last updated May 29, 2001
Index
NCATE & Affiliated Websites
Meeting on July 18, 2000
Meeting on June 21, 2000
Meeting on October 12, 2000
Meeting on December 20, 2000
Meeting on February 1, 2001
Meeting on May 8, 2001
Meeting on May 16, 2001

Present: David Stoloff, Richard Reynolds, Leslie Ricklin, Jeff Trawick-Smith, Sudha Swaninathan, Dan Rothermel, Ken Dobush, Dianne Cerreto, Susan Corrice, Mitch Sakofs, Shirley Ernst, Hari Koirala, Hannah Sellers.

The purpose of the Education Department Retreat was to develop a Mission Statement for the department that all members could actively support.

The first topic of discussion was the luncheon meeting with Dr. Deena Sue Fuller, the PETE consultant assigned to help the faculty at Eastern Connecticut State University through the NCATE review process. Her information about the development of a mission statement was reviewed. The faculty also discussed the importance of having a coordinator for the NCATE process. Dr. Fuller had said that as the coordinator for her university, she had been assigned 6 credit hours for three semesters to coordinate activities and gather data, and 12 credits for the fourth and final semester to finalize activities and coordinate the actual visit by the review team. All members of the faculty agreed that this was a reasonable approach. In conclusion, if the responsibility was assigned to department staff for 6 credits each semester leading up to the visit, and 12 credits for the semester of the visit, Ken Dobush and Richard Reynolds both agreed to share responsibility for the NCATE coordination.

The next topic was the development of the Education Department Mission Statement. Based on the Mission of Eastern Connecticut State University, the faculty members have agreed so far that:

The mission of the education programs at Eastern Connecticut State University is to prepare reflective, responsive, professional practitioners who can effectively enhance students’ learning and development, support parents and families, and advocate for best practice in diverse educational environments. Unique and defining aspects of our program are commitments to:

· Constructivist, socio-cultural perspectives, which lead to developmentally and culturally appropriate learner-centered practice.
· Infusing multicultural perspectives that lead to an appreciation of individuality in global contexts.
· Creating and adapting general education environments for all learners including those with exceptionalities.
· Technology
· Advocacy
· Families and community
· Profession dispositions
· Collaboration with Professional Development Schools
· Team teaching
· Assessment

At 12:30, the meeting was adjourned. Because the statement was incomplete, all present agreed to continue the process of developing the mission statement during the fall semester of 2001

Notes from Brainstorming for use in the further development of the statement.

Reflective

Reflective, responsive practitioners
Visionary – see the direction of education in the future
Lifelong learners
New perspectives
Critical theorist
Post modernists
Teacher leaders, advocates for change
Problem solvers
Reflective enacting

2. Technology

3. Education grounded in liberal arts

4. Involvement and commitment to Profession development schools

5. Dispositions

Multicultural perspective
Parents family community
Caring
Violence prevention
Making connections with students
Understanding, infusion, integration of diverse learners
Ethical
Professionalism
Humanitarian
Advocates for children

6. Pedagogy
Student centered teacher facilitated approach
Understand constructivist social cultural approach
Developmentally culturally appropriate practices
Striving to implement
Integrated, coherent, organized curriculum
Implement recent changes in education (standards, modeling, demonstrating)
Design authentic assessments based on research

back to top

Participating – Dr. Deena Sue Fuller, Neil Williams, Steve Kenton, Dean Patricia Kleine, Ann Gruenberg, Leslie Ricklin, Richard Reynolds, Hari Koirala, Mitch Sakofs, Diane Cerreto, Julie Alexandrin, Dan Rothermel, Ken Dobush, Sudha Swaminathan, and  David Stoloff (recorder).

