1
Longwood University
Professional Education Unit
NCATE IR Addendum
Based on the Academic Year 2009-10
For
Continuing Accreditation Pilot Visit
Farmville, VA
Fall 2011
Electronic Document Room Homepage Link:
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37379.htm
Final Version: Oct. 6, 2011
Note: Any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report should be directed to Wayne White
(whitewk@longwood.edu), CEHS Associate Dean
2
This addendum addresses the areas (in italics below) that the Offsite BOE Team identified during its electronic
visit on November 12, 2010. In the document, Offsite BOE Report: Longwood University, these are the areas
indicated to be validated during the upcoming on-site visit to ensure that each NCATE standard continues to be
met. Although the Offsite BOE Report suggests that “evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the
onsite visit will occur as the team interviews faculty, administrators, school-based partners, and other members
of the professional community,” it also designates specific documentation that the team plans to review during
the onsite visit. Wherever possible, this addendum directs the on-site team to exact documents, sections in the
original Longwood University IR, or additional evidence that should validate that each standard continues to be
met. Moreover, this addendum seeks to make a stronger case for why the Areas for Concern related to meeting
Standards should be removed.
Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions
Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit:
1.4
(1) Many Programs have concerns about knowledge, skills and dispositions in program reviews. State biennial
reports were not provided. Data available to the offsite teams for programs that were nationally reviewed were
limited to the SPA reports.
Table A. Teacher Preparation Programs and Their Review Status
Program Name
Award
Level
Administration and
Supervision preK12
Business and
Information
Technology
Elementary
Education Pk-6
Elementary
Education Pk-6
Master’s
Number of
Candidates
Enrolled or
Admitted
Agency or
association
Review
Programs
Program
Report
Submitted for
Review
State
Approval
Status
ELCC
Yes
Approved Recognized
w/probation
No
Approved NA
Bachelor’s
National
Recognition
Status by
NCATE
Bachelor’s
ACEI
Yes
Approved Recognized
Master’s
ACEI
Yes
Approved Recognized
w/
condition
3
English
English as a
Second Language
Foreign Language
(French, German,
Spanish)
History and Social
Studies
Library Media
PreK-12
Marketing
Education
Mathematics
Mathematics
Specialist
Elementary/Middle
School Education
Middle Education
6-8
Music Education
Instrumental
Music Education
Vocal
Physical Education
Reading Specialist
Science (Biology,
Chemistry, and
Physics)
School Counselor
PreK-12
Special Education
General
Curriculum K-12
Speech and
Language
Disorders Pk-12
Theater Arts
Visual Arts
Bachelor’s
and
Master’s
Bachelor’s
and
Master’s
Bachelor’s
and
Master’s
Bachelor’s
NCTE
Master’s
Yes
Approved Recognized
w/probation
No too few
completers
Approved NA
No too few
completers
Approved NA
NCSS
Yes
Approved Recognized
ALA
Yes
Approved Recognized
No
Approved NA
Bachelor’s
Bachelor’s
Master’s
NCTM
Yes
No
Approved Recognized
Approved NA
Bachelor’s
NMSA
Yes
Approved Recognized
Bachelor’s
No
Approved NA
Bachelor’s
No
Approved NA
Yes
Yes
No too few
completers
Approved Recognized
Approved Recognized
Approved NA
No
Approved NA
Yes
Approved Recognized
Master’s
No
Approved Recognized
Bachelor’s
Bachelor’s
No
No
Approved NA
Approved NA
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Bachelor’s
NASPE
IRA
Master’s
Master’s
CEC
The 2007-2009 State Biennial Report and the 2009-2011 State Biennial Report are available on the CEHS
website at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37429.htm . The Title II reports for the unit are available at the same
location. Table B indicates the pass rates for the content licensure test for 2009 by program area.
Table B. Pass Rates on Content Licensure test for Initial Teacher Preparation 2009-10
Program
Elementary Education
Name of Licensure
VRA
# of test Takers
118
%Passing
100
4
Elementary Education
Literacy and Culture
English
Middle School
Social Studies
Music
Art
Foreign Language
Science
PHETE
UNIT
Elementary
VRA
English
Middle School
Social Studies
Music
Art
Foreign Language
Biology
Health and PE
VCLA
120
20
9
13
11
3
6
0
2
5
174
100
100
100
84
91
100
100
NA
100
100
100
The IR did not address the SPA reports for those programs that were recognized with conditions or recognized
with probation because the program areas had submitted amended reports and the unit data that is collected
from those program areas was not changed in the revised reports. One of our probationary programs was
Secondary English. In their response, program faculty revised the original submission of the Praxis II data,
adding state comparisons and subtest data. They also elaborated on the discussion of how Praxis II, though
required by the Commonwealth of Virginia for teaching licensure, does not align well with NCTE standards.
They have further developed other assessments to measure the knowledge and dispositions that Praxis II does
not assess: Assessment #4 The Clinical Experience Evaluation, Assessment # 5 The Teacher Work Sample, and
the program spanning Assessment #2, which measures the course grades of the content knowledge Praxis II
fails to examine. The English Program faculty modified their program Assessment 2: Content Knowledge:
Course Grades. They added ENGL 479 and ENGL 480 to the course grades analyzed. They elaborated on how
each course chosen measures specific NCTE standards. They also added data for the 2009-2010 academic year.
The English Program faculty modified Assessment 3: The assessments used to evaluate the Unit Plan created in
ENGL 480, which prepares student to complete the Teacher Work Sample during a field experience. These
assessments are now more clearly aligned with and reflective of NCTE standards. The Final Clinical Experience
Evaluation and the Teacher Work Sample rubric are also now more clearly aligned with and reflective of NCTE
standards. Finally, the Dispositions Assessment rubric is now more clearly aligned with and reflective of NCTE
standards.
The Educational Leadership program faculty resubmitted their program report with the following modifications:
realignment of their program assessments to more closely reflect the ELLC standard elements. The program
faculty resubmitted report for Assessment 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. Each assessment in the report addressed the
alignment among standards, assessment descriptions, and scoring rubrics. The faculty further stated how they
have utilized assessments to improve the program.
The Elementary Education program faculty resubmitted their program and made the necessary modifications to
acquire recognition. The revisions included modifying the assessment categories, tasks, and/or activities for
assessments 1, 3, 4, and 5 needed to be more clearly aligned with the ACEI standards. The following revisions
were made to the assessments in question. To strengthen assessment 1, sub-score data for the Praxis II has-been
included in order to show candidates’ strengths and weaknesses in the subareas of the test. The tasks and
corresponding rubric for assessment 3 was retooled so that candidates are evaluated on their knowledge and
skills related to specific ACEI standards. Results are presented on a disaggregated, per standard basis, and not
as an average. Furthermore, the assessment scoring was adjusted such that the candidates within the group are
scored on an individual basis so that it is no longer possible for any single candidate to “pass” the assignment
without demonstrating the requisite knowledge and skills needed to pull his/her weight in the project. The
rubrics and assessment were also modified to better address ACEI standards 2.5 through 2.7. In order for
assessment 4 to provide data that can be used as evidence for meeting ACEI standards, an alignment matrix has
been created showing specific one-to-one alignment of the ACEI standards to CF elements. In addition, a rubric
has been included to verify inter-rater reliability on the use of the instrument. Assessment 5 required revisions
5
to the rubric so that the work sample was evaluated in alignment to specific ACEI standards. The instrument
itself was retooled to reflect focus on specific ACEI standards which better reflects candidate performance on
individual ACEI standards. In addition, alignment of state test categories to individual ACEI standards was
better documented. In assessment 2, missing data has been entered in the appropriate area of the report thus
completing the overall picture. Section III, Relationship of Assessment to Standards has been revised to better
reflect alignment between the ACEI standards and program assessments specific to those standards. In addition,
all six assessments used to support the program and provide evidence of successfully meeting the ACEI
standards have been revised in relation to the areas for consideration.
The Graduate Elementary Education K-6 program faculty revised their program report by more closely aligning
their assessments with the ACEI Standards. Clearly the program faculty will have to respond by providing the
necessary data and alignment changes to acquire recognition.
The Middle School Program faculty revised their program report by implementing a new assessment. The new
assessment will require students to demonstrate understanding of the developmental characteristics of students
they are preparing to teach in their partnership placements. Prior to the Contextual Factors component of the
Teacher Work Sample, the new Developmental Characteristics assignment will consider the more universal and
de-contextualized characteristics of adolescent learners in their assigned Middle School grade levels. In a
manner similar to the remainder of the Teacher Work Sample, prompts and rubrics have been developed with
the specific content and language of NMSA Standards 1 and 2 as their frame. In addition, Standard 1 has been
included in a new addendum to the Clinical Experience Evaluation that will be administered twice throughout
the program (early clinical and final clinical). When students are identified as “Middle Grades” on the
evaluation form, a special set of 28 questions will appear on the evaluation form, with four questions drawn
from each of the seven NMSA Standards. Each of the 28 criteria is evaluated on a three point Likert scale
similar to the remainder of the Clinical evaluation. The faculty developed a clearer demonstration of the
alignment between the Teacher Work Sample and the NMSA Standards.
The Special Education Program faculty revised their program by implementing a new assessment for content
knowledge. To more clearly address content knowledge the program now requires both the Elementary Praxis
II test and the Special Education Praxis II (Ed 0351). The faculty revised the rubric for assessment of their
Lesson Plan Project for assessment 3. The program faculty revised Assessment 4 to align more clearly with the
elements of the CEC standards. Specifically, the Final Clinical Experience Evaluation Special Education
Section used in EDUC 406, SPED 692 and SPED 693 was revised from 24 indicators to 74 indicators. These
indicators are grouped by each of the 10 CEC Standards and contain specific language from the standards.
Special Education Program faculty revised an existing Language Sample Project for SPED 375 and SPED 520,
