1
Addendum to the NCATE Institutional Report
Submitted by the
University of Cincinnati
BOE Visit: November 4-6, 2012
Responses to Concerns and Requests for Further Evidence
Please refer to www.uc.edu/cech-accreditation for the NCATE Institutional Report,
evidence, and further documentation.
2
In this addendum we have generated a response to each of the areas of concern and question
posed in the NCATE Offsite Report to the University of Cincinnati. In addition, we have a parallel
document that includes the evidence requested. Though it was our intent to provide the evidence
directly with the narrative for ease of review, a separate document had to be generated due to page
limitations in uploading through the aims.ncate.org site. We have, though, wherever it is possible,
placed the evidence directly in the narrative for the convenience of the reviewer. The heading for each
narrative is the question from the report. Lengthy evidence will be available to each BOE team member
on a jump drive. *Please direct any further questions or concerns to Annie Bauer (anne.bauer@uc.edu)
and every effort will be made to respond within 24 hours.
Conceptual Framework
Concern: Evidence of a shared vision regarding the CF is a central goal.
Evidence of a shared vision is documented in printed materials on every syllabus, in field and program
handbooks, and in materials distributed by programs. During orientation candidates are provided
information on the conceptual framework, and mentors/cooperating teachers share are evaluated on
their consistency with the vision by university supervisors and candidates. Placements and
mentors/cooperating teachers who do not share the vision are no longer used. In the last set of data
related to evaluation of placements, candidates (N=391) rated consistency with philosophy and
framework of the field and clinical placements with University of Cincinnati programs at a mean of 4.14,
with 1 being strongly disagree ranging to 5 strongly agree, with 174 candidates choosing 5 strongly
agree. University supervisors (N =271) rated the item at a mean of 4.29 with 150 selecting 5 strongly
agree. Consistency in the framework appears beyond recognizing the words to the practice of field and
clinical faculty in the schools.
1. Who was involved in the development of the CF?
There has been long standing participation of the professional community in the development, review,
and revision of the conceptual framework. Beginning in 1986-1987, members of the professional
community – particularly teachers in the Cincinnati Public Schools partner schools were engaged in the
development of the Pattern Language. As those efforts moved to the Continuous Improvement
Committee and eventually the University Council for Educator Preparation, members of the community
have been an active part in the development, implementation, and revision of the conceptual
framework. That involvement is documented by the following chronology (further evidence is also
available in the addendum to Standard 6, summary and minutes of the University Council for Educator
Preparation):
 1987 – Teacher preparation programs initiated redesign; knowledge base described as “A
Pattern Language for Teaching” grounded in Alexander’s pattern language for architecture and
design. Consistent with Alexander’s description of patterns the conceptual framework began to
evolve; “patterns can never be ‘designed’ or ‘built’ in one fell swoop- but patient piecemeal
growth, designed in such a way that every individual act is always helping to create or generate
these larger global.
 1993 – “A Pattern Language for Teaching” became NCATE approved conceptual framework and
knowledge base, with continued support from faculty members in the Cincinnati Public School
Professional Practice Schools
3




















1997 – “A Pattern Language for Teaching,” in its third iteration, is named as conceptual
framework for the unit’s initial licensure programs; Educational Administration, Counseling,
School Psychology, and Literacy posit individual conceptual frameworks grounded in their
various programs. Public school teachers continue to review the document and participate in its
development.
2000 – Programs are charged by Dean Lawrence Johnson to review their programs in terms of
content area knowledge, resources, and national standards.
Spring, 2001 – Continuous Improvement Committee formed to begin to address accreditation
needs. Members include representatives of each educator preparation program and the public
schools. Faculty surveyed related to program goals and candidate dispositions, mentor
teachers, and principals responded to a survey asking for feedback on components from various
sources (InTASC, state standards, literature review)
June, 2001 – Continuous Improvement Committee formulates dispositions and indicators of
conceptual framework. Members of these work groups include teachers from Cincinnati Public
Schools.
September, 2001 – Evolving document of Conceptual Framework provided to Workgroup Chairs
and Program Chairs for discussion and faculty comments. School faculty were provided drafts to
share with their colleagues.
September, 2001 – Evolving document of Conceptual Framework posted for faculty and
community comment on Blackboard site (guest accounts for mentor teachers negotiated)
October, 2001 – Continuous Improvement Committee endorses conceptual framework and
theme phrase.
October, 2001 – Programs requested to comment and endorse framework.
October, 2001 – December, 2001 – Individual programs endorse framework.
December, 2001 – Edited Conceptual Framework posted and distributed for final review;
summaries distributed to faculty members in the Professional Practice Schools and to
mentors/cooperating teachers.
January, 2002 - Begin to infuse conceptual framework statements into materials; Conceptual
framework distributed via Blackboard and hard copy to mentors, candidates, faculty members
July, 2002 – Conceptual framework presented to freshmen in teacher education programs
during freshmen orientation.
Autumn, 2002 – Conceptual framework reviewed with members of the University Council for
Educator Preparation. Conceptual framework included in Handbooks for Professional
Experiences provided to candidates and mentors.
January, 2003 – Conceptual framework distributed to all faculty members in the unit and
representatives of the professional community for review.
April, 2003 – Conceptual framework discussed with Advisory Group members.
May, 2003 – Conceptual framework reviewed and revised; Retreat for Teacher Education
Faculty to discuss infusion of Conceptual Framework throughout programs
Academic Year, 2003-2004 – Conceptual framework infused through practice and programs;
focus on getting and maintaining involvement from members of the community
May, 2004 – Development of briefings of dispositions and conceptual framework generated by
UCEP to share with community
November, 2004 – NCATE onsite visit; Institutional report grounded in conceptual framework
May 2006 – Conceptual framework placed on UCEP agenda for 2006-2007 revision
4






May 2007 – Conceptual framework revision begun with UCEP meeting and members charge to
discuss with programs or colleagues; updated through updating language and knowledge base,
programs reaffirm endorsements
Summer 2009 – University of Cincinnati responded to invitation to become a Transformation
Initiative institution.
Academic Year 2009-2010 – University Council for Educator Preparation begins discussion of
Transformation Initiative; began shift of context to high needs schools and monitoring use of
high needs schools as placements
Summer 2010 – Stone Soup Group (university and school faculty engaged in action research in
high needs schools) becomes the “summer institute group” taking the lead in developing the
Transformation Initiative efforts
November 2011 – Approval of conceptual framework revisions and assessment system revisions
by UCEP
February 2012 – UCEP discussion moving Transformation Initiative from narrative into themes
grouped in three areas
2. How are faculty, both campus- based and clinical, prepared to implement the Transformation
Initiative?
“Preparation” seems to suggest that the Transformation Initiative was created and presented, and that
participants in the process somehow needed to be made “ready.” Our initiative is more organic. The
themes of the initiative were derived from the work of programs, individual faculty members, and our
school partners. Through an evolving group of work groups, beginning with a “Stone Soup” group,
morphing into the “Summer Institute” group, and becoming a steering committee engaged in increase
the cohesive and developmental nature of our program around effective teaching of all students, the
idea of “preparing” participants did not occur. Rather, the initiative came about by continuing to stretch
the ideas within the themes and solidify our efforts into the three research questions.
3. How has the expanded definition of diversity been incorporated in Standard 4?
The expanded definition of diversity has pushed us to begin to put the following statement on our
syllabi and Blackboard communities: CEC believes diversity means understanding and valuing the
characteristics and beliefs of those who demonstrate a wide range of characteristics. This includes ethnic
and racial backgrounds, age, physical and cognitive abilities, family status, sexual orientation,
socioeconomic status, religious and spiritual values, and geographic location.
