Masters of Education (M.Ed.): Elementary Education—Educating for Social Justice
Kathy Piechura-Couture, PhD—Committee Chair
Christopher Colwell, Ed.D.
Elizabeth D. Heins, Ph.D.
Rajni Shankar-Brown, Ph.D.
Carine Streble, Ph.D.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MASTERS OF EDUCATION (M.ED.):
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION—EDUCATING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
CATALOG DESCRIPTION
LEVEL OF CONFORMITY WITH THE MISSION(S):
COURSEWORK
IMPACT ON CURRENT STUDENTS
IMPACT ON STUDENT RECRUITMENT
IMPACT ON TENURED AND TENURE-TRACK FACULTY
DEGREE OF EFFICIENCY
QUALITY OF THE PROGRAM
RAMIFICATIONS REGARDING EXTERNAL CONSTITUENTS
SPECIAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE PROGRAM
COURSE DESCRIPTIONS
APPENDIX A: SURVEY REPORTS
APPENDIX B: M.ED. REVENUE
REFERENCES
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
7
8
10
12
26
27
2
Masters of Education (M.Ed.): Elementary Education—Educating for Social
Justice
Catalog Description
The Department of Teacher Education offers a Masters of Elementary Education
degree in educating for social justice. This degree focuses on advocating for socially
marginalized students in local and global societies. This theory to practice degree
program is founded upon the commitment to pedagogical practices that promote
closing persistent and growing opportunity gaps. The program encourages
candidates to actively grow as 21st century teacher-scholars and reflective
thoughtful decision makers who possess a deep understanding of the knowledge,
skills and dispositions involved in teaching for social justice. The program
culminates in an immersion experience that fosters research designed to effect
change at the local and global level.
Level of Conformity with the Mission(s):
The Department of Teacher Education proposes a Masters of Education Degree
(Masters of Elementary Education: Educating for Social Justice). This degree was
developed to meet the needs identified by school leaders as well as Stetson alumni
(see survey report appendix A). The program directly aligns with the University’s
and department’s missions through its focus on meeting the needs of students who
have been marginalized in classrooms and society. More specifically the program’s
design fosters personal, intellectual and social development and responsibility; it
also offers an immersion experience that encourages global citizenship. The
program’s core embraces the University’s values of diversity, inclusion, intercultural
competence and social justice.
Coursework
The Masters of Elementary Education: Educating for Social Justice program is a
thirty-credit, fifteen month program designed to fit into practicing teachers’
professional and family obligations. The candidates will proceed through the
coursework in cohorts, starting with an intensive summer semester when
candidates are not teaching.
3
Summer I
Foundations of Education and Social Justice (**EDUC 505)
Critical Issues in Elementary Education (**EDUC 536)
Theories of Learning (**EDUC 663)
Fall
Differentiated Instruction (**EDUC 558)
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Planning (**EDUC 501)
Instructional Design-Part I (**EDUC 500)
Spring
Cultural Arts Integration (**EDUC 599)
Content Area Literacy (**EDUC 527)
Instructional Design-Part II (**EDUC 500)
Summer II
Action Research: Theory to Practice (**EDUC 665)
Educational Immersion*
(**EDUC 588)
* Educational Immersion is a capstone experience that will include
international and domestic options.
** Previous or currently taught courses
The course sequence begins with an exploration of issues in social justice and
education. During the wing terms candidates will develop research-based practices
that foster academic and social growth in self-selected areas of specialization (e.g.,
ELL populations, single gender, poverty, ESE). During summer two, the candidates
will engage in a culminating immersion experience that will allow the candidates to
implement and evaluate their own theories and practices. This immersion
experience is designed as an action research project to ensure that candidates
impact children identified as marginalized. This sequence of learning directly
corresponds with the department’s goals of preparing graduates to be reflective,
instructional leaders who are culturally responsive and facilitate change at the local
and global level.
Impact on Current Students
Although this standard is not typical of graduate programs, we believe that the new
program will be enticing to our current undergraduate students. Fifteen percent of
our 2012 graduates immediately went on to graduate schools. In addition, a
longitudinal study completed by the National Center for Educational Statistics states
that of bachelor’s degree recipients who graduated from private not-for-profit
institutions were more likely than those who graduated from public institutions to
have enrolled in or completed a graduate program. Of candidates with a bachelor’s
4
degree in education, 61% went on to receive their master’s degree with 50.6% being
awarded a Master’s in education (NCES, 2003). In addition, the nature of this degree
will prepare our students for additional postgraduate work in various fields (PhD
programs in special education, ESOL, elementary education and urban or migrant
education). The needs for PhD graduates in these areas are high. A recent
examination of the Chronicle of Higher Education found 64 fulltime faculty special
education openings, 38 curriculum and instruction openings, 28 elementary
education, and 36 fulltime ESOL openings. Candidates from our Master’s program
could easily segue into any of these PhD programs.
