Cross Campus Education Committee Meeting
Time: October 31, 2012 from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Place: Senior Hall 124
Co-Chairs: Kevin Decker and Jackie Coomes
In attendance: Kevin Decker, Christina Valeo, Charlie Potter, Dale Lamphere, Dawn Hilsendeger,
Nadean Meyer, Nancy Hathaway, Heather McKean, Pamela Stanley-Weigand, Jennifer Nunez,
Sharon Keattch, Sean Agriss, Kathleen Huttenmaier, Jackie Coomes, Diane Dowd, Sheila
Woodward, Diane Dowd, David Neilson, and Mariann Donley.
Key Issues:





Overview of the actions to be taken over the next two years in order to meet all
standards set by the Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB).
For fall quarter 2012, members of the Cross Campus Education Committee will be
directing attention to Standard 3: Program Resources and Governance. For more
information about Standard 3, please visit http://program.pesb.wa.gov/review/sitevisits/rubrics/2010/ standard-3, or follow the link provided on the Cross Campus
Education Committee web page.
How well are standards currently being met?
What materials can be collected to demonstrate progress in meeting the requirements
of Standard 3?
Suggestions as to what changes in the program would help students to succeed and
faculty/staff to be as productive as possible.
Agenda Item 1- Welcome, Introductions:
Introduction: Meeting called to order by Kevin Decker at 11:10 a.m.
Agenda Item 2- Report on the edTPA:
Chris Valeo: The edTPA is the new assessment for the completion of an accredited education
degree. The demands for a student vary from state to state and include a video and portfolio to
be submitted to Pearson.
The Education Department, in cooperation with the member of the Cross Campus Education
Committee, is designing an assessment based upon the new standards. The assessment is
currently in field-test mode and has been in place for about one year. All candidates must
complete the assessment. The Pedagogical assessment has been eliminated in place of the new
standards.
A 5-point scale has been established. If a student is rated at 3, they are average in regards to
what is expected of a beginning teacher. If they are rated at 1 or 2 they are below average, if
they are rated at 4 they are above average and if they are rated at a 5 they are excelled. The
exact value of each rating has not yet been firmly established.
Dale Lamphere: Dale has been assigned to monitor the new standards. Pearson has recently
changed the handbooks and added new rubrics specific to Business Education and Special
Education. There is now a total of 18 rubrics in the handbook. Dale has put together a handout
which reflects the assessment results of EWU students compared to state and national
averages.
There are five levels which a student can receive based upon the 5-point scale, and four
tasks to be completed. Task 1 concerns planning, task 2 concerns student engagement, task 3
concerns assessment, and task 4 concerns reflection. Task 4 is being phased out and
incorporated into the other tasks. Please note that student voice is unique to the state of
Washington.
Page 1 of the handout provided by Dale shows how EWU scored students compared to how
Pearson scored students.
Page 2 provides the averages gathered by Pearson, organized by rubric. On page 3, Dale
discusses a new edTPA website which will be open to the public.
Pages 3, 4 and 5 show the figures gathered by Dale of the success of EWU students on the
assessment. For task 1, EWU had a higher percentage of students rated at level 2 (below
average) than the state and national percentages reflect. For task 2, with a rating of level 2,
EWU meets the average of the state and is below the national average. For task 3, with a rating
of level 2, EWU scored above the state average and below the national average. For task 4, with
a rating of level 2, EWU met the state average and is below the national average. For academic
language, with a rating of level 2, EWU students are above the state average and below the
national average. For student voice, EWU students are above the state average (the national
average is not applicable as Washington is the only state to address student voice).
EWU demonstrated a trend of being above the state and national averages for students who
were rated at level 3 (average) for tasks 1, 2, 3, and 4, as well as academic language and student
voice.