The University of Cincinnati embraces diversity and inclusion as core values that empower individuals to
transform their lives and achieve their highest potential. This course offers a challenging, yet nurturing
intellectual climate with a respect for the spectrum of diversity and a genuine understanding of its many
components — including race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, age, socio-economic
status, family structure, national origin, sexual orientation, disability and religion — that enrich us as a
vibrant, public, urban research university. This course is energized by the spirit of pluralism — the quest
to celebrate differences within an intellectually stimulating environment, to seek understanding across
social, economic and cultural barriers, to pursue transformation through sustained interaction with
others, and to empower all members of the University of Cincinnati community. You are invited to
explore your own diversity!
5
In addition, the expanded definition has pushed us to develop a rubric to help our candidates
understand writing “about other people’s children.” This is not related to being “politically correct” or
inoffensive. In “Cultural conflict in the classroom” (1995) Delpit describes the challenges individuals face
"to perceive those different from themselves except through their own culturally clouded vision" (p.
xiv).Our candidates come to us with varied levels of experience in writing about people who do not look,
live, think, or act like them. Blatant racism is rare, yet in writing candidates struggle to write about other
people’s children, and need support in avoiding the “all they need to do” thinking of new teachers and
the deficit thinking of their own school experience. In addition, they tend to be concerned about what
Milner (2011) describes as the achievement gap, an after the fact measure of performance. Rather,
Milner contends the emphasis should be on the opportunity gap, the differences in how we are teaching
students, economic resources, curriculum rigor, and expectations. In attempting to devise a rubric to
support their communication efforts, we began with the literature (primarily Delpit, Gay, Gorki, and
Millner) and an assignment, reviewed candidates’ responses, and generated this rubric for discussion:
https://uceducation.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_0GnANWnnGxXF1je
4. How has the institution implemented the TI proposal to meet the claim that the new focus is
on the learning of the students of their candidates?
An example of the ways in which this shift has on our work is the development of our assessments. For
example, in planning, we typically used a lesson plan and rubric similar to many other programs. We
now are teaching students an “analysis of student work” protocol which goes beyond planning what to
teach. Rather, candidates collect a set of student work, analyze the performance related to the
standard being taught, and generate future teaching plans. An example of the protocol used is the
Analysis of Student Work provided in the Evidence Addendum page 3.
5. How did the transformation initiative emerge from the conceptual framework? a. In what ways is it
a natural extension? b. Are there any emerging elements that “push” the conceptual framework
forward? c. How might you expect the transformation initiative to influence the conceptual
framework in the future?
The Transformation Initiative emerged from these candidate performance expectations. Candidates of
the University of Cincinnati are committed to transforming the lives of P-12 students, their schools, and
their communities, and
 Demonstrating the moral imperative to teach all students and address the responsibility to
teach all students with tenacity.
 Addressing issues of diversity with equity and using skills unique to culturally and individually
responsive practice.
 Using assessment and research to inform their efforts and improve outcomes.
 Demonstrating pedagogical content knowledge, grounded in evidence-based practices,
committed to improving the academic and social outcomes of students.
The Transformation Initiative themes related to the “who” – our candidates are both related to and
propel the performance expectations related to the responsibility and moral imperative to teach all
children and developing skills related to culturally and individually responsive practice. To increase the
likelihood that these performance expectations are met, we must begin by helping candidates come to
term with unintentional barriers and bias. Without equity, our candidates may fall into a
deficit/remediation way of thinking rather than celebrating the funds of knowledge of their students
and building on that unique information. Our emphasis on preparing candidates to teach in city schools
6
and providing those experiences further pushes our performance standards to a particular and
challenging context – urban, high needs schools.
Emphasizing reflection and analysis of teaching effectiveness is related to using assessment and
research to inform their research and demonstrating pedagogical content knowledge. We are
committed to helping our candidates truly reflect, and have begun to use the phrase “analysis of
teaching” to urge them toward more sophisticated reflections. Our emphasis on analysis is apparent in
the reflection rubric developed (https://uceducation.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_a2Tc3ZbGCTllJRy ). In
addition, the Collaborative Assessment Log pushes candidates to identify evidence-based practice and
emphasize both academic and social outcomes.
Transformation Initiative
More specific data to review the status and implementation of each of the themes of the
Transformation Initiative and the relationship of themes to standards. The TI timeline to effectively
assess the status of TI implementation.
The following table indicates status of each element and the anticipated timeline.
Research Question 1: What is the impact of changes in program structures and emphases on candidate knowledge, skills,
and dispositions?
Action Planned
Implement coursework and
embedded field experiences in
schools with p-12 teacher
partners
Adding more and earlier field
experiences
Addressing unintentional
barriers and biases
Preparing teachers for city
schools
Implementation of researchbased strategies
Academic language
development
Reflection
When?
Fall 2011
Status?
ECE pilots; SPED; Grades 7-12
English/LA
Spring 2012
Fall 2012
MDL pilots
Planned
Summer
2012 – Fall
2013
Fall 2011
Work group aligning series of
experience and assessments
Data
Comparison of performance of
candidates on dispositions and goal
setting to past groups
Program evaluations, candidate
performance
Assessments, rubric for candidate
written efforts, racial identity activities
All candidates in >1 urban, high
Tracking placements; scripts ; focused
poverty placement by policy
disposition assessment
Fall 2011
Research based strategies
Meta-analysis of ratings of use of
required on all plans/units
research-based strategies
Spring 2012- Reviewing literature; initiating
Specific strategies to work with
Fall 2013
work on strategies
candidates to be developed
Fall 2012Reviewing literature; developing
Rubric for depth of reflection to be
Fall 2013
rubric; collaborating with school
developed
partners on CAL
Research Question 2: Does the Teacher Performance Assessment generate evidence that is used in refining educator
preparation efforts?
Action Planned
When?
Status?
Data
Implementation of TPA for all
Spring 2012
MDL, ECE, and SPED uploading
Available October 2012
programs
Summarization and analysis of
Winter 2013 Planned
Summarized March 2013
quantitative data
Coding of written comments
Spring 2013 Planned
Summarized May 2013
7
Summarization / analysis to
Fall 2013
Planned
Presented August 2013
programs for review to improve
candidate performance and
program
Social Validity Questionnaire –
Winter 2014 Planned
Surveys and interviews conducted by
including p-12 partners
March 2014
Generating publications
Sum2014
Planned
Submitted by September 2014
Research Questions 3: What is the impact of changes in program structures and emphases on the learning and behavior of
p-12 students?
Action Planned
Implement funded Evaluation
Mosaic Studies
Reissue rfps for Mosaic
Evaluation project;
commissioning other studies
Identification of assessments
Review of data generated
Revising assessments
Reliability, bias, and consistency
studies
When?
Fall 2012
Planned
Status?
Spring 2013
Data
Spring 2012
Planned
Summer 2013
Spring 2012
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
2013-2014
AY
Planned
Planned
Planned
Planned
Piloted Fall 2012
Summarized Spring 2013
Completed by June 2013
Completed by June 2014
Institutionalize assessments to
Fall 2014
Planned
Fall 2014-Fall 2018
collect adequate data to identify
trends
Research Question 4: What assessments emerge to measure the development of candidate knowledge, skills, and
dispositions prior to student teaching and the Teacher Performance Assessment?
Action Planned
When?