the undergraduate and graduate level Language Development and Disorders courses. A rubric was also
developed to assess the project.
The Literacy and Culture (Reading specialist) faculty modified their original report by adding to the pool of
candidates that had taken the VRA. The faculty added the 2009-2010 pool of candidates to the total taking the
VRA and increased their number of candidates passing to over 80%. The faculty also realigned a coaching
assessment to more closely meet the CEC standards.
The Physical Education Program faculty modified their original report by revising Assessment 4 include data
and rubrics for the three specific areas. The program faculty determined that the TWS would continue to be one
of their assessments. However, the program modified the rubric and scoring system to bring the TWS more in
line with NASPE Standards. The program also modified their assessment 7 to more closely align with NASPE
standards.
6
All the programs have been recognized with the exception of the Bachelor’s and Master’s English (NCTE), the
Master’s Administration and Supervision preK-12 (ELCC), and the Master’s Elementary Education PK-6
(ACEI). The Bachelor’s and Master’s programs for English and the Masters program for Administration &
Supervision have now submitted their revised reports to the SPA’s. The Master’s Elementary Education is
submitting a revised report in the spring, 2012. The Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages is a
new program and only had one candidate at the time of reporting. The program data for those programs as well
as the advanced teacher programs and other school professionals can be found on AIMS or the CEHS website at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37379.htm The 2009-10 annual report for the unit can be found at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38410.
(2) Professional education syllabi for elementary and secondary ITP were not included.
The LU technology links in the IR failed for the course syllabi in the core education courses for elementary and
secondary ITP. We apologize and have now made them available in the Blackboard exhibit or on the CEHS
website at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37416.htm.
(3) Advanced program data for non-SPA programs are not presented or discussed.
Rationale. Several programs that will be reviewed by the NCATE onsite team are mentioned only briefly. It’s
unclear what assessments are being used for those programs.
The data utilized for assessments by advanced programs are available in their program reports which are located
in the “Can Teach” electronic shareware. The matrix which illustrates the data collection and management for
advanced program is available at: http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38049.htm and is described by the Table C.
Table C. LU Professional Education Unit Wide Continuous Assessment Matrix – Advanced Preparation
LU Professional Education Unit Wide Continuous Assessment Matrix – Advanced Preparation
Stage 1
Stage 3
Sta
Stage 2 Course
Stage 4:
Admission
Clinical
Experiences
Data
Exit
and
Fo
Based
Culminating
Data
Assessment
Assessment
Data
Data
Conceptual
REQS
Requisite
Early Clinical
Final Clinical
Capstone
Exit
A
Framework
Performances
Experiences
Experiences &
Assessment
Survey
Standards/Values
Evaluations
Su
Content
Various Data
Aligned to
x
x
x
Knowledge
Required by
Virginia
Graduate
Standards and
Designs/Plan
x
x
x
Learned
Learning Climate Studies and
x
x
x
the
Program
Society
Implements/Man
x
x
x
Standards
ages
Assessment/Eval
x
x
x
7
uation
Communication
Technology
Diversity
Professional
Dispositions
Leadership
Impacts Pk-12
Student Learning
Field
Experiences &
Clinical Practice
Data maintained
by:
Data Housed In:
Data Reporting
Cycle
Data Reviewed
by:
Transition
Points:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Graduate
College
Graduate
College
Semester
Program
Program
Admission
Faculty
Program
Program
Program
Program
Can Teach
Can Teach
Can Teach
Can Teach
Annual
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Can
Teach
Yearly
Program
Department
Chair
Program Exit
Faculty/Progra
Program
m/PEC
Admission to Culminating
Assessment
May be a part of
ITP
Program
Our current advanced preparation programs for teachers include master’s (Master of Science degree in curriculum and
instruction – MS C&I). The degrees offered include: a C&I Specialist in Elementary and Middle School Mathematics,
C&I Specialists in Algebra &Middle School Mathematics (new), a C&I Specialist in Music, a C&I Specialist in Spanish,
a C&I Specialists in Special Education General Curriculum, Educational Leadership, Elementary Education PreK-6
Initial Licensure, Health and Physical Education, Literacy and Culture (Reading Specialist), School Counseling, School
Library Media, Spanish or ESL PreK-12 Initial Licensure, and a planned 5th year for Special Education General
Curriculum-Liberal Studies. The focus of our assessments over the last few years at the master’s level programs has been
on program content knowledge. For each of these programs teachers complete a series of courses in which they develop
professional individualized content for their SPA, Conceptual Framework or for the Virginia Teacher Standards.
Candidates do not receive a passing grade in their coursework until they have demonstrated proficiency on all the
standards, including Standard 1 – Content Knowledge. As will be described shortly, some program types have developed
critical performances (CP) to measure particular Teacher Standards in courses within the master’s course sequence.
However, we are in the midst of planning for a 5th year masters in education for our elementary and middle school
programs (our largest program area). If this planning comes to fruition many of the critical criteria will become more
uniform across all the advanced degree programs. At the time of implementation we will develop more than a loose
strand of critical criteria over the entire program, so that the future assessment process will be fully integrated rather than
added as is the case with our current advanced teacher preparation programs.
Even in the present programs, candidates in the C&I in Specialist and Middle School Mathematics critical performances
related to Content Knowledge in courses, MATH 651, 653, 655, 657, 659 (See Mathematics K-8 Specialist at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37513.htm ). The pass rate for MATH 651, 653, 657, and 659 was 100% for those
students completing the program in 2009-2010. The program is currently between cohorts and the C&I Algebra &
Middle School Mathematics Specialists is a new program. During the 2006-07 year the education program faculty
developed a critical performance measuring Content Knowledge, as well as other Conceptual Framework and Virginia
Standards for the their respective programs. The 2009-2010 pass rate on the critical performances was 98%, which was
similar to the 2008-09student pass rate of 97%.
P
C
T
Y
P
8
Also in the present advanced preparation programs, candidates in the C&I programs in Mathematics, Special Education
General Curriculum, Elementary Education, Spanish, Literacy and Culture, School Counseling, School Library Media,
and ESL must pass a written comprehensive exam related to Content Knowledge or a cumulative event (orals) in order to
complete their respective programs. Table D reports three-year numbers and pass rates. Typically, candidates who are
initially unsuccessful are given the opportunity to schedule study sessions with faculty and then retake the exam. A policy
is in effect that gives candidates a timeline for completion of the process.
Although this pass rate is high, the program faculty has recognized that the comprehensive exam has been an inadequate
tool in demonstrating graduate proficiency across all Conceptual Framework, SPA and state standards. Thus, the new
master’s (or planned fifth year) program, mentioned earlier, will incorporate more specific measures of the Virginia
Teacher Standards, as well as a culminating action research project in the field.
Candidates in the master’s level K-8 Specialist complete 4 CPs throughout their program that are aligned to Content
Knowledge. The average pass rate for the 2009-2010 and 2008-09 academic years across these CPs was 100%.
Candidates in the C&I programs that lead to initial licensure are included in the overall assessment of the ITP programs.
Candidates in the C&I Specialist for Foreign Language have all been Initial licensure over the last three years. In fact
there have only been 2 graduates and a total of six candidates from the 2007 -2008 academic year forward. The two
candidates that are completers in ESL took the ACFL Oral Proficiency Interview and scored superior to advanced middle.
We have so few candidates in the program that we fear compromising individual data. This data is available in “Can
Teach” and may be viewed by the team during the on-site visit. For the 2009-2010 academic year we had no completers
in the foreign language program either advanced or ITP. All of the current active candidates are in initial licensure
programs. One of the outcomes of looking at the data for programs has been that the Modern Language Department has
decided to put the French Graduate and the German Graduate programs in storage.
Candidates in the master’s level library media program complete a collaborative project. Virginia does not require
completion of Praxis II. When the program assessments were originally selected for the current review,
therefore, the program faculty selected a comprehensive examination to serve as assessment #1. Data, collected
for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, show that 10 students took the comprehensive exam in fall 2006; 38 students in
spring 2007; 19 students in fall 2007; and 18 students in spring 2008. Questions on the comprehensive exam
address all 13 elements of the AASL standards, and the pass rate was 100%.
In fall 2007, however, the Virginia Department of Education began to align its review of educator preparation
programs with national accreditation. This necessitated a revamping of assessment #1 to include students
enrolled in the Graduate Licensure track. (The comprehensive exam was no longer acceptable as an NCATE
assessment since only those students enrolled in the master’s tracks are required to take comprehensive
examinations.)
Therefore, in spring 2008, program faculty determined to use a composite assessment to demonstrate candidate
attainment of content knowledge. This composite assessment has three components:
-Assessment #1-A the collaborative lesson, required in EDSL660, Collaborative Instructional Processes. With
attention to content area standards and to AASL Standards for 21st Century Learners, candidates create a lesson
which involves co-planning, co-teaching, and co-evaluating. With this assessment, candidates are required to
plan for collaborative instruction.
-Assessment #1-B the facilities design project, required in EDSL670, Administration of School Library Media
Centers, requires candidates to visit, evaluate, and suggest design improvements for an existing school library.
-Assessment #1-C the technical services manual, required in EDSL580, Technical Processing of Materials,
requires candidates to develop policies and procedures regarding the organization of resources.
Through the components in this composite assessment, 10 elements of the AASL standards are addressed.
Component #1-A, collaborative lesson, addresses 1.1 as candidates model a variety of effective strategies to