For task 1, with a rating of levels 4 and 5 (above average and excelled), EWU students are
below the state and national averages. For task 2, with a rating of levels 4 and 5, EWU students
are below the state average and above the national average. For task 3, with a rating of levels 4
and 5, EWU students are below the state average and tied with the national average. For task 4,
with a rating of levels 4 and 5, EWU students below both state and national averages. For
academic language, with a rating of levels 4 and 5, EWU is below the state average and above
the national average. For student voice, with a rating of levels 4 and 5, EWU is below the state
average (the national average is not applicable as Washington is the only state to address
student voice).
The goal of EWU faculty, staff and students is to lower the percentage of students receiving
ratings of 1 or 2, and to increase the percentage of students receiving a rating of 3, 4, or 5. As of
right now, when Pearson reviews a student they will provide the scores without commentary.
In order to improve student success rates, templates will be made available for the assessments
each program will provide. The handbook will be made readily accessible to the students so
they will understand what is expected of them.
There are several suggestions as to how students can be aided to improve their scores. One
suggestion is the introduction of a quarter system so that students may have a deeper study
(this is being weighed against the diversified education the quarter system provides). Another
suggestion is to lengthen the student teacher practicum as EWU currently has the shortest
practicum in Washington State.
As part of the solution, EWU faculty have begun working to ensure that each program’s
content is aligned with the assessment. Additionally, a mandatory seminar will be introduced
for teaching candidates; there are about 75 candidates student teaching while about 25
currently attend seminars.
Candidates need to clearly describe the learning environment and diversity within the
classroom, along with how they will be sure to meet all needs. Overall, the learning
environment created by EWU teaching candidates provided strong emotional support, but was
weak in content; perhaps due to lack of instruction in a particular area. This could be attributed
to candidates entering into an unfamiliar situation without enough time to learn. Students will
learn one method, and then be moved to another school. These were general observations that
helped Pearson and Stanford to make the changes they made. Students commonly need to
provide further information regarding their projects and need to be sure to address all prompts.
Additionally, the video is very important and students should be sure to reflect upon their
learning experience.
Agenda Item 3- Syllabi Collection:
Kevin Decker: Each quarter, all offered courses which are part of an endorsement program will
need to provide a syllabus.
Chris Valeo: It would be easiest if teachers could just send digital copies at the beginning of the
quarter. The syllabi can be sent to Charlie Potter at cpotter@ewu.edu, or Maxine Holden at
mholden50@ewu.edu.
Pamela Stanley-Weigand: To aid the instructors, many of the department secretaries can
monitor the course list and syllabi (the department secretaries often have a copy of the syllabi
on hand).
Agenda Item 4- West-E:
Charlie Potter: Each department will have a unique West-E, formatted to their program. If you
have any questions regarding the West-E, please contact Charlie at cpotter@ewu.edu.
Agenda Item 5- Program Revision:
Dawn Hilsendeger: There are several changes which the Education Department is currently
undergoing. These include: aligning programs with the corresponding end assessment, ensuring
that students are able to graduate on time, candidate placement and revision of the admission
process.
Over the course of their degree, students will sometimes get off track and elongate their
time in school. One of the best ways to mend this issue is to ensure that advisors are informed
and readily available to help students; furthermore, students need to ask for help when they
are unsure of what course to follow.
One of the largest changes the Education Department is undergoing is the implementation of
a deadline for admittance to the program. People will often come to the Education Department
the same quarter they would like to begin taking classes. Oftentimes students will not be
prepared. Another issue is that students will come to education because they were denied
admittance to another program, rather than coming to education because they want to teach.
The institution of a deadline would ensure that students who apply to education are interested
in pursuing the degree, as well as demonstrating that they are responsible enough to complete
paperwork and turn it in on time. This would further help to ensure that resources go to
students who are dedicated and desire to pursue education as a career. EDUC 200 and EDUC
201 will be acceptable prerequisites.