Status?
Data
Identify signature embedded
Fall 2012
Planned
End of December 2012
assessments
Post signature assessments and
rubrics on program web-pages
Spring 2013
Planned
Completed?
Implement Assessments
Spring 2013
Planned
End of spring 2013
Review data and redesign
Fall 2013
Planned
End of December 2013
Reliability, bias, and consistency 2013-2014
Planned
Completed by June 2014
studies
AY
Institutionalize assessments to
Fall 2014
Planned
Fall 2014-Fall 2018
collect adequate data to identify
trends
Evidence of how and specifically where the recommendations of the NCATE Committee on
Transformation have been taken into account. Clarify the version for this visit.
The version of the Transformation Initiative to be used by the Board of Examiners is provided as a
separate document. Though submitted in April, 2011, our initiative was not reviewed for over a
year. With the offsite and onsite reviews approaching, we reflected on the proposal, simplified the
language and resubmitted it. In late March, we were notified that the proposal was approved and
provided a series of questions for consideration which we felt were excellent feedback. In response, we:
a) Re-studied the work of Haberman, Diez, and Darling-Hammond, and supplemented the literature
support for our work;
8
b) Expanded our theoretical perspective, realigning our effort with the conceptual framework and
desired outcomes for our candidates;
c) Reorganized our outcomes as goal statements, clarifying potential results so that we will be able to
more clearly judge the success and impact of the proposal;
d) Provided additional information related to the development of our signature assessments; and
e) Clarified our research questions, data sources, and methodology.
Standard 1
1. Alumni survey data regarding program effectiveness and satisfaction. At the University of Cincinnati,
alumni survey data are referred to as “follow-up” survey data. Follow-up program completer surveys
are one of multiple measures used to monitor candidate success. The follow-up survey provided in the
evidence addendum demonstrate our continued effort to employ a simple, valid tool and to gather
adequate returns that results are useful. The 2009 Follow-Up Survey (2007 and 2008 program
completers – 38 responses) were mailed to graduates’ homes with an addressed, postage paid
envelopes. The spread of responses across the programs did not generate strong data for programs. In
the 2010 Follow –up Survey (2008 and 2009 completers – 42 responses) we received slightly more
responses through the use of Surveymonkey. Our 2011 surveys (2009 and 2010 completers – 15
responses) had far fewer responses; we later learned that the University of Cincinnati had begun closing
student email accounts after a year. In order to deal with this problem, we asked candidates to provide
us with a “permanent” (as permanent as email addresses can be) email address on the licensure
application form. This was successful in raising our response rates, and we were able to report initial
and advanced programs separately. These 2012 surveys (2010 and 2011 completers) were also
administrated through Qualtrics, which is more user friendly. “Alumni Survey Data” are provided in the
Evidence Addendum beginning on page 5.
2. Assessments used for candidates within the Curriculum & Instruction M.S.Ed. program. It is not
clear in Exhibit 1.4.e.6 how candidates meet each of the NBPTS standards. The Curriculum and
Instruction M. Ed. program is grounded in the six propositions of the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards. These principles form a framework for “the rich amalgam of knowledge, skills,
dispositions, and beliefs” that characterize effective teachers. These are not standards and are not
something that is “met.” Each of the 25 NBPTS certificates has a unique set of standards and are
grouped in three areas: Preparing the way for productive student learning; Advancing student learning
in the classroom; and supporting student learning through long-range initiatives. A single certificate
may have 15-20 standards related to both the content area and the age of the students involved. Our
advanced students in Curriculum and Instruction represent teachers in a variety of content areas and
age groups, and to use the individual standards of each of the 25 certificates may generate several
“cohorts” of one candidate. Rather than using these standards, we aligned the program with the
propositions or framework of the NBPTS effort. Direct alignment, however, is with our institutional
standards.
Our institutional standards are assessed at the M. Ed. level through performance in coursework,
dispositions demonstrated, performance in action research (field experience), and written products. As
we redesigned our programs in accordance with the NCATE 2008 revisions, we generated this table:
9
NCATE Language
Institutional Standard
Performance
Assessments
1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher
Candidates
Candidates in advanced programs for
teachers have an in-depth knowledge of the
content that they teach.
1b. Pedagogical Content Knowledge and
Skills for Teacher Candidates Candidates in
advanced programs for teachers understand
the relationship between content and content
specific pedagogy. They are able to select and
use a broad range of instructional strategies
that promote student learning.
1c. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge
and Skills for Teacher Candidates
Candidates in advanced programs for
teachers synthesize research and policies that
impact their work.
1d. Student Learning for Teacher Candidates
Candidates in advanced programs for
teachers understand and apply the major
concepts and theories related to assessing
student learning.
1g. Professional Dispositions for All
Candidates
Experienced teachers in graduate programs
build upon and extend their knowledge and
experiences to improve their own teaching
and student learning in classrooms.
Demonstrating foundation knowledge, including
knowledge of how each individual learns and
develops within a unique developmental context;
Articulating the central concepts, tools of inquiry,
and the structures of their discipline
Demonstrating pedagogical content knowledge,
grounded in evidence-based practices,
committed to improving the academic and social
outcomes of students.
Grades in core coursework;
Literature review
Using assessment and research to inform their
efforts and improve outcomes.
Literature review; analysis of
critical incident; cultural
autobiography; Use of
technology assessment
Using assessment and research to inform their
efforts and improve outcomes.
Action research project;
educator impact rubric
Demonstrating the moral imperative to teach all
students and address the responsibility to teach
all students with tenacity; Addresses issues of
diversity with equity and using skills unique to
culturally and individually responsive practice.
Dispositions assessment;
Reflection and analysis of
practice embedded signature
assessment; Writing about
other people’s children
embedded signature
assessment
Action research project;
Analysis of critical incident
Candidates in these graduate programs
develop the ability to apply research and
research methods. They also develop
knowledge of learning, the social and cultural
context in which learning takes place, and
practices that support learning in their
professional roles.
Confirm Praxis II pass rate as reported for consistency. Evidence was reviewed to insure that
appropriate pass rates were documented.
Involvement of the advanced programs in the Transformation Initiative. At this time the advanced
programs are not engaged in the Transformation Initiative. The steering committee will review the
potential of expansion of the Transformation Initiative across all programs.
Standard 2
Policies for handling student complaints Students at the University of Cincinnati has several ways to
address their complaints. These include addressing complaints made (a) at the college; (b) to the
ombudsman; (c) through www.feedback.uc.edu ; and (d) through the student grievance procedures.
Complaints made at the college. At every first year student orientation, the associate dean for
academic affairs informs that concerns and issues that emerge should be dealt with the faculty member
10
first, and then addressed to the coordinator, school director, and finally the dean’s office. However,
candidates frequently begin the process by going directly to the dean, associate dean, provost, or
president. All complaints directed at the university level are returned to the dean’s office. The process
followed by the associate dean is:
1. Student makes complaint to the dean, associate dean, provost, or president.
2. Complaint is forwarded to the associate dean for academic affairs.
3. The associate dean meets individually with the student to clarify the complaint.
4. The associate dean engages in fact finding, and in some cases is able to develop a solution after
information is gathered.
5. If the complaint is not solved to the students’ satisfaction following information gathering, the
associate dean meets with the coordinator to develop a plan.
6. If the student wishes, he or she meets collaboratively with the program coordinator and
associate dean to develop a plan. If the student does not wish to meet but wants to continue
the complaint, the associate dean serves as mediator between the two parties.