Impact on Student Recruitment
As stated above, 61% of the candidates who graduate with a bachelor’s degree in
education enroll in master’s programs. Educators are lifelong learners who
constantly seek new and improved ways to enhance the learning in their
classrooms. In addition, school districts pay on average an additional $2,500/year
for a Master’s degree. Thus, the degree pays for itself in less than five years. In the
central Florida region there are 16,987 (FDOE, 2013) elementary education
teachers who could benefit from this program.
Impact on Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
Projected faculty needed to cover all the courses associated with the first two (2)
years of the program are as follows:
Summer 2014: Two (2) of the three (3) courses proposed for the summer of 2014
can be covered by existing tenured faculty in the department who are requesting
summer courses. One (1) course would need to be covered by an adjunct professor.
Fall 2014 and Spring 2015: The two and one-half courses needing coverage for
each semester (five total) would need combinations of expanded visiting line,
adjunct, and current faculty overload requests to cover. All current faculty are
projected to be at full load for the fall and spring semesters based on projected
enrollment and department growth. Program revenue would cover all additional
faculty costs.
Summer 2015: A total of five (5) courses will be offered; two (2) courses
completing cohort #1 and three (3) courses beginning cohort #2. Existing tenure
track faculty in the department are scheduled to cover four (4) of the five (5)
courses needed for the summer of 2015. The fifth course would be covered by an
adjunct professor.
Fall 2015 and Spring 2016: We recommend an additional tenure track or visiting
line for graduate education to help cover the program as it implements cohorts one
and two.
5
Degree of Efficiency
By the end of four years, the program model anticipates two (2) student cohorts of
twenty. (See “M.Ed. Revenue” Appendix B). One cohort will be taught at the main
campus in DeLand and the second cohort, which will begin in year 3, will be taught
at the Celebration campus. We are suggesting a conservative program rollout.
Program demand for a Master’s in Education is high and the pool of eligible
graduate students is large. (See “Impact on Student Recruitment” section).
Program opening will have limited impact on existing classrooms, computer labs,
and library resources as the delivery model takes place in the evenings and on the
weekends during the fall and spring terms and during the weekdays during the
summer terms in order to accommodate the work schedules of the program
candidates. The M.Ed. program is a thirty (30) hour program of studies taught over
four (4) semesters. “Summer One” consists of three (3) courses, fall consists of two
(2) courses, spring consists of two (2) courses and “Summer Two” consists of two
(2) courses. There is one (1) additional yearlong course that spans the fall and
spring term.
While resources from recruiting and admissions will be needed to support the
program, the infrastructure for all graduate recruiting and admissions processes
have been established and are in place and ready to support this new graduate
education program of studies. It is anticipated that by the beginning of year two (2)
of the program (2015-16) additional administrative and support staff support for all
graduate education programs will be justified based on the combined number of
program participants in all our graduate programs. Future requests for
administrative and staff support would be based on university formulas for program
support based on FTE.
The revenue generated by the current graduate program tuition model will cover all
costs associated with the program opening as well as any program expansion
expenses or additional faculty needed should the program generate sufficient
numbers to add additional cohorts (See M.Ed. Revenue Appendix B). The projected
revenue versus cost analysis shows the program as a revenue generator for the
university.
Quality of the Program
Faculty involved in this Masters of Education program have already achieved
national and international recognition regarding various aspects of the degree
program (poverty, gender, low performing schools, English language learners). In
addition, it is the mission of the department for all candidates to be change agents
and through the capstone course candidates will experience research related to one
of the focus areas. The capstone final project will require candidates to either
prepare a thesis for publication or create a professional development seminar for
their local district. The paper or project could also be presented at a state or
national conference. Presentations and publication bring external recognition to the
University. Additionally, service learning opportunities and projects embedded
6
within the program will enhance the University’s reputation and potential for
further external recognition.
Ramifications Regarding External Constituents
In an effort to illicit feedback from external constituents, the committee surveyed
local (central Florida) educational leaders and administrators as well as education
alumni from throughout the country. Both alumni and leaders identified a
significant for professional development focused on meeting the needs of
economically disadvantaged learners. English Language learners and students with
special needs ranked second or third with both survey groups with students
identified as minority following in a close forth.
Which areas of teacher professional development would most enhance and improve
student learning in your school? (Choose top three)
Principals
Response
Percent
80.00%
Alumni
Response
Percent
52.20%
62.50%
36.20%
Gifted
5.00%
10.10%
Migrant
10.00%
2.90%
Minority
70.00%
26.10%
Boys
30.00%
11.60%
Girls
22.50%
1.40%
Regular education
27.50%
20.30%
Special education
Answer Options
Economically disadvantaged
English Language Learners
85.00%
27.90%
None of the above (All students are performing to expectations.)