locate, evaluate, and use information in a variety of formats for diverse purposes; 1.3 as candidates plan
strategically to ensure intellectual access to information; 1.4 as candidates demonstrate ways to establish and
maintain a positive educational climate in the library and demonstrate collaborative techniques; 2.1 as
9
candidates design library instruction that assesses learner needs, instructional methodologies, and information
processes; support the learning of all students including those with diverse learning styles, abilities, and needs;
and ensure that the library curriculum is documented as significant to the overall academic success of all
students; 2.2 as candidates work with classroom teachers to co-plan, co-teach, and co-evaluate information
skills instruction and document and communicate the impact of collaborative instruction on student
achievement; 2.3 as candidates incorporate technology to promote the use of both print and non-print resources
and work to ensure that responsibility for an integrated information literacy curriculum is shared across the
curriculum; 3.2 as candidates share expertise in the design of instruction and assessment with colleagues; and
3.3 as candidates develop a library program that reflects best practices.
Component #1-B, facilities design project, addresses 1.4 as candidates demonstrate ways to establish and
maintain an attractive positive educational climate; identify relationships among facilities, programs, and
environment; and plan and organize the library according to its use by the learning community; 4.1 as
candidates organize the library facility and plan for efficient use of resources and technology to meet diverse
learner needs; and 4.2 as candidates plan adequate space for individuals, small groups, and whole classes.
Component #1-C, Technical Services Manual, addresses 2.1 as candidates codify policies and procedures that
facilitate access to information to support the learning of all students and other members of the learning
community; 4.1 as candidates organize the library collection of print, non-print, and electronic formats
according to standard accepted practice and plan for efficient use of resources to meet diverse user needs; and
4.2 as candidates organize the physical resources of the library media program.
During the 2006-2007 academic year, 41 candidates enrolled in EDSL660, Collaborative Instructional
Processes, completed the collaborative lesson plan assignment. All candidates earned an overall acceptable or
target score on the assignment. As scores are analyzed by rubric item, three of 41 candidates scored at the
unacceptable level for resources identified for use in the lesson, and two of 41 candidates scored at the
unacceptable level for assessment of lesson success. On all other rubric items, all candidates scored at the
acceptable or target levels.
During the 2007-2008 academic year, 53 candidates enrolled in EDSL660, Collaborative Instructional
Processes, completed the collaborative lesson assignment. All candidates earned an overall acceptable or target
score on the assignment, and all candidates scored at the acceptable or target levels on all rubric items. There
were no unacceptable scores.
During the 2008-2009 academic year, 45 candidates enrolled in EDSL660, Collaborative Instructional
Processes, completed the collaborative lesson assignment. All candidates earned an overall acceptable or target
score on the assignment, and all candidates scored at the acceptable or target levels on all rubric items. There
were no unacceptable scores.
In fall 2009, 42 candidates enrolled in EDSL660, Collaborative Instructional Processes, completed the
collaborative lesson assignment. All candidates earned an acceptable or target score on the assignment, and all
candidates scored at the acceptable or target levels on all rubric items. There were no unacceptable scores.
In the School Counseling program in COUN 601 and COUN 613 candidates have to perform on CPs meet the Virginia
Standards 1 and 3. For the 18 candidates that took COUN 601 and the 6 candidates that took COUN 613 in the 200092010 year we had a 100% pass rate. For candidates that were involved in the same course work over the last 3 years we
have a 100% rate of acceptable or exemplary of the CPs. An abridged version of this data is available on the website at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37513.htm . An unabridged version of the data is in the web-share, “Can Teach”
10
In the Elementary Education C&I program candidates are required to complete a comprehensive exam in order to certify
the demonstration of certain critical elements in content. In 2007-08, 5 candidates took and passed the exam. In 2008-09,
6 candidates took and passed the exam. During the 2009-2010, 4 candidates took the exam and 3 passed. The program
will submit an amended program report in response to conditions concerning its program standard alignment with the
ACEI standards. Data for this program is available in AIMS. Additional information is available on the web at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37513.htm .
Literacy and Culture faculty established a comprehensive exam to assess content in 2006-2007to measure content on the
Virginia State Standards. The alignment of this assessment and all the other Literacy and Culture program assessments
can be viewed on the website at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37513.htm. The program included the VRA assessment
for its candidates and has constantly improved on candidate results from the original implementation of the test in 2006 to
present. The 2009-11 pass rate for VRA was 80%.
Special Education General Curriculum established the Praxis II Knowledge Based Core Principles tests and the VRA and
Praxis II Elementary and Secondary Praxis II test as their program area measure of content in complying with SPA and
State standards. On the whole the special education faculty members, are pleased with the results of the
assessments that were conducted for Spring 2009 and Fall 2008. Based on earlier data from 2006 and 2007, they
had observed an 81% pass rate on the VRA in one of the Special Education pathways. After curriculum
changes following an extensive evaluation of the three special education pathways, the program currently has a
100% (n= 18) VRA pass rate for candidates in the special education program. Similarly, the pass rate for
candidates taking Praxis II Elementary Education Content Knowledge or Praxis II Secondary Education
Content Knowledge is 100% (n=25) for 2010 through Fall 2008. Additional program information is available at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37513.htm
(4) Dispositions data for all programs were not presented.
Disposition data is collected continuously from all programs leading to licensure or endorsement at specific
points in the programs as indicated by the matrix. As the data is collected by the unit, it is analyzed, utilized for
unit assessment, and circulated to the various programs utilizing the shareware “Can Teach.” The disposition
data for 2009-2010 is available in the annual report on the CEHS website
at:http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38396.htm . Conceptual Framework: Standard IX Professional Disposition:
LU Educational Professional demonstrate dispositions associated with the profession by their valuing of
learning, personal integrity, diversity, collaboration, and professionalism. The candidates are rated on a rubric
found on the CEHS website at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38256.htm . The standard is divided into critical
assessments: 9a. Value learning: Attendance; 9b. Values learning: Class participation; 9c. Values Learning
Class preparation; 9d. Values learning, Communication; 9e. Values personal integrity: Emotional control; 9f.
Values personal integrity: Ethical behavior; 9g. Values Diversity; 9h. Values collaboration; 9i. Values
Professionalism; Respect for school rules, policies, and norms; 9j. Values professionalism: Commitment to selfreflection and growth; 9k. Values professionalism Professional development and involvement; 9l. values
professionalism: Professional responsibility. The data below is and indication of the score on a Likert Scale
from (1-5). 5 is the target for the candidate. Overall the assessment indicated a 99% acceptable disposition
displayed by the candidates in the unit. No single assessment performance has created more discussion by the
LU faculty than the conversations in the PEC regarding dispositions. While the unit collects and distributes the
data to the program areas, the program areas take the responsibility to administer to the candidates on an
individual basis. Disposition data for the last three years is available by program area, for the unit and each
individual in the web-share, “Can Teach.”
Table D Disposition Assessments
Disposition Assessment 2009-2010 Conceptual Framework Standard 9: Professional Dispositions
Progra CFA9 CFA9 CFA9 CFA9 CFA9 CFA9 CFA9 CFA9 CFA9 CFA9
m Area A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
CFA9
K
CFA9
L
11
Unit
NCI
ART
ElemK
6
ENGL
HIST
MIDD
MUSIC
PHETE
SCI
SPED
Practi
4.69
5.00
5.00
4.79
4.79
4.50
5.00
4.85
4.76
5.00
5.00
4.78
4.72
5.00
4.00
4.78
4.70
4.00
4.00
4.69
4.75
5.00
5.00
4.78
4.79
4.50
5.00
4.79
4.77
5.00
5.00
4.82
4.76
4.50
5.00
4.79
4.76
5.00
4.00
4.81
4.68
5.00
4.00
4.75
4.71
5.00
4.00
4.78
3.83
4.60
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.60
3.93
4.33
4.00
5.00
4.50
5.00
2.50
4.90
3.57
4.33
4.40
5.00
4.50
5.00
2.00
5.00
3.43
4.17
4.40
5.00
4.50
4.33
3.50
4.80
3.29
4.33
4.40
5.00
4.50
5.00
4.00
4.90
4.29
4.17
4.80
5.00
4.50
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.36
4.50
4.80
5.00
4.50
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.07
4.50
5.00
5.00
4.50
5.00
3.00
4.80
3.57
4.50
4.60
5.00
4.50
5.00
4.00
4.70
4.29
4.17
4.80
5.00
4.50
5.00
2.00
4.80
3.57
4.17
3.60
5.00
4.50
5.00
3.50
4.80
3.71
4.00
4.80
5.00
4.50
5.00
2.00
4.70
3.71
The Disposition data are available for the unit and specific program areas in the 2009-2010 Annual
Report available at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37379.htm.
The 2009 Biennial Report is available in Blackboard at Standard 1 under State Program Review
Documents. See “Program Compliance Certification for Standard 1- Assessment Passing Rates”. The
2011 report was not complete at the filing of the IR, however, it and the 2009 report are available in
“Can Teach” shareware and the CEHS website at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37379.htm
1.5
Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit:
(1) Data for programs outside the SPA process, including School Counseling and CI Master’s programs.
The data for all the programs resides with their program reports in the shareware “Can Teach”.
However, redacted data in an abridged version resides at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37513.htm.
Program reports for all programs in the unit are available in the program WEAVE On-Line.
In the present advanced preparation programs, candidates in the C&I programs, School Counseling and
Educational Leadership must pass a cumulative event or comprehensive exam. Table 1.5 report threeyear numbers and pass rates. The Physical Education Masters program will not be populated until the
Fall of 2012. The Middle School and Algebra Mathematics Specialist was starting to populate the Fall
2011.
Table E C&I and OSP Student Comprehensive Exam or Cumulative Event Pass Rates
Program
Educational
Leadership
School
Counseling
ESL
Literacy
Graduate
Elementary
School Library