7. A solution is proposed and agreed upon (if possible). If a solution cannot be developed, the
rationale for the solution is provided to the student. These cases usually involve the student’s
request to be inconsistent with university or college policy.
A summary of complaints that were addressed in this way for the 2011-2012 academic year follows:
2011-2012 Complaints file 11 12 sent to AB Aug 22 2012
Start
Student
Grad/UG
Program
Issue
Resolution
8/8/11
a
UG
MDL
b
GRAD
SPED
struggling student; action plans; mother
upset
student needs help with drop/add
8/15/11
c
UG
SEC
student removed from program;
struggles in field
plans developed; student unable to meet
GPA requirements for cohort
student registered for same class twice;
staff helped
documentation of performance in the field
by several assessor shared with students
8/8/11
10/16/11
d
UG
SEC
student has dispositional concerns
meeting held with associate Dean
student met w/RS; expressed strong
statements about SEC program
student concerned w/grade
student agreed to work out problem with
instructor
instructor worked something out
w/student
student using wrong email
12/8/11
12/14/11
10/18/11
e
GRAD
SPED
10/28/11
r
GRAD
A & S/FL
10/29/11
g
GRAD
SPED
11/23/11
h
UG
ECE?
12/2/11
i
GRAD
SEC
1/3/12
j
UG
MDL
3/2/12
k
UG
ECE
3/7/12
3/22/12
l
m
UG
GRAD
SEC
CI (MECI)
4/11/12
n
GRAD
CI
student wondered why no one was
responding to his emails
student wanted specifics on program of
study
student having trouble connecting with
instructor
student ranting on social media; other
students afraid
student wondered about staying in
licensure program
student concerned about cohort process
for MDL
student struggling in field; parents
involved
student needed help with grade change
grade problem reported by student
student wanted to walk during
created plan of study
instructor using old work email
Asst. Dean Student Services Center met
with student; helped student understand
Prog coord encouraged meeting and
developing a plan (12U grad)
parents & Student met w/administrators,
student given answers
coordinator found new placement
registrar helped; student received licensure
coordinator worked with instructor to
change grade
student admitted to doc program; probl for
11
5/16/12
o
UG
SPED
5/16/12
p
UG
MDL
6/20/12
q
UG
SPED
commencement
student having trouble in field; action
plan developed
student wrote to UC is Listening re: Tools
instructor
student having dispositional issues
graduation (Masters)
certified for graduate 12S
faculty checked, were surprised by
comments (rec'd A grade)
enrolled 12S
The complete file for these complaints will be available onsite during the BOE visit.
Complaints made to the ombudsman. The University Ombuds indicates that it helps individual students
through listening to the complaint, advising the student of options, answering questions about
university policies and procedures; facilitating a mutually satisfying agreement or mediating a
resolution; or referring to the appropriate university office or individual. The ombuds office supports
students in financial concerns, undergraduate grade grievances, course schedule difficulties, academic
dishonesty complaints, fee disputes, sexual harassment, discrimination, campus housing concerns, or
grievance procedures. The ombuds office is available to students, faculty, staff, alumni, and parents,
and typically receives more than 2500 inquiries a year. Due to the confidentiality issues related to the
ombuds actions, we are not able to provide further information related to candidates in the unit.
www.feedback.uc.edu is an online way to share compliments, complaints, questions, suggestions, and
surveys. The information gathered on this web-based questionnaire is sent to the provosts’s office and
then provided to the appropriate administrator. Students can request a response or simply complete
the form.
The student grievance procedures. Undergraduate students may grieve when 1. A student believes that
he/she has been subjected to an academic evaluation which is capricious or biased or 2. A student
believes he/she has been subjected to other improper treatment. The following procedures appear in
the Universities Federal Compliance document:
To use these procedures, a student may initiate an informal complaint in the University Ombuds Office
(607 Swift Hall) or the college office in which the course is offered no later than the end of the quarter
following the quarter in which the activity that gave rise to the complaint occurred. A student registered
for cooperative education through the Division of Professional Practice will receive an extension of one
quarter upon his/her request. All complaints shall be heard without unnecessary delay. Complaints
regarding a course will be in the jurisdiction of the college offering the course. If the course is offered in
a different college than the student’s home college or school, the complainant’s college representative
will sit as an ad hoc member of the College Grievance Review Committee (CGRC) (see Step 3). Two or
more students with the same complaint may join in a group action. A single statement of complaint shall
be submitted and processed in the manner described herein for individuals, but all those joining in such
a group action must sign the statement. The University Ombuds shall determine whether, in fact, all of
the students have the same complaint. If it is found that they do not, they will be divided into two or
more subgroups. One individual may represent the entire group but all complainants may be required to
meet with the University Ombuds or the CGRC.
Step 1 – Informal Resolution. The parties involved must first attempt to resolve the complaint
informally. First the student must talk with the faculty member about his/her complaint. A faculty
member must be willing to meet with a student for discussion. If the complaint is not resolved, the
student must talk with the faculty member’s department or unit head or a college representative
designated by the dean, who will attempt to resolve the complaint. If the complaint is not satisfactorily
12
resolved, a student may proceed to Step 2, Mediation, or Step 3, Formal Resolution, no later than the
end of the following quarter.
Step 2 – Mediation. Mediation shall be requested of and conducted by the Office of the University
Ombuds. The University Ombuds (UO) shall consult with the college and shall meet with the individuals
separately and/or together to attempt to reach a solution (written) which is agreeable to and signed by
all parties to the dispute. All individuals directly involved shall receive a copy of the signed resolution.
No written records, other than the final resolution, shall be retained by the UO. Original documents shall
be returned to their source or to another site as agreed in the signed resolution. All other notes shall be
destroyed. If the complaint is not resolved through mediation, the UO shall immediately notify the chair
of the CGRC in the college in which the dispute originated and inform all affected parties in writing.
Step 3 – Formal Resolution. Following the receipt of the notification that the complaint was not resolved
informally through Mediation (Step 2), the student(s) may file a grievance with the chair of the CGRC.
The chair, who is appointed by the college dean, shall schedule a grievance review meeting. The CGRC
shall be composed of two faculty selected from a pool of four elected from the faculty of the college,
two students from a pool of four selected by the College Tribunal or student government, and the chair.
Any party to the complaint may challenge the participation of any committee member on the grounds of
conflict of interest. Challenges must be submitted in writing to the chair of CGRC within two (2) days
after the parties have been notified of the CGRC composition. If the chair is challenged, the appointing
dean shall determine the validity of the challenge and either replace or retain the chair. The challenge
must specify reasons that would prevent the individual from being unbiased with respect to the
grievance. Any faculty member directly involved in the grievance shall not participate as a member of a
CGRC. A student may withdraw a grievance from further consideration at any time by submitting a
written statement to the chair of the CGRC. No reason needs to be given for withdrawal of the
grievance.
Following the grievance review meeting, the CGRC shall issue a report to the college dean. The CGRC’s
report shall contain: (1) Relevant information including, but not limited to, documentation of written
and oral information presented to the CGRC; (2) Relevant university rules and policies; and (3) Decisions
and the reasons therefore. The college dean shall notify both parties in writing of the CGRC’s decision.
Either party may appeal the decision of the CGRC in writing to the college dean within 10 days following
notification. Grounds for appeal shall be limited to procedural error or new information not available at
the time of the hearing. The college dean shall have the authority to accept and implement or modify
the decisions of the CGRC. If the grievance alleges capricious or biased academic evaluation and the
CGRC finds in favor of the grievant, the college dean may exercise his/her authority to alter the grade.