Dr. Fuller is a consultant with the Partners for Excellence in Teacher Education (PETE) program, a partner with ECSU for this year and into next year.  Faculty introductions.  Dr. Fuller is a Professor of Educational Psychology at Tennessee State University (TSU) and has worked with NCATE for over 20 years.  She believes in the process – a hard process that gives one something to work towards.   Through the use of guidelines for all of the professional organizations, the striving for best practices and content, and the inspection by the visiting team, NCATE process forces us to show others and ourselves the best of our programs and allows for greater unit clarity.  Her role is to help people prepare a self-study that clearly explains what the programs are about. Her presence doesn’t guarantee NCATE accreditation but she has coordinated three successful NCATE accreditation visits at TSU.  During the semester of the visit, she did not teach any classes and she will write the rejoinder.  Dr. Fuller will serve as resource person for our process, will continue the process via email, and will be back in the fall.

The Education Department will be revising the mission at a May 16 retreat.   Dr. Fuller suggested that the mission statement for the unit start with the University’s Mission Statement.  The development of the mission statement for the professional education unit should involve the contributions of faculty from the Education, Health/Physical Education, and Arts and Sciences departments.  Faculty from Arts and Sciences should respond on the content, which teachers need to know; this is a crucial part of the unit’s assessment.  Unit assessment needs to also consider the work of part-time adjuncts in the unit.  The mission statement describes what we do best – what is it about our graduates that would identify them as being unique among other teachers?   For ECSU, perhaps content would be an important element in the mission statement  – we know that they know their content.  Diversity issues and multicultural education could also be part of the mission statement.  Technology might be part of the mission statements also.  Mission statements may be broad or may include up to 6 goals.  There is a need to directly reflect the mission statement of the university.  HPE mission statement needs to reflect the mission of the unit.  Arts and Sciences department should have a tie in into the mission statement of the unit.

The Education Department has several themes within the mission statement of the unit.  Technology and multiculturalism are two of the themes.  The mission statement should be reflected in the portfolios and curriculum.  There is a need to have a vision as part of the conceptual framework, a vision on the ideals, the dream of the unit, direction the unit sees moving in.  Arts and Sciences will need to provide special support for this vision.

The conceptual framework needs to reflect how technology is infused in the department and the curriculum, with discussion of how technology is used in teaching, about the proficiency of the graduates, and with a focus would be how it approves student learning.

Dispositions are partially evaluated using the Connecticut Common Core of Teaching and some of the other professional organizations.   Dr. Fuller used the INTASC (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium) and National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) to create their learning outcome list.  The hardest elements may be the area of dispositions.  Veteran teachers gathered, through focused discussions, to develop the INTASC standards and list of dispositions needed for new teachers.

How does a program measure success on dispositions?  Jeffrey had some dispositions in his NAEYC folio but they are difficulty to measure, i.e. enthusiasm.  Perhaps enthusiasm might be measured within student teaching or during classroom interactions.  How does a program use measurement of dispositions to make screening decisions?  Alverno College uses disposition assessment for counseling students out of their programs.  A statement on commitment to using disposition assessment to counsel students is an important element of the self-study.  The CT Common Core of Teaching does have criteria on dispositions.  Mitch suggests that effective disposition is an important characteristic of success within student teaching.   Steve suggests that a counseling process has been effective within the unit in the past; students from the Mathematics Dept. chose Education due to their interest in teaching – they have a value for education and teaching.
The Mathematics Department support for the Teacher Education programs is a very important.

Dispositions are discussed in Standard 1 of the Self-Study, which would be read by the NCATE team.   Standard 1 emphasizes the candidates’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions and in the content area.  The section on the preparation of other school personnel may not be required for our programs.  The sections on the pedagogic content and professional and pedagogic knowledge and skills lead to a discussion of the assessment of candidate dispositions.