Media
Mathematics
Elementary and
Middle School
N
23
2009-10
Pass Rate
86%
N
5
2008-09
Pass Rate
80%
2007-08
N
17
Pass Rate
94%
5
100%
4
100%
5
100%
1
10
100%
100%
1
26
100%
100%
0
6
0
97%
6
100%
5
100%
4
100%
27
100%
60
100%
55
100%
8
100%
4
!00%
5
100%
12
Specialists
Foreign
Language C&I
Specialist
Health and
Physical
Education
Specialist
Algebra and
Middle School
Mathematics
Special
Education
General
Curriculum
Elementary
Education
PreK-6
1
100%
1
100%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
100%
18
100%
16
100%
4
75%
6
100%
5
100%
In the Fall 2007, LU developed a new electronic teacher survey aligned with the Virginia Teacher
Standards that is given to student teachers as they are exiting our programs and to graduates of our
programs (alumni) who have potentially been teaching for one or more years. Survey items request the
respondent’s perception of the LU preparation on the standards using a scale of 1 “poor” 2 “Fair” 3
“Good” 4 “Excellent.” Standards with an average scores of 3 or better across items were considered to
demonstrate acceptable program quality Table 1.6 provides three-year results for standard 1 Content
Knowledge. Response rates for each group are in parentheses. NR indicates no response
Table F. LU Teacher Survey Averages on Content Knowledge Items
2010-09
Art
Biology
Elementary I
&G
English
History
Middle School
Music
Mathematics
Special
Education
Theatre
Business
education
PHETE
ESL
Library Media
2009-08
Student
Alumni
Teachers
(13%)
(83%)
3.44
3.69
3.75
3.69
3.72
3.61
2008-07
Student
Alumni
Teacher
(8%)
(76%)
3.8
3.13
4.0
3.13
3.8
3.7
Student
Teachers
(88%)
3.67
3.5
3.76
Alumni
(11%)
3.67
3.13
3.43
3.65
3.83
3.71
3.0
3.25
3.51
3.5
3.5
3.2
3.17
3.33
3.71
4.00
3.00
3.83
3.69
3.69
3.60
NR
NR
3.61
3.4
3.67
3.73
4.0
3.5
3.2
3.13
3.13
3.6
3.6
3.13
3.3
NR
NR
NR
2.5
3.67
3.0
NR
NR
3.59
3.59
NR
NR
3.67
4.0
3.75
4.0
NR
3.3
4.0
NR
NR
3.69
NR
NR
4.0
NR
NR
3.13
NR
NR
3.59
3.0
3.60
13
Remarks from the open comments portion of the survey included” I didn’t answer any of the items, but I wanted
to say that Longwood did a 4 job preparing me for using technology effectively in the classroom through the
Media and Technology class with *****! Thank you! To “I feel that technology wise when I enter a school for
the first time, I’m dark ages behind. We need more classes dealing with actual teaching websites like Quai, we
need classes that show us websites, books, and other resources that we can use when we are actually teaching.”
Note that the 2007 responses were for secondary, elementary, middle school and special education placements.
Adjustments were made in the later survey to allow for collection of data per program. Although at the unitwide level these results are acceptable, various programs have addressed lower sores on this and other measures
of candidate proficiency in their program area minutes.
(2) Data for 2010-2011 academic years for all programs.
Data for all prior years, beginning with the academic year 2005-2006, resides in “Can Teach” shareware.
Data for the current school year is being collected in an Oracle Database and managed by Banner. The
data and the Banner collection and management system will be available on site for the BOE team to
validate.
The syllabi for the professional education courses for the ITP programs is available on the CEHS
website at: http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37416.htm .
The Secondary Mathematics program syllabi are available on the website at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37581.htm .
(3) Disaggregate information for candidates in the off campus sites of New College Institute (NCI) and
Emporia.
The disaggregated data for NCI are available on the Blackboard exhibit for Standard 1 exhibits under the
heading Key Assessments. See the tab marked “Unit Comparison on Gate Data April 2011. The data
compared in that file is the unit data vs. the data captured for NCI. Emporia has just begun to enroll
candidates during the Fall 2011. Therefore, there is no comparison data from the Emporia site. The data
regarding the NCI site are also available on the 2009-2010 Unit Report at:
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38410.htm .
(4) Processes and procedures for analyzing data and determining the adequacy of assessments.
The gate post for continuous collecting and analyzing data are outline in the Unit Assessment Matrix.
The processes for these are outlined in the Logic of LU Assessment System, in the Conceptual
Framework, and are more appropriately stated in our Continuous Assessment Plan. All of these
documents are available in Blackboard and at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38049.htm .
Standard 2, exhibits 1, 2, 3, are, also, available on the CEHS website at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37379.htm . Regardless of the source of the data-- whether survey,
grades, instructor value, candidate input, etc.-- the Office of the Associate Dean is collecting, analyzing,
and sharing the data with the programs and the unit. The unit annual report for 2010 is available at:
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38410.htm .
The only on-line program that leads to licensure is a program operated in partnership with several other
state universities in Speech and Language Disorders. The comparisons of these programs is thoroughly
reviewed and analyzed in their accreditation reports.
We do not have total on-line programs or courses in the teacher preparation unit. However, there are
some programs which routinely offer hybrid courses or a combination of on-campus or off campus
14
courses. The data for these programs are available in their program reports that are housed in the “Can
Teach” shareware.
Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
2.4 Areas of Concern related to continuing to meet the standard.
(1) The unit does not disaggregate candidate performance data for its on-campus, alternate route,
partnership and distance learning programs.
Rationale: Data for candidate performance is aggregated by program. It is not disaggregated by program
type and location.
Prior to Fall 2011, the unit only had one program location for ITP that was not on campus. The NCI and the
Emporia sites have been established to work with the Liberal Studies candidates striving for an elementary
education endorsement. Until the Fall 2011, the Emporia location had no candidates. The NCI site does
have candidates and the comparative data for that site vs. the main campus can be found in the Blackboard
Exhibit Room for Standard 1 under Key Assessments. See the title “Unit Comparison on Gate Data April
2011”. The data can also be found on the CEHS website at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38410.htm .
The unit does not have alternate route programs leading to teacher licensure or endorsement. Partnership
courses are only offered at the school site for programs that have established Partnerships. Principally, the
Partnership exists only for the Liberal Studies-Elementary, Middle and Special Education programs. In
essence, these programs teach a cluster of courses at specific public school campus and use embedded field
experiences in the applications called “Partnerships”. This program specific identification mechanism was
used at LU for many years before the Virginia Department of Education identified partnerships as the term
for the relationship between school divisions and teacher preparation programs in Virginia.
Although we have attempted through Banner to tag candidates at off campus sites and in distance learning,
disaggregation based on these criteria has not been very successful. Reasons for our lack of success are 1)
few if any candidates complete programs solely at off campus sites, 2) some programs include web-based
and web-enhanced courses that student may choose/not choose, and 3) many courses are hybrid, with
faculty members rotating their teaching among various sites or otherwise meeting with students at distant
locations a few times per semester. Alternate route programs and candidates do not exist. However, as we
complete our new Masters Education (fifth year) program, we will begin to develop two types of programs,
(initial and advanced preparation) will be clearly separated with different coursework. Currently we have
much overlap with initial and advanced programs and much of the same rubrics for assessment. The data
for advanced programs that operate a combination of on campus, off campus, and distance learning may be
found at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38044.htm .
(2) Mechanisms for eliminating bias in assessment are not described specifically in the manuals, IR and
exhibits.
Rationale: There were few examples of program improvements given, it is unclear how data are being
reviewed regularly and used specifically for program improvement.
The LU Professional Education Unit is committed to an assessment process that is accurate, fair, and
consistent. To ensure accuracy and fairness of assessments, performances are developed by all faculty
members who frequently teach a particular course. Faculty also works together to develop descriptive
scoring rubrics as a way to determine which of their SPA Standards or Virginia Standards the assessment
15
measures. Use of descriptive rubrics represents best practice principles for consistent scoring of
performance assessments. Behaviors or skills for each performance level are fully described so that
assessors are less like to use extraneous behaviors or “ impressions“ to score candidate performance. The
use of multiple assessments and evaluation tools ensures that candidates are provided with every
opportunity to demonstrate proficiency. An example of LU’s commitment to “accuracy, fairness, and
consistency” has been the resources it has invested to ensure that these qualities exist in its development and
scoring of the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) which is the culminating performance for initial preparation
programs. Historically, research has determined that educators view the TWS as a valid measure of key
skills that prospective teachers need to be successful and that, with training, even raters from different
institutions can independently reach agreement on the level of candidate proficiency. LU continued its
investment in TWS research with its membership and involvement in the Renaissance Group. A further
explanation of the unit’s commitment to accuracy, fairness and consistency may be found in the Continuous
Assessment Plan at: http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38049.htm .
As described in the LU Policy on university assessment activities, highly effective education entities
develop and maintain an assessment system that provides credible performance data on the progress and
achievement of each candidate that is available for feedback and reporting to the candidate, faculty, and
program. Such a continuous system allows the unit to monitor and report overall candidate progress toward
established standards. Unit data include performance, dispositions, teacher work sample, student-teaching
evaluation, fieldwork and survey results which are reported annually to the unit and programs via a
continuous assessment report developed by CEHS Office of Professional Services and the Office of the
Associate Dean. These reports include the following information: Admission GPA, Course Based
Assessment Data, Clinical Experience Data, Culminating Assessment Data, Exit and Follow-up Data.
Data have been used to implement or plan for the following changes:

Multiple changes in programs and the unit have impacted the assessment systems and mechanisms.

In 2004, based on a review of the data and assessments available, all program coordinators
developed assessments and scoring tools required by their SPA; and the assessment committee for
the unit developed and piloted a scoring tool for collecting data on candidate dispositions.

The unit began a process of collecting information on diversity of field placements in the initial
licensure and in the endorsement programs.

The unit revised the ratio of candidates to student teacher supervisors, and adjusted the load for
coordinators to allow for a 3 credit hour reassignment during the fall or spring semester. (For
example, at the undergraduate level, a standard teaching load is based on 24 credit hours, or the
equivalent, per academic year. This applies to both on-campus and off campus offerings. For
faculty teaching a combination of graduate and undergraduate courses, the standard teaching load is
based on 21 credit hours. Faculty members who teach only graduate courses, the standard teaching
load is 18 credit hours or the equivalent per academic year).

In 2005-2006 the unit revisited the LU Conceptual Framework. The original standards were revised
to accommodate more concise standards that embraced the concept of educational professionals.
The unit also developed and defined a number of key indicators with rubrics for each standard.
From this work, there were a few important advances. The Diversity standard was embedded
throughout the other standards to prevent it from being perceived as an add-on standard. The
16
collection of data on Dispositions were divided into a two- tier assessment with one as an assessment
at entry and another group of indicators that would be observed in the classroom setting.

In 2006-2007 because of Longwood work in the Renaissance Group and a belief in fairness,
accuracy, and consistency the PEC voted that all candidates for initial licensure would complete a
teacher work sample during student teaching. A data source matrix was developed and continually
refined to reflect where across most programs each of the standards and their associated rubrics
would be used for assessment purposes. An electronic location where all the unit and program level
assessment data can be housed was developed. An Access database with supporting files and data
that was located on a web-share for all education faculty and administrators and for program
coordinators to store program level assessment data with supporting files.

In 2007-2008 the unit and programs began collection data from early field experiences prior to
admission to student teaching. During this experience, candidates were observed using an evaluation
form that is consistent with the revised Conceptual Framework Standards and assessed on
Dispositions. Candidates also collected information regarding the diversity of their students using
the Diversity Report Form. Assessment plans were submitted and approved by the institutional
research office for all program areas. VITAL, the Virginia Department of Education pipeline for
ITP came on-line and data were created and loaded into the Weave Online system that was
purchased by the university to enable each department and program within the university in order to
display its goals and achievements for review.

The CEHS implemented the Call Me MISTER program to specifically target an increase in the
number of minority, male candidates entering the unit and the elementary education profession.

The Cook-Cole College of Arts and Sciences initiated offering a Liberal Studies undergraduate
program at the New College Institute in Martinsville Virginia.

In 2008-2009 the mathematics department added K-8 Mathematics Specialist at the graduate
program level. This program was developed as a result of the continued interest of our partnering
school divisions, particularly those in Region 8. Other interests obtained from follow-up of
employers is the desire for a Master’s level Science and Mathematics programs which would enable
graduates to teach dual enrollment classes. This particular need has been submitted as part of the
university six-year plan. ESL undergraduate and graduate programs were added and approved by
the state for teacher preparation and licensure. These programs were added in response to stated
needs from our school division partners.

The Educational Leadership revised its clinical practice to meet the state standards and to allow for
adequate assessment of the candidate skills and dispositions. The Educational Leadership program
also made curricula changes to utilizing case studies as more appropriate prepare for State Licensure
tests. The program assessments were changed to more readily consider student learning outcomes.

The foreign language program coordinator has instituted recruitment of candidates into the foreign
language program to bolster an almost non-existent program.

School Library Media offered an additional assessment to bolster the use and collection of data for
their candidates.
17

In 2009-10 the PEC voted to amend the Conceptual Framework to more clearly reflect the
professional preparation of candidates to meet the future needs of PrK-12 students in the
Commonwealth. The initial preparation and advanced preparation programs submitted these
amendments to the Virginia Department of Education for approval and subsequently received state
approval of all programs.

The review of faculty credentials indicated that, for the first time, all full-time faculty members at
CEHS who instruct initial licensure candidates have a terminal degree.

Additional reviews led to the PEC voting to require all faculty both full time and adjunct that
supervise clinical experiences to possess a license in the field supervised.

In response to a needs assessment survey of graduates and employers, the unit has started the process
to implement an M. Ed. for elementary and middle education programs for initial licensure.

The unit began the development of an in-house data management system utilizing Banner with an
Oracle database. The projected completion of this project is August 2012.

In 2010-2011 as a result of feedback from our partner schools and employers, the PEC program
members voted to require that specific area required licensure tests be taken prior to the final clinical
practice.

As reflected by the Liberal Studies committee, Praxis II results in Middle School Science indicated a
need to integrate changes in the science coursework requirements in the middle school program.