Decisions of the college dean shall be final.
Graduate students follow the grievance procedures of the graduate school. The process is described at
http://grad.uc.edu/student-life/policy/grievances.html .
Evidence of active involvement of faculty in the TI process. The following table describes the active
involvement of faculty members in the TI process:
Faculty Name
Bauer, Anne
Role in Initiative
Vertical alignment, early field experiences, dispositions, steering committee
13
Breiner, Jon
Brydon-Miller, Mary
Camp, Emilie
Carnahan, Christi
Dell, Laura
Graden, Janet
Gregson, Susan A.
Haring, Karen A
Haydon, Todd
Hord, Casey
Johnson, Holly A
Dispositions, steering committee
Stone soup
Vertical alignment, steering committee
Embedding field experience
Vertical alignment , steering committee
Impact on student learning
Vertical alignment, steering committee
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning
Impact on student learning
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning,
dispositions
Johnson, Marcus
Kohan, Mark
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning, early
field experiences, dispositions
Kroeger, Stephen
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning, early
field experiences, dispositions
Laine, Chester H
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning, early
field experiences, dispositions
Meyer, Helen
Palmieri, Maria
Schroeder, Sarah
Stringfield, Sam
Embedded field experiences
Steering committee
Course design and instructional support for all themes/activities
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning, early
field experiences
Impact on student learning
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning, early
field experiences, dispositions
Swoboda, Chris
Troup, Karen S.
Zydney, Janet
Embedded signature assessments
Standard 3
Requested interviews about field placements and clinical experience with candidates, mentors,
district administration, and faculty. These interviews are scheduled.
Clarified description of field and clinical experiences. Field and clinical experiences start when the
candidate is admitted into the proposed education program and are grouped into three types: 1) initial
field experiences, 2) more intensive experiences and 3) Clinical/Student Teaching. Each addresses
minimum requirements of each field experience. There is a minimum of 100 total hours for all field
experiences and these hours are to be distributed across the entire proposed education program. These
experiences are aligned with the Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession. The characteristics of each
of these levels of experiences as provided by our programs are presented in this table:
Initial Field
Experiences
1. Observations
2. All experiences supervised
14
3. Method of earning hours (embedded, course based)
4. Documentation of candidate performance by university supervisors and/or P12 teachers
5. Benchmarks or gateways are clearly defined
More
intensive
Experiences
Clinical
Experiences or
Student
Teaching
1. All experiences are supervised-yes, university supervisor and school based mentor teacher
2. Experiences during methods block should be at least 60 hours
3. Additional hours should range between 10-30 hours
4. Must include documentation of how hours were earned
5. Documentation of candidate performance by university supervisors, and/or P12 teachers
6. Documentation that experiences are within the reading core, including AYA and multi-age
programs-lesson plans taught by student must have approval of mentor teacher and/or
university supervisor
1. All experiences are supervised
2. Minimum of twelve weeks, including at least four consecutive weeks of full-time teaching
responsibility (planning, implementing, learning, activities, assessments)
3. Includes a minimum of three face-to-face observations by university supervisors using Ohio
Standards for the Teaching Profession assessments
4. Includes a minimum of three evaluations by the cooperating teacher aligned with Ohio
Standards for the Teaching Profession
5. Additional specific assessments determined by the program (action research, case study,
teacher work samples)-Student will be required to complete the TPA
A table of the experiences and clock hours for initial licensure and baccalaureate programs is provided
here:
Program
Initial and Undergraduate Teacher Preparation Programs
Initial Field Experiences
More Intensive Experiences
Course
Hours
Early Childhood Learning
Community: Prek
Associate/ BSED
Completion Program
Intro to
Exceptionalities
10
Student Teaching
100
Introduction to
Education
10
Preschool Practicum
245
Early Childhood Education
Pre-K - Third Grade
Intro to
Exceptionalities
10
Kindergarten
Practicum
227+
Introduction to
Education
10
Primary Practicum
227+
Intro to
Exceptionalities
10
Field Practicum 1
75
Introduction to
Education
10
Field Practicum 2
75
Introduction to
Field Exp.
15
Intro to
Exceptionalities
10
Teaching Reading
75
Introduction to
Education
10
FirstField Experience
75
Second Field
75
Middle Childhood
Education (may include
generalist)
Grades 7-12
English/Language Arts
Course
Hours
Clinical/ student
teaching
Course
Hours
Internship
200
Student
Teaching
300+
Student
Teaching
300+
Student
Teaching
300+
15
Grades 7-12 Mathematics
Grades 7-12 Science
Grades 7-12 Social Studies
Multiage Foreign
Language (DORMANT)
Intervention Specialist
(Mild Moderate
+Moderate Intense
Licenses)
Woodrow Wilson Fellows
Intro to
Exceptionalities
10
Field Experience
75
Student
Teaching
300+
Introduction to
Education
10
Second Field
Experience
75
Intro to
Exceptionalities
10
Field Experience
75
Student
Teaching
300+
Introduction to
Education
10
Second Field
Experience
75
Intro to
Exceptionalities
10
Field Experience
75
Student
Teaching
300+
Introduction to
Education
10
Second Field
Experience
75
Intro to
Exceptionalities
10
Field Experience
75
Student
Teaching
300+
Introduction to
Education
10
Second Field
Experience
75
Intro to
Exceptionalities
10
Instructional
Strategies
40
Internship
Mild/Moderate
300+
Introduction to
Education
10
Teaching Associate
Mild/Moderate
90
Internship
Moderate
Intense
300+
Assessment and
Curriculum
Planning
30
Teaching Associate
Moderate Intense
90
Summer Field
Experience
75
Clinical Experience I
200+
Clinical
Experience II
300+
Field and clinical experience for advanced programs and other school personnel are presented in this
table:
Program
Course
Gifted Endorsement
Early Childhood Generalist Grades 4-5
Practicum
Field Experience
Curriculum and Instruction
Field Experience (collecting data,
analyzing impact on student learning)
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
Superintendent
Practicum
Clinical Internship Pre-placement
Placement
Clinical Internship Pre-placement
Placement
Internship
Action research project
Practica
Assessment, Instruction, and Practicum I
Assessment, Instruction, Practicum II
Principal
Special Education Second License
Special Education Advanced
School Psychology
Literacy M. Ed. and Reading Endorsement
Teacher Leader
Practicum
Hours
75
20
75+
75
approximately 20
300+
approximately 20
300+
75+
75+
400+
100 clock hours
at three grade
bands
75+
16
Selection of Clinical Faculty. Potential clinical faculty members are brought to the attention of the
programs a variety of ways. Four years ago, when we striving to increase the number of placements in
Cincinnati Public Schools, Hamilton, Newport, and Covington (at times referred to as the urban core)
field coordinators of each of the programs met with principals, described the program, and identified
potential clinical faculty members who met the criteria of appropriate licensure, at least three years of
successful experience, and graduate degrees. In addition, members of the Partnership Panel were asked
to nominate mentors who they felt would be appropriate and met the criteria. These activities, as well
as recommendations from current successful mentors, have allowed us to generate a pool that exceeds
the diversity represented among teachers in Ohio. Placements and mentors are evaluated by both
university supervisors and candidates, and these data are used to identify mentors who are not meeting
the expectation of being strong school professionals.
