University College of Education unit has explanations to
demonstrate how field experiences are sufficiently intensive and extensive for
Advanced level teacher candidates seeking Initial Certification as evidenced by the
field assignment description for the Internship semester. These candidates are
employed as the classroom teacher by a school district while doing their Internship
semester. Requirements and assignments are listed here for the MA Curriculum and
Instruction with Initial Certification Program.
(3) The Angelo State University College of Education unit has explanations to
demonstrate how field experiences are sufficiently intensive and extensive for other
school professional candidates as evidenced by the Practicum/Internship
assignment descriptions found by clicking on these named program links for the
Educational Diagnostician, Guidance and Counseling Program, Principal Program,
and Superintendent Program. Each of these programs is required by the state of
Texas to have 160 clock hours of field experience during this semester.
11
Other field experiences found in Advanced and Other School Professional programs
are provided through coursework substantiating extensive work in school settings.
These include the following:
 Lifespan Development – Case Study involving students
 Applied Research – proposal for research study, often carried out in the field
and reported at the final Comprehensive Program Review (CPR) at program
completion
 Behavior Management – select a challenging student to observe over a ten
week period for an observation report with possible interventions
 Introduction to School and Community Counseling – interview a school
counselor
 Career and Occupational Counseling – visit a career center on a high school
campus
 Group Counseling Skills – an informal needs assessment, including a survey
of teachers for a problem or issue that needs addressing through group
interview
 Individual Intelligence Testing – candidates conduct intelligence tests in the
field
 Facilities Planning and Maintenance – interview a district administrator
 Role of the Principal – interview a principal
 School Community Relationships – identify examples of successful
communication in four school districts
 Human Relationships in Educational Administration – interview principals,
superintendents, and other central office personnel to compare the roles of
superintendent and principal
12
Standard 4
4.1
Evidence of comprehensive assessments or survey results for advanced teachers
and other school professionals include their Comprehensive Program Reviews (CPRs)
conducted at the end of their program. In the Standard 4: Diversity Exhibits 4.3.c the
link to Program Assessments is provided. Within the section of Graduate Programs
(Advanced) is a link to the Guidance and Counseling program assessments.
Assessment #2, second measure of content, for this program is the Comprehensive
Program Review (CPR) data (previous or current). Both the Rubric for scoring and
matching Data Collected specifically list a diversity element. The Program Manager
for Guidance and Counseling collects and posts comprehensive assessments or
surveys in TaskStream that describe each of the competencies required for this
degree program. Through this Assessment #2 rubric and data collection, all of the
following competencies, or standards are addressed and assessed:





Competency 001 Human Development
Competency 002 Student Diversity
Competency 003 Factors Affecting Students
Competency 008 Collaboration with Families
Competency 009 Collaboration with Others in the School and Community
Described below are other Advanced Programs, all of which have Assessment Data
related to diversity posted on the Program Assessments webpage.
Rubrics for data collected in both Principal and Superintendent programs’
Assessment #2 measure state competencies, which include candidates being able to
“communicate, collaborate, and respond to diverse interests of the total
community.” State Competencies addressing diversity for Principal and
Superintendent certification are also included on the second page of the Rubrics for
Assessment #4.
The MA in Curriculum and Instruction Advanced Instructor and Initial Certification
programs both include several assessments that address diversity. Assessment #6,
“8 Activities” for students must address the diverse learner as shown in the Rubric.
Assessments #7 and #8, a Cultural Activity/Growth Plan and a Demographic Paper,
both address diversity as indicated in these rubrics.
For the Educational Diagnostician program, Assessment #3 on Behavior
Management must include “Effects of the cultural and environmental milieu on the
individual and the family” as seen on the Rubric.
One core course for all Advanced Candidates entitled, “Social and Cultural
Influences,” requires a “Cultural Activity Assignment” in which candidates select a
13
culture that has been marginalized and different from their own. The candidate
must attend some type of activity in the community to become involved in or
volunteer service hours. The resulting reports are scored by a rubric. Samples of
candidates’ work, with their permission, are included here for a Catholic mass and
an Indian dinner. The professor reports that candidates learn much about diversity
from this assignment each semester, and evidence is collected by scoring the rubric.
AFI and 4.4
The Educator Preparation Information (EPI) Center tracks and assures that
candidates have field and clinical placements in diverse settings. The
Practicum/Internship Placement Procedures for Graduate Students handbook
provides details about policies, procedures, and practices for Advanced Programs.
This manual has recently been completed and was not available when the original
IR was submitted in May 2012. EPI Center Graduate Advisor, Lesley Casarez, had
compiled this valuable document and will be able to answer questions of the visiting
BOE Team members.