Data management has been a recurring challenge, particularly where the individual candidate is
concerned. Data is collected by the unit before one becomes a candidate, during candidacy, and
after the candidate becomes a graduate. During that period, the candidate has to go to considerable
links to access the data that the unit collects. Primarily, the unit collects data at the entry to initial
and advanced programs, during the program and after exit. This data is currently being held in a
web-share system that allows for data to be circulated to the various programs, to the administrators,
and to the Office of Professional Services (OPS). The process by which a student can access the
data is to ask OPS or an academic advisor. As a way to improve this process, the unit has developed
a management system that allows for access of candidate data by the candidate, the involved faculty,
the program area coordinator, and the various deans. Training on this system has begun and will
continue throughout the 2011-2012 year. This newly revised system should allow the unit to
decrease the need to circulate individual student or program reports and give program faculty instant
access to program data.
3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
(1) It is not clear how unit and school-based faculty are jointly using data in making decisions and
improving the field experience and clinical practice to ensure that candidates apply and reflect on their
content, professional and pedagogical skills in all programs.
Rationale: “It is unclear how the current structures for cooperation among partners (program faculty
and P-12 teachers) (The Professional Service Advisory Council) are using data in order to improve field
experiences. Similar cooperative structures are not present for all advanced programs.
18
The initial preparation education program is standards-based and all field experiences and evaluations of these
experiences are designed to align with the standards. Data are maintained to show the level of competency on
each Conceptual Framework Standard. For instance, planning is practiced and evaluated in classes for Liberal
Studies-Elementary candidates. Candidates write lesson plans and collaborate with their classroom teachers and
university faculty members to evaluate the appropriateness of the plans. The candidates are, also, required to
teach a minimum of 150 clock hours during their clinical experiences. They demonstrate skills with a variety of
teaching strategies and, in particular, are encouraged to practice the strategies the classroom teachers are using in
their schools. Candidates teach and write reflections on those lessons. In the middle and secondary education
classes, all students write and receive feedback on lesson plans and the critical performances assigned to each
class. Candidates are required to reflect on the teaching they participate in or observe. Classroom mentor
teachers provide feedback to the students and faculty. Field experiences are early and frequent. Field
assessments and critical performances are progressive and deliberate; they may serve to enhance other program
field experiences in the future. During the 15 weeks of the student teaching experience, the candidates complete a
minimum of 150 clock hours where they are completely responsible for the classroom. As part of the
requirements for student teaching, each of the Standards is assessed using the Student Teaching Evaluation, and
the candidates must receive a passing grade of C or higher to be recommended for teacher licensure.
Collaboration, professional growth, and leadership are addressed through the completion of specific tasks that
involve the cooperating teachers, university supervisors, and the student teacher.
At the advanced preparation level, the programs have embedded field experiences within course work or in
special internship-type courses. Many of these provide data for programs through observations or critical
performances within the experiences. For example, in Literacy and Culture, candidates attempt new teaching
strategies and newly developed lesson plans in their own classrooms and then report their successes and lessons
learned. Similarly, in the methods courses of these programs, candidates complete projects and develop units that
they carry out in their own classroom. Math candidates develop field based evidence of their ability to meet and
work with teachers to meet Virginia Standards.
.
Similarly, in the Educational Administration and Leadership programs, as a matter of past practice, field- based
experiences have always been a required element of education course work. In practice, these were loosely
coupled and self-identified experiences such as shadowing, observing, attending meetings, etc. However,
beginning with the redesign undertaken in 2009, field experience minimums were set at 350 clock hours. In the
ongoing refinement of the program, the expected activities and outcomes are becoming more defined. Each has
specific outcomes such as the completion of a school culture survey and report, development of a community
profile, assessment of community and school resources and an inventory of current best practices at the school
site.
In the School Library Media education program, all field experiences have an assessment component that is
connected to state and professional standards. The program requires completion of Professional Growth Plan
with self-reflective criticism about the strengths and growth areas of the candidate. The practicum requires
completion of a final professional portfolio with a Professional Growth Plan, and an assessment by the
supervising professional with whom the practicum is completed.
Likewise, in the advanced courses of literacy, all courses that involve field experiences and clinical practice have
identified state and International Reading Association Standards-based critical performances that are used to
evaluate student learning and to assess the graduate literacy program. Based on data and feedback from teachers
and administrators in the field, students need stronger connections between theory and practice in the areas of
teaching reading in the content areas, in particular with adolescent and adult learners.
19
(2) It is not clear how the unit ensures that candidates in every program have field experiences and
clinical practices that include opportunities to work with diverse populations.
Rationale: The unit provides evidence for demographics of schools for ITP, but does not describe
the policies to ensure that each candidate has experience with diverse populations outlined in
Standard 3. There is not information regarding placements of candidates in all advanced and other
school personnel programs, including Master’s C and I.
Clinical Experiences Data (Academic Year 2009-2010)
Over the 2009-2010 academic year, 362 students reported demographic information on 465 field placements,
with an average of 18% diverse students, 48% free/reduced lunch, and 16 % students with disabilities. Table G
reveals percentages of field experiences with various characteristics. Note that candidates could choose all the
characteristics that applied for any given experience.
Table G Percentages of Field Experiences by Category Types
Working with Student With Special Needs
% of Candidates working with Students With Physical Impairments a 504 Plan
% of Candidates working with an IEP
% of Candidates working with ESL
% of Candidates working with Gifted
34%
76%
29%
38%
Working with Diverse Students
% of Candidates working with African American Students
% of Candidates working with Native American/Alaska Native Students
% of Candidates working with Hispanic Students
% of Candidates working with Asian Students
% of Candidates working with Diverse Students (Aggregate)
92%
5%
53%
31%
92%
Overall, as can be seen in the above table, in 87% of their field experiences candidates reported working with at
least one student with special needs, and in 92% of their field experiences reported working with at least one
student from a diverse ethnic group.
In addition, Table 10 with the original IR now found at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38147.htm reports the
diversity percentages of the schools where student teachers were placed during the 2009-10, 2008-09 and 200708 academic years respectively. The average overall diversity percentage remains slightly above 40 % diversity
of the schools in the 191 schools that represent our partnership schools.
(3) It is unclear how candidates in all programs demonstrate the use of technology in improving
teaching and learning.
Rationale: SPA reports provide evidence for ITP where technology is required. Syllabi for required
education coursed for ITP were not available; there is no evidence or syllabi for all advanced
programs.
We apologize that the links failed in Blackboard on the syllabi for the education courses. The syllabi
are now available at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37416.htm .
20
At the initial preparation level, Conceptual Framework Standard 6 - Technology is assessed during
student teaching and at every level of pre-service training. Students use word processing for
assignments throughout their training and for research. They are provided the opportunity to use the
SMART BOARDS in schools and on campus, create web based projects, organize and reflect on
data collected from pre- and post-assessments and display results in chart and graph form, prepare
and teach using power point, incorporate United Streaming video clips in their lessons, and assist
classroom teachers in the use of technology. All of these uses of technology are assessed and impact
final grades in the education courses. Additionally, the culminating critical performance of the
program, the Teacher Work Sample, provides evidence of student teachers’ abilities to use
technology to teach and assess student learning. Similar processes hold true for advanced level
initial preparation programs. For example School Library media devotes in EDSL 560 the entire
class is devoted to candidates’ experiences in using resources (technology) to find and distribute
information. Other advanced initial preparation programs have coordinated field/clinical
experiences and critical performances related to candidate development of technology skills. For
example, the Literacy and Culture program requires candidates to develop technology skills in
teaching reading and in aiding teachers in the field to teach reading these skills are developed in
EDUC 527, EDUC 518, and EDUC 524.
At the advanced preparation level, all programs have developed assessment plans that identify key
assessments that align to the use of technology. Programs allow candidates to demonstrate
technology through various means and contexts associated with their specialty area. For example,
Mathematic Specialist-- elementary, and middle-- candidates demonstrate technology through
course-based projects that are part of their program requirements. In Educational Leadership,
candidates utilize technology to enhance administrative practice, such as student data management,
fiscal data management, classroom walk-through, and communication. In School Library Media
education preparation, teaching of a technology integration unit is a critical performance. Students
must document the effectiveness of instruction with an analysis of student performance in relation to
state and professional standards.
The Literacy and Culture program prepares candidates to use technology for teaching and learning,
researching, and as a means of providing literacy support for learners through the use of assistive
technologies. During various clinical experiences, candidates use a variety of technologies, such as laptop
computers, spreadsheet software, presentation software for literacy mini-lessons, productivity software for
developing handouts, exercises, and information summaries (Publisher), as well as others related to teaching
fluency and comprehension to ESL and struggling readers. In the School Counseling practicum, students are
required to identify and utilize educational data in formulating counseling goals and in blending technology
into the delivery of counseling services (e-mail, blackboard, power point, internet searches).
The early clinical experience is evaluated by the faculty supervisor Table 3a. Gives the results of the
evaluations across the conceptual frame and state standards.
Table H. Early Clinical Evaluation 2009-10 % Candidates Meeting or Exceeding Expectations on Performance
Standards
Program
Area
Unit
Part
NCI
N
219
79
13
Content
Knowledge
95%
98%
100%
Planning
98%
98%
100%
Learning
Climate
97%
98%
100%
Implementation
/Management
97%
97%
100%
Evaluation
Assessment
95%
94%
100%
Communication
99%
98%
100%
Technology
98%
98%
100%
Diversity
95%
98%
100%
21
Elem
Sci.
El/M
Eng
History
Music
PHETE
SP ED
Theatre
65
3
5
8
3
4
5
12
1
97%
100%
100%
100%
99%
98%
100%
100%
100%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
97%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
97%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
94%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
(4) It is unclear how the placement of candidates in advanced teacher and other school personnel programs
for field experience and clinical practice occurs and what criteria are used.
Rationale: “There are no specific data regarding field experiences for advanced teacher and OSP
programs. It’s unclear how placements are made. There is no information for advanced programs that
do not have internships.
Advanced teacher and OSP field experiences are developed and placed with the cooperation of the partnering
school divisions. Explanations of their field placement can be found on the website with the clinical placement
descriptions. Data for these experiences is available in the web-share Can Teach.
3.5 Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit:
(1) Course syllabi for the field and clinical experiences, data, and interview with faculty. How do
clinical experiences tie in with coursework?
The field experience syllabi are available at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37955.htm .
(2) Data on advanced field experiences and interviews with faculty from advanced programs including
those without a formal internship.
Syllabi that explain the expectations and nuances between the program and the clinical experiences
are available at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37955.htm . Syllabi that consider the program areas
state matrix and explain the nature of the embedded clinical practices in courses for programs that do
not have an internship are available at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37416.htm . Data for each
advanced program is available in “Can Teach”.