Clinical Faculty Member Participation in the Transformation Initiative Our current clinical faculty
participants in the Transformation Initiative are school faculty members with whom we have had
ongoing relationships for several years. These partnerships began during the Cincinnati Initiative for
Teacher Education, which implemented a five-year initial teacher preparation program at the University
of Cincinnati in response to participation in the Holmes Partnership. At that time Cincinnati Public
Schools identified liaisons in each of our Professional Practice Schools. Though the model was
dissembled due to funding and decreasing enrollments, the relationships continued. Strong
relationships vary by program and participating faculty members. Working person-to-person has the
advantage of engaged school faculty members as true partners on behalf of the students, candidates,
and school. However, we have had some school partnerships fade away as individual faculty members
leave.
We have made consistent efforts in professional development of our partners. A specific question was
posed as to whether school faculty members have the skills to measure student learning and mentor
candidates in that effort. An example of special education’s response is a recent in-service with mentor
teachers and their candidates to insure that all participants understood the data collection, single case
design, and data-based decision making in which the candidates must participate. Activities of the
Center for Hope and Justice also have included working with the Freedom Center and Freedom Writers
Foundation to make sure university and school faculty members are “on the same page” related to
measuring impact on student learning. In that we are in the early stages of our Transformation
Initiative, we anticipate that the number and strength of partnerships will continue to grow.
Examples of efforts to prepare mentors and supervisors are provided in the Evidence Addendum page
10.
Standard 4
There are no clearly defined TI diversity-related efforts for advanced programs. At this time the
transformation initiative is primarily an initial program effort.
A large percent of school-based faculty members’ race/ethnicity was reported as unknown.
Our initial data collection system of mentor (school-based faculty) qualifications did not include race.
The demographics form provided by NCATE related to faculty demographics indicates “include schoolbased faculty if possible”. The data reported were those provided voluntarily in response to a request
to university supervisors. Recognizing the issues related to this incomplete data and our challenges to
17
provide a diverse experience for our candidates, we revised our data collection system and
implemented a direct survey at the end of Fall 2011. These are the data from the most recent survey:
Ohio general population: 11.5% black, 1.9 Latino, Asian <1%
Hamilton County Public School Teacher Statistics: 93.8% white, 5% black. .6% Latino, .1% American
Indian or Alaskan Native, .2% multiracial or did not specify
Mentor Teacher Demographics
Response
26
28
%
8%
9%
7-12 Mathematics
7-12 Sciences
Multiage Foreign Language
Early Childhood Education
Middle Level Education
Intervention Specialist: Mild/Moderate
29
26
8
31
23
43
9%
8%
3%
10%
7%
14%
Intervention Specialist: Moderate/Intense
Multiage Art
Multiage Music
Elementary Education
Other
24
21
0
82
61
8%
7%
0%
27%
20%
238
54
10
3
78%
18%
3%
1%
245
81%
Additional graduate work
Doctorate
Total
Please indicate all that apply to you:
National Board Certified
Resident Educator Mentor or District Mentor
52
5
302
17%
2%
100%
19
48
14%
35%
Teacher Leader Endorsement
Other awards or recognitions
Race:
Latino of any race
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaskan Native
32
75
23%
54%
3
33
0
1%
11%
0%
Asian
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
White
5
0
263
2%
0%
87%
7-12 English/Language Arts
7-12 Social Studies
License:
Professional
Permanent (certificate)
Lead Professional Educator
Senior Professional Educator
Education:
Masters
18
Total
304
100%
Updated data related to race and ethnicity of advanced candidates. Our data warehouse has recently
recoded student data in view of the new federal guidelines. We still have a number of candidates who
prefer to indicate “unknown.” In that this is self-reported data it is voluntary, and we have no way to
clarify or change the “unknown” race and ethnicity. With the recoding, and pulling data from the 20112012 academic year, we were able to derive these data for our advanced candidates:
Race/Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian-Pacific Islander
Black, Non-Hispanic
Latino
Non-Resident Alien
White
Mixed Race
Unknown
#
1
5
68
11
3
539
6
68
701
Percent
0.14%
0.71%
9.70%
1.60%
0.40%
76.90%
.85%
9.70%
Specifics for schools used for field and clinical experiences. Because of our large number of field
experiences, we had initially provided the NCATE required data at the district level in table 4.4.g. In an
effort to provide more thorough evidence, however, we have provided data for the initial program
which indicates the number of schools used in each district and the number of placements in those
schools. We have also provided the individual school data with number of placements for schools in
Hamilton County, where all but a few placements are made. Advanced program placements are used by
only one or two students each year, so we did not break down those data in that way. Demographics of
school districts used for clinical practice are included in 4.4g. Data related to specific schools, which, as
a group, comprise over 98% of our field experiences are provided in the Evidence Addendum beginning
on page 10. Other districts/ sites are used rarely.
Opportunities for initial and advanced candidates to work together on projects and committees
related to education and content areas. The “acceptable” rubric states: Candidates engage in
professional education experiences in conventional and distance learning programs with male and
female candidates from different socioeconomic groups, and at least two ethnic/racial groups. They
work together on committees and education projects related to education and the content areas.
Affirmation of the value of diversity is shown through good-faith efforts the unit makes to increase or
maintain pool of candidates, both male and female, from diverse socioeconomic and ethnic/racial
groups.” The “target” rubric states, Candidates engage in professional education experiences in
conventional and distance learning programs with candidates from the broad range of diverse groups.
The active participation of candidates from diverse cultures and with different experiences is solicited,
valued, and promoted in classes, field experiences, and clinical practice. Candidates reflect on and
analyze these experiences in ways that enhance their development and growth as professionals. “In our
review of our efforts, we were unable to identify aspects of the rubric that required initial and advanced
candidates to work together on projects and committees. Initial and advanced candidates do
collaborate in the Middle Childhood Education Society and the Council for Exceptional Children. They
19
work together in field experiences when assigned as members of the group. Explicit activities are not
planned to force collaboration among initial and advanced candidates.
Are initial candidates all required to take both Introduction to Education and Introduction to
Exceptionalities? Yes.
Curriculum components and experiences of the Transformation Initiative that are related to diversity.
The following curriculum components and experiences are related to diversity:
Early field experiences in all initial programs that occur in urban settings. Though data are not yet
available, candidates in the Introduction to Education class complete a course portfolio reflecting on
their efforts, data are not yet available. In the Introduction to Exceptionalities class, candidates
respond to their early field experiences by engaging in a pre and post test of perceptions of disabilities.
Data are currently being collected.
Embedded field experiences in large urban high poverty schools that provide faculty members the
opportunity to model interacting with administrators, teachers, and students of different ethnicity, race,
socioeconomic gender, exceptionalities, and language. In these experiences, candidates complete
specific tasks to ease their movement into the school environment. These experiences include a reading
survey, a motivation to read survey, and an analysis of student work. These assessments were piloted
last year, and data collection is currently taking place.
The general outcome of the 4-year Vertical Alignment of a Teacher Education Program to develop a
diversity repertoire is to prepare teachers to acknowledge, affirm, and practice culturally and
individually responsive pedagogy. This project is grounded in our desire to teach our candidates to
recognize what Milner (2010) refers to as an opportunity gap rather than an achievement gap. As a
result of this project, teacher candidates will:
Recognize and respond to a diversity repertoire in their teaching and writing
•
Recognize difference between intent and impact
•
Develop a shared vision, motivation, knowledge, and community of practice
•
Develop a vision of learning on a continuum (ex. accessing the environment) and avoiding labels
(ex. disability as perception)
•
Using students’ funds of knowledge to expand knowledge and skills
•
See people first
As a direct object of this project teacher candidates will engage in consistent and critical activities to
identify opportunity gaps and address them in the pedagogy across all four years of their coursework.