0.00%
14.50%
Other (please specify)
5.00%
10.10%
When identifying what type of professional development instructional strategies
were needed to enhance and improve learning in the school both principals and
teachers’ identified differentiated teaching strategies as the highest area of need,
however some disagreement between the participants arose regarding other
strategies. Principals identified poverty strategies and technology as the second and
third highest need, whereas teachers identified, interpreting and using data and
effective teaching practices as their second and third choice.
7
Which three areas of professional learning would most enhance your skills as a teacher and
improve student learning in your school? (Choose top three)
Principals
Alumni
Response
Percent
Response
Percent
Poverty specific strategies
31.9%
17.5%
Gender specific strategies
11.6%
2.5%
Differentiated instructional strategies
63.8%
80.0%
Brain-based learning
26.1%
17.5%
Assessing student achievement
27.5%
32.5%
Classroom management
11.6%
12.5%
Technology
31.9%
15.0%
Interpreting and using data
27.5%
60.0%
Effective teaching practices
13.0%
45.0%
Parental and community involvement
17.4%
15.0%
Pyramid of intervention
20.3%
30.0%
Answer Options
Working effectively with paraprofessionals/volunteers
5.8%
5.0%
Standards-based classroom instruction
21.7%
35.0%
Co-teaching and inclusion training
17.4%
12.5%
Pedagogical enhancement not needed
1.4%
0.0%
Other (please specify)
5.8%
7.5%
Special Attributes of the Program
The focus of this degree is on providing masters candidates with the tools to
advocate for social justice and address the needs of children marginalized by
society. Often schools are the only constant in a marginalized child’s life. Thus, we
seek to prepare educators who will embrace all children and foster their growth
both educationally and emotionally. We expect candidates to cultivate personal and
social responsibility, community engagement and civic responsibility. We expect
candidates to develop research theories associated with poverty, gender, and
diversity as well as develop an action research project that stretches the candidate
intellectually and pedagogically. Examination of masters’ programs throughout the
country and more specifically our aspiring universities has not found any programs
that address these concerns in a similar way. Program reviews suggest that most
programs have focused on Urban Education or Educational Policy that address
poverty from a political standpoint. This program seeks to address poverty, gender,
and diversity at both the macro and micro level. Currently Florida identified 63,685
homeless children with 2,228 in Volusia County, 1,865 in Seminole County, and
8
3,541 in Lake County (Council on Homelessness Report, 2013). These statistics
make our area fertile for advocacy and research.
This program would be an extension of several initiatives started by the Nina B
Hollis Institute for Educational Reform, which is housed in the Department of
Teacher Education. For example, both the single gender program and the Di Vinci
club were initiatives started to address the needs of marginalized students. The
single gender program addresses the over-representation of males in special
education classes as well as the underrepresentation of girls in the STEM classes by
offering single gender classes in a public school setting. The Di Vinci club, an
afterschool enrichment program, is based on the work of Jensen (2009), Ratney
(2008) and Medina (2008), which suggests that the arts and movement improve
long-term memory, and positively impact student learning. New initiatives with
migrant populations and other arts integration summer programs are in the works.
The single gender program and Di Vinci club has generated interest at the state,
national and international levels. Teachers and administrators have visited these
programs from various counties, many other states and even other nations. On
several occasions we have been asked if Stetson offers graduate coursework or
degrees that specifically address the tenets outlined as the foundations of these
initiatives.
Our course offerings as well as the immersion component make our new Masters’
program unique. Candidates unable to take advantage of the global opportunities
provided will be involved with faculty in local intercultural projects. Both local and
global projects will foster social justice through advocacy and provide opportunities
typically not available to marginalized children.
Role of the Program in Campus Life
Courses within the program will include service-learning opportunities in
surrounding service areas, specifically DeLand and Pierson, as well as selected areas
in Polk, Osceola, and Orange counties. The program will also contribute to campus
and community life by providing an inclusive learning space that seeks to
understand and advocate for underrepresented student populations. The program
will open certain events to the campus and community, such as presentations by the
M.Ed. candidates and specialized guest speakers on social justice and cultural
diversity issues. For example, depending on the candidates’ area of concentration,
we foresee candidates serving as mentors to Stetson University students who will
provide literacy experiences for the children of immigrant families in DeLand while
their parents attend adult ESL classes, an effort coordinated by the Office of
Community Engagement, the Spanish Program, and the Education Department.