There are also projects during the practicum or internship in diverse settings for
exposure to diverse students. District Demographics are listed in the Exhibit List for
Standard 4 for both Initial and Advanced Programs as follows:
 Appendix C Diversity/Demographics of P-12 Students in Schools Used for
Undergraduate Programs
 Appendix C1 Diversity/Demographics of P-12 Students in Schools Used for
Advanced Programs
14
Standard 5
5.1
a. All clinical faculty members (adjunct faculty) are assigned to field service
positions. They supervise, mentor, monitor, and evaluate our candidates during the
candidate’s field experiences. Precise data on their assignments will be found in
column two of our chart entitled Faculty Roster Form – Qualifications or Clinical
Faculty.
b. The state of Texas requires that current vitae for all faculty members be posted
on the university’s website. Curriculum vitae for all faculty members are found on
the webpage, entitled: Courses and Faculty. The courses are listed alphabetically by
title, so the unit’s course offerings are found under the Early Childhood, Education,
Education-Graduate, Educational Psychology, and Reading links.
c. The chart we had posted for demonstration of faculty scholarship (Exhibit List
5.3d) was the wrong file. We have since corrected that error and the link will take
you to the correct information. Faculty scholarship examples are also listed in the
AIMS system.
d. All faculty, including instructors and adjuncts, must complete an Annual Faculty
Evaluation each year as explained by Operating Policy 06.28. Faculty members fill
out the Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation form, with slight differences for
tenured and non-tenured tracks. This evaluation is forwarded to the Department
Peer Review Committee, who review the materials and fill out separate evaluation
forms for tenured and non-tenured tracks, before passing on to the Department
Chair. Both tenured and non-tenure track faculty evaluations are reviewed by the
Department Chair. Department Chairs meet with each faculty member individually
to sign the form and discuss improvements in teaching, scholarship, and service, if
needed. Then the Dean of the College signs off before forwarding to the Provost. At
each juncture, there is opportunity for faculty response. If faculty are not
performing up to standards, a Faculty Improvement Plan is created in conjunction
with the Department Chair. As part of this plan, other faculty may conduct Peer
Reviews of teaching, if necessary.
A link directly to the procedures for faculty tenure and promotion at ASU was
provided in the original IR, but is also linked here as Operating Policy 06.23.
Included in this document are guidelines for receiving tenure, as well as promotion
to Assistant, Associate, and Professor levels.
The College of Education also has more specific guidelines for tenure and promotion.
Included in this document are the expectations for faculty in the six years working
up to tenure (pages 4-6). This explanation helps faculty to understand what is
expected of them in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service during this time.
15
Evaluation of faculty portfolios progresses through six steps:
 Faculty peers at department level
 Department Chair
 Dean of the College
 College Committee on Tenure and Promotion
 Provost
 President
5.4 Areas of Concern related to continuing to meet the standard
(1) All fulltime faculty members are required to submit a Professional Development
Plan annually. These plans are co-requisite with the Annual Faculty Evaluations in
the Department Chairs’ offices. It could be said that each faulty member has an
Individualized Education Plan of his or her own. That plan is developed in
coordination with the Department Chair and is reviewed annually. The funds for
attending professional conferences and training are included in our college and
department level budgets. Since the type of training and the role of the faculty
member necessitate the use of different fund categories, we do not have a fund set
aside specifically for professional development. Instead, the expenses are funded
using graduate funds, or distance education funds, or Instructional Enhancement
funds, as appropriate and as allowed by state codes.
Additionally, the college and departments provide professional development for all
faculty, including instructors and adjuncts. For example, this year we are all learning
the Quality Matters process for developing online courses. Some of the training was
here on campus, some online, and some at the QM conference. Second Life training
was also provided on campus by one of the faculty members who uses this in
Advanced level courses. Additionally, the Center for Innovation and Training (CITR)
and Information Technology (IT) provide numerous opportunities for professional
development.
(2) Faculty engagement in scholarly activity was originally given through examples
listed in the AIMS system. The best evidence that faculty are actively engaged in
scholarly activities related to teaching and learning is in their vitae. Vitae were not
available in our initial report. As required by the state of Texas, these are posted
and kept current each semester from a link on the ASU webpage entitled: Courses
and Faculty. The courses are listed alphabetically by title, so the unit’s course
offerings are found under the Early Childhood, Education, Education-Graduate,
Educational Psychology, and Reading links.
(3) As evidenced on the Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation form for tenured
and non-tenure track faculty, the evaluation process is focused on three areas:
teaching, scholarship, and service. Student evaluations are conducted for each
course taught, both classroom and online formats. These evaluation summaries are
included as part of the evidence of teaching in the faculty evaluation. If
16
improvement is needed, the faculty member may be contacted at any of these
review points. The Department Chair meets with each faculty member individually
to sign off on the form and discuss improvement if needed. If the faculty evaluation
is not satisfactory, the faculty member and Department Chair develop a Faculty
Improvement Plan. As part of this Plan, other faculty members may conduct Peer
Reviews of teaching as needed. All fulltime faculty members are required to submit
a Professional Development Plan as a co-requisite of the annual faculty evaluation to
address developmental goals for the following year.
Faculty members understand that their progress in the areas of tenure and
promotion are expected to show growth throughout their years at the university.