The process measure is the development of a diversity repertoire, which will be monitored through both
formative and summative assessments.
Baseline data from the open ended prompt. Rather than analyzing data from a discussion board
prompt responding to a quote related to “color- blindness”, these responses were used to generate a
rubric for “writing about other peoples’ children.” This rubric will be piloted during the 2012-2013
academic year.
Focused assessment data. Data are also now available on the pilot related to our detailed or focused
dispositions assessment, which assists supervisors, mentor teachers, and candidates’ peers in identifying
and developing measurable behaviors identified in the literature as consistent with effective teaching in
20
large, urban, high poverty settings. This assessment is now institutionalized in all initial programs. Pilot
data are available in the Evidence Addendum beginning on page 21.
Reflections related to the work at Hughes STEM High School. The report of the progress of the Hughes
STEM Literacy Initiative are provided in the Evidence Addendum beginning on page 26.
Standard 5
Faculty information form. These data are available Evidence addendum on beginning on page 36 and is
posted at www.uc.edu/cech-accreditation
Mentor and university supervisor training. In order to insure uniformity of information, all mentors,
university supervisors, and candidates use the same program handbook which is available on the
program field assessment sites. Any additional information developed during the semester are also
posted on the www.cech.uc.edu/oaci site. A full series of the resources and workshops offered to
mentors and supervisors is provided in the evidence addendum beginning on page 10.
Preparation related to the Teacher Performance Assessment. The Teacher Performance assessment
was piloted in 2010-2011 and field tested in 2011-2012. During that time the Teacher Performance
Assessment coordinator, Dr. Chet Laine, met with each program to support their understanding and
implementation of the Teacher Performance Assessment. In addition, materials are provided to each
teacher related to the assessment and the level of support that may be provided. Dr. Laine has also
made presentations to the University Council for Educator Preparation. Materials shared during those
workshops and meetings are provided in the evidence addendum beginning page 73.
Encouraging professional development. The statement “The unit has policies and practices that
encourage all professional education faculty to be continuous learners” is found in “target” rather than
“acceptable” language. Though this request for evidence exceeds “acceptable” expectations,
professional development is indeed encouraged on all levels. At the university level, a “faculty
development one-stop” site is provided (http://www.uc.edu/facdev/home.aspx). Three fellows of the
university’s Academy of Fellows of Teaching and Learning are professional education faculty (Drs. Cheri
Williams, Linda Plevyak, and Annie Bauer). These faculty members mentor new faculty in teaching. In
addition, the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article 24.3 states that “Each college and library
system will develop a process for planning and implementing annual Faculty development programs.”
The university, by AAUP contract, is also required to encourage participation in activities of professional
organizations and requires policies for reimbursement of travel and assistance from other sources
beyond the unit’s travel budget. Section 24. 7 states: The University shall provide $660,000 for each of
the three years of this contract to fund professional development” which are awarded through an
application process. Each academic unit has additional resources to encourage professional
development, such as the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Service’s Dean’s incentive
fund, which distributes $100 for professional development for each presentation and refereed article up
to $300 per academic year.
Faculty Evaluation System. The Offsite report requested evidence to determine “a) that faculty
reflection is meaningful part of the evaluation system (b) how extensively used is the peer observation
system; (c) the ability of faculty to model best practices in instruction including those related to the TI
part of the evaluation system, and (d) the results of faculty evaluation used to design professional
21
learning of faculty. “ At the acceptable le level, the rubric only states “the unit conducts systematic and
comprehension evaluations of faculty reaching performance to enhance the competence and
intellectual vitality of the professional education faculty. Evaluations of professional education faculty
are used to improve the faculty’s teaching, scholarship, and service.” At the target level the rubric
states, “The unit’s systematic and comprehensive evaluation system includes regular and
comprehensive reviews of the professional education faculty’s teaching, scholarship, service,
collaboration with the professional community, and leadership in the institution and profession.” All
faculty evaluation is constrained by the AAUP-UC Collective Bargaining Agreement Contract, and
additional requirements on faculty members is not possible. The contractual annual faculty evaluation
states:
“Following the directive of H.B. 1521, the Annual Performance Review is a yearly evaluation of each
faculty member’s work performance in relation to the unit’s mission statement and goals as well as its
established workload policy. Developmental in nature, the annual review is used to promote
professional growth and guide faculty members in their subsequent work responsibilities, interests, and
activities. Following the contractual understandings of the university and UC’s chapter of the AAUP, the
review serves as an opportunity for the unit head and faculty member to determine the faculty
member’s work responsibilities in relation to the faculty member’s interests and activities.
The review is further used as a venue for the unit head and faculty member to discuss changes in the
interests and skills of the faculty member, and serves as an opportunity to make adjustments to faculty
members’ contributions to the unit. It is also used to prompt discussion of the resources needed by
faculty members to develop or maintain skills, interests, research, scholarship, while also presenting
accomplishments from the year prior. Thus, the annual performance review is for anticipating the next
year and a review of the past. It also allows for the accumulation of evidence for the performance of the
faculty member who may be tenured but has not achieved all promotions available.
With oversight by the unit head, the Annual Performance Review is an official document that works best
when it is an instrument for faculty and unit development, and thus is prepared in tandem between
faculty member and unit administration. Written by the unit head or delegated to an appropriate
designee, differing opinions about the content of the review are included in the summary statement, a
copy of which is given to the faculty member while the original is placed in the faculty member’s
personnel file. The format the unit utilizes addresses teaching, advising, educational innovation,
research and creative activity, university professional, and public service, and other accomplishments
pertinent to the mission.
At present, faculty members are expected to turn in an annual reflection of their work for the preceding
year along with a Workload Plan for the subsequent year that has been filled out jointly by the School
Director (who determines the teaching load). Both documents are due on June 30 of the academic year.
The School Director then reviews the faculty member’s reflection and evaluates their progress based on
the Unit’s mission and goals, and the faculty member’s Workload Plan for that year.
The School Director then sends the faculty member their evaluation. If there are errors of fact, those
are changed (such as the number of courses taught, the evaluation data, etc). The faculty member is
invited to respond to the evaluation and upon receiving the signed document back from the faculty
member, the School Director attaches the evaluation to the Annual Reflection, which then becomes part
of the faculty member’s personnel file. “
22
Standard 6
Unit governance. At the University of Cincinnati, the following colleges are engaged in educator
preparation:
 Arts and Sciences
 Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services (School of Education and School of Human
Services)
 College/Conservatory of Music
 Design, Art, Architecture, and Planning
In that educator preparation cuts across colleges, the provost serves as the unit head. In order to
provide shared governance among the various colleges, and to include candidates and members of the
professional community, the University Council of Educator Preparation was formed. This group makes
unit decisions under the charge given the group by the Provost. It is a provostal council and informs the
provost (Lawrence Johnson, Ph. D.) regarding the efforts of the unit.
The dean of the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services is charged by the University
Council for Educator Preparation and the provost with managing the accreditation process, but has been
judged inappropriate to serve as the head a cross-college effort. Though most educator preparation
programs are housed in the School of Education within the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and
Human Services, the number of programs in the School of Human Services makes naming the director of
the School of Education as the head of the unit inappropriate as well.
The two bodies that are most conversant regarding the Transformation Initiative are (a) the University
Council for Educator Preparation and (b) the Transformation Initiative Steering Committee, headed by
Associate Dean Holly Johnson, who manages innovation and outreach for the College of Education,
Criminal Justice, and Human Services. The Office of Assessment and Continuous Improvement, led by
Dr. James Vondrell, is responsible for the day to day implementation of the assessment system, field and
clinical experiences, and the licensure process. The Office of Assessment and Continuous Improvement
is part of the Office of the Dean, and the way in which the dean insures that the accreditation process is
managed.