9
Course Descriptions
Education and Social Justice: This course utilizes a comprehensive social justice
framework to explore and analyze the underlying issues within educational
theories, policies, and practices. American education will be examined within larger
philosophical, historical, political, sociological, anthropological, and global contexts.
Interdisciplinary exploration processes will provide candidates with opportunities
to reflect upon the social context of schooling and develop as critical practitioners
and leaders dedicated to building and maintaining socially just educational learning
environments.
Critical Issues in Education: This inquiry-based course examines the major
contemporary issues facing educators in America and across the globe with an
emphasis on the meaning of education and schooling for social justice and access to
equitable and high quality learning opportunities for marginalized students.
Theories of Learning: This course examines the theoretical principles of learning
concepts and research findings as they relate to education with application of
principles and concepts to teaching and learning, with specific emphasis on effects
of poverty on memory, developmental gender differences, and learning a second
language.
Differentiated Instruction: This course examines the theoretical principles of
differentiating instruction with a focus on research-based practices to differentiate
content, activities, and assessment for diverse learners. Teachers discover strategies
for flexible grouping, tiered activities, and differentiating levels of complexity in
assessing student learning.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Planning: This course describes the role
of measurement and assessment in the educational process and focuses on
analyzing and interpreting assessments for use in curricular modifications and
student evaluation.
Cultural Arts Integration: This course explores the theories and practices of
culturally responsive arts integration across the curriculum. Interdisciplinary
perspectives to cultural arts integration will be examined and candidates will learn
various approaches to foster creativity, critical thinking, collaboration and selfexpression in the classroom. In addition to developing a comprehensive
understanding of how cultural arts integration can deepen teaching and learning,
candidates will also discuss the role of the arts in relationship to social justice issues
and closing the opportunity gap.
10
Content Area Literacy: This course examines the use of multiple literacies for
teaching and learning inside and outside of the classroom. Candidates will develop a
better understanding of reading and writing processes in the broad context of
communication. The course explores multiliteracy strategies for fostering and
evaluating interest, fluency, and skill in reading and writing across content areas.
Additionally, the course presents specific strategies designed to develop 21st
century critical literacy skills that support learning across the curriculum and build
on students’ existing literacies.
Instructional Design (Part I and II): This is a two semester course that provides
an overview of the design, development, and evaluation of instructional
technologies for differentiating instruction. This project based course incorporates
multidisciplinary and culturally responsive applications that address the
opportunity gap.
ActionResearch: This course introduces candidates to action research, a form of
self-reflective systematic inquiry by practitioners on practice in classrooms or in
other educational settings. The goals of action research are the improvement of
practice, a better understanding of that practice, and an improvement in the
situation in which the practice is carried out.
Educational Immersion: The immersion experience offers candidates
opportunities to bridge theory and practice either locally or abroad. Candidates will
conduct action research in a variety of settings. Typically these settings will coincide
with faculty projects. This intensive ten-week immersion experience provides the
opportunity to bridge research and best educational practices in promoting social
justice.
11
Appendix A: Survey Reports
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Appendix B: M.Ed. Revenue
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3**
Year 4**
Total credit
Students
hours
Tuition*
Revenue
15
450
$473.00 $212,850.00
20
600
$496.65 $297,990.00
35
1050
$521.48 $547,556.63
40
1200
$547.56 $657,067.95
* with tuition discount (lowest possible amount)
** Adding celebration cohort
26
References
Cawelti, G. (1999). Portraits of six benchmark schools: Diverse approaches to
improving student achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service;
Chamerlain, G. (2013). Predictive effects of teachers and schools on test scores,
college attendance, and earnings. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, October 7, 2013.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis
Department of Children and Families, (2013) Council on Homelessness Report, 2013.
Retrevied 10/25/2013
http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/homelessness/docs/2013CouncilRepo
rt.pdf
Florida Department of Education (2013). Education Information & Accountability
Services. Data Report: Teacher Demographics in Florida's Public Schools, Fall,
2012. Retrieved 10/28/2013
http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pubstaff.asp
Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with Poverty in Mind. ASCD: New York.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). School-teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, p.141.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Medina, J (2008) Brain Rules: 12 principles of surviving work, home and schools. Pear
Press: New York.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2004). 1993–2003 Baccalaureate
and Beyond Longitudinal Study. Retrieved on 10/13/2013.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007159b.pdf
Ratney, J. (2008). Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the brain.
Little Brown and Company: New York
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on
future student academic achievement (Research Progress Report). Knoxville,
TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
27
Schalock, H. D. (1998). Student progress in learning: Teacher responsibility,
accountability and reality. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3),
237–246.
Schmoker, M. (2001). The results handbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., & Johnson, J. F. (2000). Equity-driven achievement-focused
school districts. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center.
Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context
effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal
of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67, p. 63.
28