The Education Department is also working to improve the placement of candidates. There
are several candidates to place, and teachers are often concerned about mentoring a student
teacher as they fear losing control of the class. Fearing that they will miss their appointment
quarter and delay graduation, candidates might seek their own placement. This then poses an
issue not only for them, but for other students who have been waiting a placement given by the
Education Department.
Chris Valeo: It is not credible for students when they find their own placement, nor does the
state approve. One of our goals is to find how each student can be placed on time, and all state
requirements can be met.
Jackie Coomes: Finding a teacher who is skilled and willing to help is essential for student
success. It would be helpful to emphasize the co-teaching method so that more local teachers
would be willing to mentor candidates. If teachers are more readily available, students would
not need to wait as long for an appointment and would not seek an appointment on their own.
Another solution might be to have more than one student teacher in a classroom. Research
has indicated that more than one student teacher can be very effective.
Diane Dowd: If it were possible, instructors could call people they know from local schools to
inform them of the strengths of a given candidate and why they would be a good fit for the
classroom. This would not only help with the process of placing students (Sherry in the
Education Department would need to be informed of all potential placements), but it would
help students to be placed with the teachers with the closest disposition.
Agenda Item 6- Professional Expectations/Dispositions:
Jackie Coomes: We should all keep in mind what we expect of our students by the time of their
graduation. This will help throughout the instruction of the student, as well as finding the
proper placement.
Mariann Donley: When a student is completing their student teaching appointment, the
mentor teacher is provided a Disposition Form (can be viewed on the cross campus website).
The mentor teacher is able to provide feedback regarding the performance of the student
teacher. When a skill is indicated as ‘developing,’ the teacher can be contacted to enquire as to
how the candidate could improve. Often, teaching candidates do not know there is a problem
until they are in the classroom.
Diane Dowd: Many issues could perhaps be prevented if they are noticed by a student’s
instructor and addressed before the student begins their teaching practicum.
Sean Agriss: Feedback from the endorsement areas can be increased.
Agenda Item 7- Alignment:
All endorsement programs are currently undergoing changes in order to ensure that the course
materials are aligned with the final assessments. The final assessments are not yet finalized.
Agenda Item 8- Accreditation:
Chris Valeo: The Education Department is undergoing a two year self-study, in cooperation with
the endorsement areas, to ensure that all accreditation standards are met. In particular, EWU
will be focusing on Standard 4.3b.
During fall 2012, focus will be upon Standard 3: Program Resources and Governance. During
winter 2013, focus will be upon Standard 4: Program Design. During spring 2013, focus will be
upon Standard 5: Program Review and Certification. During fall 2013, focus will be upon
Standard 2: Accountability and Program Improvement. In winter 2014 the data collected will be
synthesized, and in spring 2014 a thorough self-study will be conducted.
By fall 2013, Standard 2 can be more thoroughly investigated as Charlie Potter is currently
developing a data-collection system which will be open to permitted parties.
Standard 1 is addressed by the Professional Educators Advisory Board (PEAB). Local
educators and EWU faculty/staff meet quarterly. The communication between PEAB and EWU
faculty/staff can be improved to help meet the standards.
In 2015, the state will offer accreditation based on efforts and evidence.
Agenda Item 9- Family-Friendly Curriculum Center and iPAD Education Methods:
Nadean Meyer: The curriculum center has now been made family friendly for students, faculty
and staff with children.
The library has introduced a new program which provides iPADS for students and allows
them to download education apps. There are now 130 eBooks available. Many of the books
have features such as a searchable PDF function or the ability to read-aloud. These eBooks can
be accessed at http://www.mackin.com/VIA.
If you would like to know more, contact Nadean Meyer at nmeyer@ewu.edu.
Conclusion:



For a detailed explanation of what individuals and departments can provide to aid in
data collection, a sheet has been provided by Charlie Potter. This sheet of tasks is
available on the Cross Campus Education Committee Website.
Where are we now in regards to meeting requirements? What evidence can be
provided?
Where do we want to be by the end of these two years? What evidence would be
needed?