(3) Evidence of how data have been collected, analyzed and used to improve field experiences and
clinical practice, especially for advanced programs.
All unit education preparation programs are standards-based, and all field experiences and
evaluations of these experiences are designed to align with the Conceptual Framework or State, as
well as learned society standards as appropriate. Data are maintained to show level of competency
with each Standard. In initial preparation programs student teachers complete 15 weeks of student
teaching and are responsible for a minimum of 150 clock hours where they are completely
responsible for the classroom. As part of the requirements for student teaching each of the
standards is assessed with a rubric, and students must receive a passing grade of C or higher and a
2.5 GPA to be recommended for teacher completion. The Teacher Work Sample plus other
candidate-developed documents are assessed by both cooperating teachers and university
supervisors. In advanced programs for other school personnel that include internships, both
university and school-based/site-based faculty observe and collaborate to assess the performance of
candidates in these programs. Data regarding the critical performances on the CF Standards from
22
field placements are collected utilizing Inquisite, a web-based survey instrument. The data is
downloaded by the Associate Deans office from Inquisite into an Excel file; the data is aggregated
for the unit and programs. Data are collected continuously and distributed on a semester basis to the
programs areas for review and analysis and to the PEC on an annual basis for review of the unit.
Annual reports for the unit are available at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38410.htm .
Chart I is a summary of the Final Clinical Experience Evaluations for the program leading to
licensure for 2009-2010.
Chart I. Final Clinical Evaluation 2009-10 % Candidates Meeting or Exceeding Expectations on Performances
Program
Area
Unit
NCI
Art
Elem
Biology
El/M
Eng
History
Library
Math
Middle
Music
PHETE
SP ED
Theatre
N
210
6
6
99
2
6
11
13
2
2
19
4
6
33
1
Content
Knowledge
99%
94%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
100%
100%
100%
Planning
99%
94%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
100%
Learning
Climate
99%
94%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
100%
Implementation
/Management
99%
94%
100%
99%
94%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
100%
Evaluation/Assessment
99%
94%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
97%
100%
Communication
99%
94%
100%
99%
94%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Technology
99%
94%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Diversity
99%
94%
100%
99%
94%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
100%
(4) Interviews with the Office of Professional Services to verify roles, responsibilities and composition
of the committee.
The position responsibilities for the Office of Professional Services may be found at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37902.htm under Memoranda of understanding, minutes from
meetings, etc. Clarification of the roles will be responded to on site by the OPS staff.
(5) A review of diversity data from placement sites, especially advanced programs. Is there a tracking
system to ensure that candidates have the opportunity to work with diverse student populations,
including dual language learners?
An Excel file of the schools utilized in LU partnership programs for clinical placement may be found
at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38064.htm . OPS plots the course for each candidate and
maintains a master file regarding placement of students. The placements are by Rural, Suburban,
and Urban school division. This placement has allowed the Unit to address the Title II requirement
of teacher competence in Rural and Urban sittings. This placement configuration has also allowed
our candidate experience with a wider range of diverse situations. See the Table G Clinical
Experiences by Category Type earlier in this document.
Interviews with supervisors, school partners, cooperating teachers to verify involvement especially
advanced programs.
23
(6) Evidence of successful supervision of sites. How does the unit manage all of the sites with licensed
supervisors for advanced and other school personnel programs?
(7) Evidence of how technology is integrated into clinical settings. What are the ways in which
candidates demonstrate their use of technology in field settings?
At the initial preparation level Conceptual Framework Standard 6 - Technology is assessed during
student teaching and at every level of pre-service training. Students use word processing for
assignments throughout their training and for research. They learn to use the SMART BOARDS in
schools and on campus, create web based projects, organize and reflect on data collected from preand post-assessments and display results in chart and graph form, prepare and teach using power
point, incorporate United Streaming clips in their lessons, and assist classroom teachers in the use of
technology. All of these uses of technology are assessed and impact final grades in the education
courses. Additionally, the culminating critical performance of the program, the Teacher Work
Sample, provides evidence of student teachers’ abilities to use technology to teach and assess student
learning. Similar processes hold true for graduate level initial preparation programs. Other graduate
initial preparation programs have coordinated field/clinical experiences and critical performances
related to candidate development of technology skills.
At the advanced preparation level all programs have developed assessment plans that identify key
assessments that align to the use of technology. Programs allow candidates to demonstrate
technology through various means and contexts associated with their specialty area. For example,
Mathematic Specialist elementary, and middle, candidates demonstrate technology through coursebased projects that are part of their program requirements. In educational administration and
leadership candidates utilize technology to enhance administrative practice, such as student data
management, fiscal data management, classroom walkthroughs, and communication. In library
media education preparation and teaching of a technology integration unit is a critical performance.
Students must document the effectiveness of instruction with an analysis of student performance in
relation to state and professional standards.
Literacy and Culture Program prepares candidates to use technology for teaching and learning,
researching, and as a means of providing literacy support for learners through the use of assistive
technologies. During various clinical experiences candidates use a variety of technologies, such as
laptop computers, spreadsheet software, presentation software for literacy mini-lessons, productivity
software for developing handouts, exercises, and information summaries (Publisher), as well as
others related to teaching fluency and comprehension to ESL and struggling readers. In school
counseling practicum students are required to identify and utilize educational data in formulating
counseling goals and in blending technology into the delivery of counseling services (e-mail,
blackboard, power point, internet searches).
(8) Clarification of how technology is used to assess clinical experiences. Are assessments in every
program available through technology? How are clinical assessments accumulated and analyzed?
All unit education preparation programs are standards-based, and all field experiences and evaluations of
these experiences are designed to align with the Conceptual Framework or State, as well as learned
society standards as appropriate. Data are maintained to show level of competency with each Standard.
In initial preparation programs student teachers complete 15 weeks of student teaching and are
responsible for a minimum of 150 clock hours where they are completely responsible for the classroom.
24
As part of the requirements for student teaching each of the standards is assessed with a rubric, and
students must receive a passing grade of C or higher and a 2.5 GPA to be recommended for teacher
completion. The Teacher Work Sample plus other candidate-developed documents are assessed by both
cooperating teachers and university supervisors. In advanced programs for other school personnel that
include internships, both university and school-based/site-based faculty observe and collaborate to
assess the performance of candidates in these programs. Data regarding the critical performances on the
CF Standards from field placements is collected utilizing Inquisite, a web-based survey instrument. The
data is downloaded by the Associate Deans office from Inquisite into an Excel file and aggregates the
data for the unit and programs. Data is collected continuously and distributed on a semester basis to the
programs areas for review and analysis and to the PEC on an annual basis for review of the unit. Annual
reports for the unit are available at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37880.htm .
All initial preparation candidates are assessed during their student teaching using the Observation and
Evaluation Form for Clinical Experience Placement. This formative evaluation form was formally
completed by the university supervisor and the mentor teacher and resided on Inquisite. It will soon
reside in a form for Oracle in Banner and is available for formative evaluations of candidates at intervals
during the student teaching process. The data resides in the data base and may be downloaded by the
program coordinator. The Final Clinical Experience Form is also completed by the University
Supervisor the data is downloaded by the Associate Dean’s Office and forwarded to the PEC and the
program coordinators. This form clearly aligns with the Conceptual Framework Standards and the
descriptive rubrics developed for these standards as part of the unit faculty. These rubrics were
developed by as an off shoot of the Renaissance Group TWS matrices for TWS. Where appropriate, the
language from these rubrics was added to the Student Teacher Evaluation.
In educational administration and leadership all principal candidates complete a internship aligned to
ISLCC Standards that include Standard 1 – Develop and Stewarding a Vision of Learning, Standard 2 –
Promoting a School Culture Conducive to Learning, Standard 4 – Collaborating with Families and
Responding to Diverse Community Needs, and Standard 6 – Understanding and Influencing the Political
and Cultural Context. This information is collected by the program and housed in “Can Teach”
At the advanced level, elementary, special education and secondary education candidates complete a
professional semester and have the same evaluation on the standards for the professional semester that
all initial licensure candidates encounter. In literacy graduate candidates complete a portfolio in EDUC
646 and a case study in EDUC 626 critical performances are assessed and recorded by faculty and are
housed in “Can Teach” for annual review. These critical are based on the Literacy and Culture’s SPA
and also reflect the LUCF. The purpose of this aspect of the course is to have some experiences with
diverse populations in an educational setting. Observations and interactions through instruction allow
students to make connections between research, theory, and the first person experience of application,
synthesis, and internalization of key concerns in serving learners who are ethnically, culturally, socially,
and otherwise diverse.
In School Counseling, clinical hours and associated critical performances include developing client
interventions and school improvement plans as they relate individual and overall student learning, as
well as reporting progress over the course of treatment and sessions.
In Communication Sciences and Disorders, candidates complete their clinical placements that are
aligned with their SPA. The assessments are evaluated the data are recorded and downloaded and
aggregated as the purpose may dictate for the program and candidate considerations. These
assessments reside with the program.
25
(9) Documentation on analysis of clinical data. How will the unit know if its clinical model is
successful?
All initial preparation candidates are assessed during their student teaching using the Early Clinical
Experience Evaluation Form and Student Teaching Evaluation form and a Final Clinical Evaluation
form. These clinical evaluation forms clearly align with the Virginia Teacher Standards, its matrix
and the descriptive rubrics developed for these standards are part of the Conceptual Framework. In
addition, the Final Clinical Evaluation serves as a last assessment of candidate’s demonstration of
the unit-wide dispositions. The Annual Reports provide proficiency rates on dispositions as well as
the Final and Early Clinical Evaluations. These are reported continuously to the PEC and in the
Annual Reports.
(10) Interviews regarding implantation of moodle developed through OPS. Is there a timeline for
complete implementation?
Moodle web-ware available for correspondence was utilized to develop a course of orientation for
cooperating teachers in the various partnerships. The courses were implemented in the Fall of 2010
and are now and continue to be in place. A copy of the communication and directions is available on
the web at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37950.htm . Cooperating teachers completing the
orientation receive a certificate documenting points for recertification.
(11)
Evidence of the evaluation of field experiences. What are the specific points for data collection?
All initial preparation candidates are assessed during their student teaching using the Early Clinical
Experience Evaluation Form and Student Teaching Evaluation form and a Final Clinical Evaluation
form. These clinical evaluation forms clearly align with the Virginia Teacher Standards, its matrix
and the descriptive rubrics developed for these standards as part of the Conceptual Framework . In
addition, the Final Clinical Evaluation serves as a last assessment of candidate’s demonstration of
our unit-wide dispositions. The Annual Reports provide proficiency rates on dispositions as well as
the Final and Early Clinical Evaluations. These are reported continuously to the PEC and annually in
the Annual Reports. The Early and Final Clinical Evaluations are completed by both the university
supervisor and the mentor teacher. The candidate completes an exit evaluation of student teaching.
These occur at the end of the student teaching process. The Cooperating Teacher Feedback and Data
Form is a formative evaluation instrument and is collected and forwarded to the program area at
