New Mexico State University (NM)
Institution Contact Info
Role
Unit Head
NCATE
Coordinator
Name
Dr. Michael A.
Morehead
Dr. Robert L.
Rhodes
Email
Phone #
(575) 646mmorehea@nmsu.edu
5858
(505) 646rorhodes@nmsu.edu
2498
Visit Info
Begin Date: 3/11/2012
End Date:
3/13/2012
ITP Visit
Focused visit Focused visit ADV Visit Type
Type
Regular
Regular
Type of
NCATE Team
Joint
3
team:
Size:
Team Members NCATE BOE
Role
Name
Email
Phone #
Dr. Nicholas M.
(917) 882
BOE Chair
nmichelli@gc.cuny.edu
Michelli
7670
BOE
(502) 852Dr. Karen S. Karp
karen@louisville.edu
Member
1654
State BOE
Role
Name
Email
Phone #
State
Matthew
(505) 827matthew.montano1@state.nm.us
Member
Montaño
1207
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
BOE Evaluations for
BOE Chair
Dr. Nicholas M. Michelli
BOE Member
Dr. Karen S. Karp
NCATE Procedure
State Member
Matthew Montaño
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Institutional Evaluation of the BOE Team Chair
Institution Visited: New Mexico State University, NM
Semester of Visit: S12
Team Member Name: Nicholas M. Michelli
The BOE team chair is responsible for the planning of the visit and the
implementation of NCATE policies while on site. Please evaluate the
effectiveness of the team chair using the following Likert-type scale:
1
Not Effective
2 3
Effective
4 5
Very Effective
1. Pre-visit communications
5
2. Conduct of orientation meeting with institutional representatives
5
3. Familiarity with Institutional Report
4
4. Interviewing skills
5
5. Interpersonal skills (e.g., tactful, prompt, fair, dependable)
5
6. Leadership skills (e.g., ability to organize, identify responsibilities,
5
and manage team work throughout visit)
7. Professionalism (i.e., adhered to the NCATE Code of Conduct)
5
8. Overall rating of the BOE team chair
n/a
Would you recommend that this person serve again as BOE team chair?
Yes
Comments:
Nick understood the NCATE protocol and came with an open mind. He
communicated in a clear manner and listened to our feedback when we
responded. Having him as a chair of this very important review was very
beneficial and he helped heal some wounds we experienced in our last visit.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Institutional Evaluation of Board of Examiners Team - NCATE Members Institution Visited: New Mexico
State University, NM Semester of Visit: S12 Team Member Name: Karen S. Karp Instructions: Use the
Likert-type scale below to rate the team member on the characteristics listed.
1
Not Effective
2 3
Effective
4 5
Very Effective
1. Demonstrated familiarity with Institutional Report; came prepared n/a 2. Demonstrated knowledge
about NCATE standards 5 3. Made unbiased professional judgments 5 4. Made efficient use of time and
energy; maintained schedule 5 5. Possessed good interviewing skills 5 6. Behaved professionally in all
situations (e.g., adhered to the NCATE Code of Conduct) 5 7. Displayed interpersonal skills conducive to
the process 5 8. Possessed adequate computer skills (e.g., keyboarding, navigating the Internet,
reviewing documents online) 5 9. Overall rating of the team member 5 Comments
Karen was thorough, fair and listened. When given feedback she listened with an open mind and was
able to accept the unique elements of our assessment plan. Dr. Karp was well prepared for the visit and
asked thorough and well thought out questions. She was tough but fair.
Do you have reservations about this team member being used again? Yes Please explain:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Institutional Evaluation of NCATE Procedures Institution Visited: New Mexico State University,
NM Semester of Visit: S12 Please evaluate the effectiveness of the following practices and
procedures using the following Likert-type scale.
1
2 3
4 5
Not Effective
Effective
Very Effective
1. NCATE institutional orientations 2. NCATE presentations at state and national meetings
3. Communications (e.g., emails, phone calls) with NCATE staff regarding preparation
for the visit 4. Notifications (e.g., team assignments, visit dates) received from the
NCATE office prior to the visit 5. Web seminars 6. The program review process (if
applicable) 7. Use of AIMS template to compile the Online Institutional Report 8. Use of
AIMS to review BOE Report 9. Use of AIMS to submit factual corrections and rejoinder
10. Effectiveness of joint state/NCATE visit (answer only if this visit was conducted as a
joint visit with state members) 11. Board of Examiners' Report 12. Timely responses of
NCATE staff after the visit 13. Overall rating of NCATE practices and procedures
Comments on any of the above items:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Institutional Evaluation of Board of Examiners Team - State Members Institution Visited: New
Mexico State University, NM Semester of Visit: S12 Team Member Name: Matthew Monta�o
Instructions: Use the Likert-type scale below to rate the team member on the characteristics
listed.
1
2 3
4 5
Not Effective
Effective
Very Effective
1. Demonstrated familiarity with Institutional Report; came well prepared 4 2. Demonstrated
knowledge about NCATE standards 4 3. Made unbiased professional judgments 5 4. Made
efficient use of time and energy; maintained schedule 5 5. Possessed good interviewing skills 5
6. Behaved professionally in all situations 5 7. Displayed interpersonal skills conducive to the
process 5 8. Possessed adequate computer skills (e.g., keyboarding, navigating the Internet,
reviewing documents online) 5 9. Overall rating of the team member 5 Comments
Matt is an excellent state representative and his knowledge of K-12 education was a real plus.
Additionally he is fair in his approach and has high standards for teacher education programs in
New Mexico.
Do you have reservations about this team member being used again? Yes