The Transformation Initiative and Standard 6. The relationship of the Transformation Initiative to
Standard 6 was described as “troublesome.” It is the contention of the Transformation Initiative
Steering Committee that this is true in the Transformation Initiative efforts are not directed to modify,
transform, or have a direct impact on the unit governance and resources. The Transformation Initiative
effort has not involved additional funding or governance structures. The University Council for Educator
Preparation endorsed the Transformation Initiative for submission to NCATE, and has been the body to
review and revise the conceptual framework and assessment systems as well. As such, there is
knowledge and guidance provided to the Transformation Initiative, but at this time the initiative does
not change the way in which the unit is governed nor the way in which resources are distributed.
Interviews have been scheduled with the Provost, members of the University Council on Teacher
Preparation, and the Transformation Initiative Steering Committee. In addition, tours of the renovated
space will be scheduled Minutes of the University Council for Educator Preparation are available in the
Evidence Addendum beginning on page 61.
23
Clerical, advisement, and IT resources in the unit. Rather than clerical assistance, the unit uses
“academic directors” to manage procedures and practices. For example, an academic director manages
the licensure process and another oversees distance learning programs. Each program has an assistant
academic direct who manages monitoring student progress, course orders, data from assessments, and
other tasks that may emerge. In terms of advisement, we have set up interviews with the director of
the Student Services Center. In terms of information technology, a fully staffed IT office is available in
Teachers College. At the university level, UCIT provides a helpline, walk in computer support, software
support, and manages Blackboard. There is a 24/7 computer lab in the Langsam Library, and additional
computer labs in Teachers College with both PC and Macs available. Each classroom in Teachers College
(and throughout the university) has an instructor station with Internet access, a document projector,
screen, and projector. SMART boards are being installed according to a university-wide plan, and
several are in place in Teachers College.
Transformation Initiative Summary
Faculty engaged in the Transformation Initiative. Data available for the addendum indicate that there
are 74 full time professional education faculty members. Of these 23 (31.1%) are activity engaged in the
design, implementation, and evaluation of the Transformation Initiative. This does not take into account
the individuals who only implement program and curricular changes (university supervisors of early field
experiences, instructors in the vertically aligned diversity coursework, graduate assistants engaged in
data collection and analysis). Faculty members and their participation efforts are provided here:
Faculty Name
Bauer, Anne
Breiner, Jon
Brydon-Miller, Mary
Camp, Emilie
Carnahan, Christi
Dell, Laura
Graden, Janet
Gregson, Susan A.
Haring, Karen A
Haydon, Todd
Hord, Casey
Johnson, Holly A
Role in Initiative
Vertical alignment, early field experiences, dispositions, steering committee
Dispositions, steering committee
Stone soup
Vertical alignment, steering committee
Embedding field experience
Vertical alignment , steering committee
Impact on student learning
Vertical alignment, steering committee
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning
Impact on student learning
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning,
dispositions
Johnson, Marcus
Kohan, Mark
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning, early
field experiences, dispositions
Kroeger, Stephen
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning, early
field experiences, dispositions
Laine, Chester H
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning, early
field experiences, dispositions
Meyer, Helen
Embedded field experiences
24
Palmieri, Maria
Schroeder, Sarah
Stringfield, Sam
Swoboda, Chris
Troup, Karen S.
Zydney, Janet
Steering committee
Course design and instructional support for all themes/activities
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning, early
field experiences
Impact on student learning
Vertical alignment, steering committee, impact on student learning, early
field experiences, dispositions
Embedded signature assessments
Publications and presentations that emerged from the transformation initiative are listed here:
Embury, D.C. & Kroeger, S. D. (2012). Let's ask the kids: Consumer constructions of co-teaching.
International Journal of Special Education, 27 (3).
Israel, M., Carnahan, C., Snyder, K. & Williamson, P. (accepted). Supporting new teachers of students
with significant disabilities through virtual coaching: A proposed model. Remedial and Special
Education.
Johnson, H., Kohan, M., Laine, C., & Meyer, H. (2012, February). Exploring four exemplary educational
partnerships for democracy and justice. Realizing imagined partnerships: Working towards a
common goal. AACTE Annual Convention. Chicago, Illinois.
Killham, J., Kohan, M., & EDST 201 students. (2012, May). A dangerous game for pre-service teachers:
Playing for transformation through arts-based inquiry. International Congress of Qualitative
Inquiry. Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
Kohan, M. & Hughes High School Freedom Writers. (September, 2011). Cincinnati freedom writers
project possibilities. Mayerson Student Service & Leadership Conference. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Kohan, M., Laine, C., & Hughes High School Freedom Writers (2012, April). Leading for respect &
diversity through the Cincinnati freedom writers’ project. University of Cincinnati Annual
Diversity Conference. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Kroeger, S., Brydon-Miller, M., Laine, C., Troup, K., Haring, K., Johnson, H. (04/15/2009). Stone Soup:
Using Action Research to Create Opportunities for Program Integration in Teacher Education.
American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Kroeger, S., Embury, D., Cooper, A., Brydon-Miller, M., Laine, C., & Johnson, H. (2012Stone soup: using
co-teaching and Photovoice to support inclusive education, Educational Action Research, 20:2,
183-200
Laine, C., Kohan, M., and Hughes High School Freedom Writers. (2011, November). Reading the past and
writing the future: An urban literacy initiative. NCTE Annual Convention. Chicago, Illinois.
Kroeger, S. D., Laine, C. H. (2010).Pre-service English teachers and special educators: Opportunities and
barriers to collaboration. In Hruby, G., Heron-Hruby, A., &Eakle, J. (Eds.) Exploring Literacy and
25
Collaboration in the 21st Century. American Reading Forum Online
Yearbook.http://www.americanreadingforum.org/
Kroeger, S. D., Embury, D. C., Cooper, A., Brydon-Miller, M., Laine, C., & Johnson, H. (2012). Stone Soup:
Using co-teaching and Photovoice to support inclusive education. Educational Action Research,
20(2), 183-200.
Laine, C., Bauer, A., Johnson, H., Kroeger, S., Troup, K., & Meyer, H. (2010). From reaction to reflection:
Program commitment to learning for all. In P.C. Murrell, Jr., M. Diez, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. L.
Schussler. (Eds.), Teaching as a Moral Practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 73-93.
Kroger, S., Laine, C., & Troup, H. (2010) Teacher Education Division Conference, St. Louis, MO.
Informing Program Transformation through Co-Teaching.
Collaboration and service opportunities emerging from the initiative. Several collaboration and service
opportunities have emerged from the initiative. Our strongest collaborations are with the Cincinnati
Public Schools, particularly Hughes STEM High School. In this effort we have collaborated with and
provided professional development to school faculty, specific interventions to students, and technology
in terms of a pilot program using iPads with students with intense educational needs. We have also
collaborated with Children’s Hospital Medical Center to provide educational and social skills
interventions with adolescents with sickle cell disease. Through our collaborations, candidates have
worked with inner city school based Girl Scout programs, Special Olympics, Kids Café, Homework Help,
chaperoning at Hughes’ pep rallies, games, and dances, and managing curriculum area book rooms.
Resources, governance, and technology accomplishments and needs. At this point in our efforts we
have not identified any changes in resources, governance, or technology that have either occurred or
emerged as needs.