The faculty evaluations are protected information and therefore not posted.
However, they are securely stored in the Department Chairs’ offices and will be
made available during the BOE Team visit to campus.
17
Standard 6
6.4.1 and 6.4.2
Angelo State University uses a centralized budgeting process. Each spring all budget
managers enter a proposed budget in a system called SPOL. These proposed
budgets start with what was available in the last budget with "enhancement"
requests being entered separately. These budget requests are then reviewed by the
Dean. Approved budgets are then sent to the Provost.
The Chief Financial Officer has developed a matrix that determines the amount of
dollars generated by each department. The combined dollars for academic affairs is
transferred to the Provost. The Provost then distributes funds to the various
departments under Academic Affairs. Because of budget constraints very few, if any,
enhancements have been added during the last several budget cycles.
Faculty requests and budget for faculty come from the central administration with
the Vice Presidents reviewing all faculty and staff requests. Adjunct faculty are
hired upon request to the Provost. The process up to this point has always been
approved when a need exists, such as a large class, or supervisors to work with
candidates in the field.
Comparative budget data are available on campus as is the budget book.
6.4
6.4 (3) Though there is evidence that unit governance structures are in place for
planning and operation of other school professionals, there is limited evidence of
implementation of the structure.
6.4.3.1. The College reorganized into two areas. One area with its chair is
responsible for all Other School Professional Programs effective Fall 2012.
6.4.3.2. A Graduate Program Advisory Committee was formed to increase
communication among faculty working within graduate programs. Minutes are
posted on the committee webpage online.
6.4.3.3. All accountability measures within Other School Professional Programs
were entered into TaskStream. Elements may be inspected with access.
6.4.3.4 Continuous data is provided by the Educator Preparation Information (EPI)
Center with regard to assessment of candidates through external examinations. The
Certification Advisor disseminates data to appropriate stakeholders after each state
testing session. Aggregated data are available.
6.4.3.5 All data concerning graduate candidates is managed by EPI center, including
tracking and certification. Filemaker Pro database can be inspected on site.
6.4.3.6 Weekly meetings of the faculty with the Department Chair to discuss Other
School Professional Programs and success of candidates as well as data from
programs were held. Minutes available on site.
6.4.3.7 Whereas the Dean formulated and chaired the committee for graduate
programs during the 2012 academic year, the consolidation of programs and
leadership was transferred to the Department Chair of Other School Professional
Programs during the 2013 academic year.
18
6.4.3.8. Graduate programs were reduced to five.
6.4.3.9 Graduate programs were converted to an 8 week by 5 sessions offerings.
6.4.3.10 All faculty in Other School Professional Programs have been trained in the
basic Quality Matters certification.
6.4.3.11 One faculty member is trained as a trainer of trainers in Quality Matters.
6.4.3.12 Second Life training was offered to faculty. Two graduate programs have
Second Life offerings.
6.4.4 Though there is evidence that the governance structures are in place to ensure
the review and use of data to improve the quality of programs, unit operations, and the
performance of candidates, there is limited evidence of the implementation of the
structure.
6.4.4.1 The College of Education has four data review sessions each year. In
December, a complete review of the previous year's data by all College faculty is
conducted. The data provided by CREATE (Center for Research, Evaluation, and
Advancement for Teacher Education) are analyzed. The 6-8 program data points
are analyzed. Review of disposition data occurs.
6.4.4.2 August 2011 Data Review
6.4.4.3 December 2011 Data Day - Retreat
6.4.4.4 May 2012 Data Review
6.4.4.5 August 2012 Data Review
6.4.4.6 Disposition Data and Review
After reviewing the data, an analysis and report is developed that addresses issues
that are evident from data review. The same evidence is used to address 6.4.6.
6.4.5. Though there is evidence that unit governance structures are in place to
facilitate collaboration among unit faculty to plan, deliver and operate coherent
programs of study, there is limited evidence of the implementation of the structure.
6.4.5.1. The College has reorganized with single point of origin. All undergraduate
programs are overseen by a Department Chair. All graduate programs are overseen
by a Department Chair. These individuals meet regularly with faculty (minutes
available on site) to discuss program improvement. Faculty crossover if they teach
both undergraduate and graduate courses.
6.4.5.2. During the 2012 academic year, a College wide communication committee
was established to discuss issues across programs. The program leaders met and
addressed concerns with their programs and issues/training that was needed.
Minutes of the meetings can be found at the committee website. The dean
established the committee, and for the 2013 academic year, the committee is being
chaired by faculty.
6.4.5.3. The Dean and the Chairs of the graduate and undergraduate programs meet
weekly to oversee programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Minutes
available on site.
6.4.5.4. The Dean established the following committees during the 2012 academic
year to coordinate, plan, and administer coherent programs of study:
Undergraduate Advisory Committee
Graduate Advisory Committee
Distance Education Committee
NCATE Coordination Committees
In the 2013 academic year, these committees are chaired by faculty. These
committees were new to the College.
19
20