anytime during the clinical experience . Data from these instruments is aggregated and
disaggregated depending on purpose and circulated to the program areas immediately and to the PEC
in an annual report. The timing of data is explained in the LU Professional Education Unit
Continuous Assessment Matrix which can be found at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38049.htm .
The annual reports are available at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38410.htm .
Evidence of criteria and selection of field experiences for advanced teacher and OPS programs,
including the M Ed. In Curriculum and Instruction. What happens if the candidate’s site for these
experiences does not contain all elements of diversity?
The candidates are tracked for all of their clinical experiences. A tracking chart is available in the OPS.
Candidates are track in response to placements in rural, suburban, and urban schools. Candidates make 1st,
2nd, and 3rd choices for placement.
(12) Supervision for field experiences in online courses. Who provides this and how?
We do not have field experiences in online courses.
26
Standard 4: Diversity
4.5
(1) Clinical experiences Diversity Report. What are the results of this report? How is the unit
measuring candidate proficiencies in working with diverse student populations?
This report and the Demographics for Clinical Sites information are available on the web at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38034.htm . Reports regarding clinical experience by category is
available on a table earlier in this report or on the web at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38147.htm .
(2) Early Clinical Experience Evaluations for each program
Early Clinical Experience Evaluations for each program and for the unit are available in “Can
Teach” in the annual and program folders and on the unit web site at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38034.htm .
(3) Final Clinical Experience Evaluations for each program
The Final Clinical Experience Evaluations for each program is available in “Can Teach” shareware
in the annual and program folders and on the unit website in the annual unit and program reports at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37890.htm .
(4) Evidence of the diversity committee efforts after the Unit Retreat 2007-2008. What was the impact
of the committee meetings?
The diversity committee became reenergized in conversations that are yet being conducted at LU
and especially in CEHS. There have been two outcomes of the conversation. First, there has been
an outreach to school divisions in the state to establish teacher cadet programs and partnering with
the unit for information and faculty assistance with their programs. Another outcome has been that
CEHS has developed a search committee protocol for every faculty search. The results of this
protocol will be assessed and revised as needed with the next hires for faculty and staff. The process
has already begun with four faculty searches in the Department of Education and Special Education
for three programs. The minutes of the outreach committee are available in the diversity file in the
“Can Teach” shareware. The protocol for searches is available on the web at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38034.htm .
(5) Enrollment and demographic data from New College Institute, Emporia Program and Call Me
MISTER. What is the diversity breakdown:
The Call Me MISTER Program currently has 22 Misters; all but two are African American. (The
previous and present reports for the CMM program are on the website).
Enrollment and demographic data from New College Institute indicates that there are 15 ACTIVE
students total (students who are enrolled in classes this fall-this is probably a lower number than you
may have received from other reports, but it is an accurate number). An additional 8 have been admitted
and paid deposits and are expected to be active in the future. Those 8 are not included in the info below.
2 male/ 13 female
1 male/African American - 2 African American females
3 total African American
27
Emporia:
4 ACTIVE students total
1 male/3 female
1 African American female
(6) Practices and policies for ensuring that candidates are able to interact with diverse faculty.
Are there initiatives being taken to increase faculty diversity? Has faculty diversity increased in
recent years?
An initiative is in place to increase faculty diversity through the adoption of a new search committee
protocol. Future faculty demographics will determine if the diversity has increased. It is a stated
goal of CEHS and to date we have not met the goal of a diverse faculty.
(7) Evidence of candidates’ opportunities to interact with diverse candidates.
Candidates get the opportunity to interact with diverse candidates on a very limited basis. A chart
indicating the diversity of the candidate pool can be viewed on the web at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38034.htm . Candidates’ access to diverse potential candidates has
increased with the addition of the MISTER program to campus. The diversity of the members of
MISTER the current membership is 22, 21 African American males and 1 white male.
(8) Syllabi from initial and advanced programs.
The syllabi for initial and advanced programs can be found on the web at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37416.htm .
Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications
5.5
(1) Evidence of instruction strategies used by faculty and integration of technology and diversity,
including all program syllabi.
(2) Summary of candidate evaluation of faculty teaching.
The summary of candidate evaluations of faculty teaching is available on the web at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38153.htm .
Confirm source of the of unit claim of 200 publications and 100 presentations over the last three years.
The faculty vitas are listed on the website at http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38159.htm. These same
vita also indicate a substantial level of professional development for each faculty member.
(3) Faculty performance in terms of Teaching, Scholarship and Academic Support, Service and Advising
on evaluations. Does the unit’s annual report to the university address these workloads.
Information regarding faculty performance, workload and evaluations may be found on the web at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38153.htm .
(4) Professional development activities and support for unit faculty. What opportunities are available?
28
Professional development activities that have been utilized by the faculty are indicated on their vita.
They have also been afforded the activities listed in the original IR as well as a number of other
activities within CEHS. The other opportunities are available on the web at
http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/38153.htm .
Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resources
6.5
(1) Faculty workload assignment for a given semester or academic cycle to evidence equity. How are the
workloads documented for faculty members that are shared across colleges?
Due to budget constraints, some faculty are assigned excessive teaching and administrative loads that may
have a negative impact on scholarship and service.
Longwood University continues to address this area for improvement. As of Fall 2004, all faculty that
serve as program coordinators of teacher preparation programs within the College of Education and
Human Services and the College of Arts and Sciences are given 3 credits (one-course-per-year)
reassignment either during the fall or spring semester. Faculty members are no longer assigned
excessive teaching and administrative loads. Class offerings have been adjusted and qualified adjunct
faculty sought to ensure that faculty teaching and administrative loads are appropriate.
AFI: Load assignments lack consistency.
Longwood University has addressed this area of improvement by adhering to policies in the Longwood
Faculty Policy and Procedures Manual, which states:
At the undergraduate level, a standard teaching load is based on 24 credit hours, or the equivalent, per
academic year; this applies to both on-campus and distance learning offerings. For faculty members
teaching a combination of graduate and undergraduate courses, the standard teaching load is based on 21
credit hours (exclusive of thesis direction) or the equivalent, per year. For faculty members teaching
only graduate courses, the standard teaching load is based on 18 credit hours (exclusive of thesis
direction), or the equivalent, per year; these teaching loads apply to both on-campus and distance
learning offerings.
Load policy for supervision of student teachers by full-time faculty has been revised to read: No
supervisor should be responsible for more than 18 students per semester The credit-hour load for
supervisors is normally two credit hours per three students supervised at clustered locations or three
credit hours per three student supervised at widely spaced assignments, and is based on an assumption of
weekly visits.?
Overload is now granted on an extremely limited basis. The policy on overloads states: Overload should
be discouraged, and will be approved only when absolutely necessary. However, when overloads are
unavoidable, faculty members may receive additional compensation for any load that exceeds normal
expectations.
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. However, we are in an economic downturn and do not know the outcome of same. The cuts to
the budget in the last two years have been cumulative and dictate a cut of 38% from state revenues. The
impact of the cuts in expenditures allowing for the decrease in state revenue is being reflected in faculty
positions, membership in professional associations, and in faculty and staff support. The cuts are likely
29
to continue with the revenue expectations for Virginia. The cuts have impacted LU and the PEU.
However, the deans of the various colleges on campus have managed to hold onto a number of faculty.
Even though the credit load may have remained the same, the number of candidates in a particular credit
course has increased over the last several years. Table IRa6 Faculty Loads indicates the faculty loads
for the past two semesters. A more extensive chart may be found in the web-share, “Can Teach.”
Table K.Faculty Work Load Credit Hours Per Semester
Arkin
Donnelly
Emerson-Stonnell
Fink
Geraghty
Goetz
Lust
Nelson
Smith, Robin
Smith, Wendy
Southall
Davis
Aerni
Agee
Bingham
Blauvelt
Braun
Church
Colvin
Daly
Fleming
Gapinski
Howe
Jones
Keith
Koesler
Locascio
Lucas
Lynch
Mathews
Maynard
Meese
Power-deFur
Powers
Reeve
Riley
Schmidt
Sokol
Tarpley
Thomson
Whitaker
Wiesendanger
Fall 2011
Spring 2010
Program Area
College
12
12
12
12
12
12
9
12
13
10
13
12
12
11
12
9
12
9
10
5
7
11
9
12
9
10
13
12
12
9
11
8
11
12
9
+
+
9
8
13
9
9
12
12
11
12
9
9
8
*
12
9
12
7
10
11
12
6
12
9
12
8
7
13
10
7
9
10
9
12
10
12
11
9
9
10
9
9
9
9
7
11
Theatre
Science Ed.
Math Ed.
Science Ed
History Ed
MOLAN Ed
Music Ed.
Art Ed.
English
Math Ed.
English
BusEd.
ElemEd.
CSDS
PHETE
PHETE
L&C
Lib Med
PHETE
CSDS
School Coun
PHETE
School Coun
SPEC Ed.
EDUC
PHETE
Mid Sch
PHETE
PHETE
SPED
ElemEd.
SPED
CSDS
Elem Ed
Lib Med
EDUC
Lib Med
EDUC
CCCAS
CCCAS
CCCAS
CCCAS
CCCAS
CCCAS
CCCAS
CCCAS
CCCAS
CCCAS
CCCAS
CEB
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
CEHS
*Sabbatical, +Retired
9
PHETE
Ed
L&C
30
(2) Comparable budget data across three years, as was the case with the Education and Special Education
figures for 2009,2010, and 2011; comparable reporting for CEHS Funding and Summary of CEHS
support for Faculty Staff/Student Development, funding for the College of Education and Human
Services as compared to other colleges across Longwood University.
The budgets for the three colleges at Longwood University comparable over a three year period are in
the following chart:
COLLEGE
FISCAL YEAR
2009
FISCAL YEAR
2010
FISCAL YEAR
2011
FISCAL YEAR
2012
College of Business and Economics
Number of Faculty
Contractual Services
Transfer Payments
Continuous Charges
Equipment
TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET
25
$111,501
$5,600
$900
$0
$118,001
24
$72,661
$0
$24,254
$0
$96,915
24
$84,583
$0
$0
$0
$84,583
22
$90,983
$0
$0
$0
$90,983
Cook Cole College of Arts and Sciences
Number of Faculty
Contractual Services
Transfer Payments
Continuous Charges
Equipment
TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET
139
$612,983
$0
$7,600
$65,000
$685,584
138
$526,079
$0
$16,400
$57,387
$599,866
144
$567,048
$0
$27,200
$0
$594,248
152
$1,511,798
$0
$0
$0
$1,511,798
College of Education and Human Services
Number of Faculty
Contractual Services
Transfer Payments
Continuous Charges
Equipment
43
$424,806
$173,060
$36,552
$26,359
44
$352,742
$86,640
$30,714
$7,235
45
$666,870
$212,111
$27,360
$25,130
45
$251,996
$123,552
$53,741
$0
TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET
$660,777
$477,331
$931,471
$429,289
(3) More detailed information about actual facilities across various campus sites and comparisons to the
main campus.
The two locations are at the western and eastern ends of south side Virginia service area. Martinsville is
approximately 2 and ½ hour’s drive from campus and Emporia is approximately 1 and ½ hours travel
time from the main campus.
Martinsville: Four building campus, the unit classes are held in the building that also houses the
library. Full polycom (VTEL) set ups in each room; complete computer work station in each room
(computer, projector, screen, internet); whiteboards; wifi for candidates; candidate computer labs, coffee
31
shop on main floor; office for our on-site faculty member/program director. NCI also provides its own
candidate contact people who will refer candidate to our director, extensive tech support whenever
needed, and services such as copying, phone, utilities, etc.
Emporia: Shared classrooms with SVCC but the unit has been equipped with a polycom unit and
computer workstation and this is the one classroom the unit uses most frequently at this time. A
candidate computer lab is available, wifi, whiteboards. All classrooms have computer workstations but
only a few have polycom, which is why we installed our own. A new wing will be built in which the
unit will have office space, library resources, and fully equipped classrooms. Completion is projected
for 2 years.
(4) Evidence of how committees operate and address the issues stated in their descriptions.
The Bylaws for the Professional Education Council are available in Blackboard Standard 5 under other
exhibits. They are also available on the CEHS website at: http://www.longwood.edu/cehs/37379.htm .
NO RESPONSE?
(5) Interviews with candidates to document use of technology.
NO RESPONSE?