The unit will need to document the learning of candidates’ students.  Some documents might include unit plans, lesson plans from unit, and all of the student work from the unit.   We will need to try to follow-up of candidates after they are teaching.   We might ask the State Department of Education for the results of the BEST assessment of our alumni.  Documents should include student work from the 2-3 that excelled in the unit, the 2-3 who responded in an adequate manner, and the 2-3 didn’t respond well.  Follow-up for the remediation for the latter group would also be good documentary evidence.  Videotapes might be used to document this change in learning; perhaps editing the videotapes down to 2-3 minutes.   For NCATE - students are PK-12 students, candidates are college students.  Candidates’ work and their students’ work need to be documented to provide evidence of the learning outcomes.  There are several potential problems with collecting information within student teaching.  The unit might consider using digital cameras to document information.  How might one capture growth within a K classroom over a short period of time?  It was suggested that the documents might include the change in work samples within unit.  Candidates might also complete individual interviews at the beginning of the unit and then exit interviews.

There may be problems getting cooperating teachers to cooperate with these processes and the gathering of data.  The field experience standard, Standard 3, requires collaborations between unit and school partners.  School partners need to have an ongoing participation in planning, developing, and evaluating field experiences.   These collaborations will need to be documented as an ongoing process; there are expectations by the visiting team that there is progress in this process.  The unit will also need to have a plan to survey employers of alumni and develop a faculty evaluation system that provides for faculty development, accountability, and follow-through.  The unit might move towards faculty portfolios like student portfolios, including faculty video and self-assessment, peer evaluation, and a plan for instructional improvement.  The team will expect that there is a plan and that there is a timeline for the implementation of the plan.  Assessment plans should cover the implementation of ongoing evaluations and revisions of the programs.

The NCATE visiting team will be looking at the unit.  The evidence for the shape of the program will be the results of the Professional Organization evaluation; the visiting team will focus on the unit evaluation.  The unit will react to the Professional Organization evaluation as suggestions to improve processes in the whole unit.  The unit will be responsible to work with the content areas to meet the standards.

The general document – the self-study – will rely on the folio statements.  At TSU, they had a unit mission statement that includes the general learning outcomes of the unit, professional commitment, dispositions, diversity within curriculum.  Assuring diversity in field experiences, technology integration throughout all programs, connections with professional organizations and the unit is found in a separate document.  Every program developed a vision and a mission, coherence of program, learning outcomes for program, description of the disposition, diversity, technology, and of lines with professional organization and state; these program documents reflect the self-study and connections to the community.  These documents were like the folios with strong connections with the unit’s conceptual framework.
 
 

A mission statement is a little bitty piece of your conceptual framework.  Mission statements vary from a page to a sentence.  NCATE used to require an organizing theme – no longer requires these themes.  Tennessee State University’s themes involved being facilitators of learners, competence in content, caring, and multicultural perspectives; these themes helped to frame annual discussions since 1992.  It is useful to identify a particular educational philosophy.  Faculty strengths should be recognized.  This is a chance for all faculty members to talk together about what one does best.  The conceptual framework will need to include all of the parts required.

Not everything needs to be done for the self-study, but progress needs to shown.  Each of the standards has a scoring rubrics; NCATE encourages rubrics for all of the assessments.  NCATE has rubrics for all of the standards.  The unit needs to achieve acceptable in each of the standards.  The team of Board of Examiners would consist of 5 members who will read the documents and interview faculty from the unit and Arts and Sciences and make professional judgments; the unit can meet the standards, but still have weaknesses.  The teams don’t make recommendations, but state what are weaknesses.  After the standards write-up, the team votes.  Under NCATE 2000, you have to meet all standards at the acceptable level or more.  The NCATE team’s report goes to the Unit Accreditation Board, which reads the team report and the rejoinder and presents it to the Board, which may reverse decisions.  Every institution goes through three audits by the Board.  The decision is not just the team’s.  The nature of the weaknesses, whether they are deemed minor or major, may determine the passing the standards.  It is a rigorous process but helps to help people get better.   The professional organizations provide a learning experience; some may be beyond the usual expectations.  The feedback should be used to make programs better – that is how NCATE sees the uses of the evaluation.  There should be an opportunity to modify folio before the NCATE visit.  The process is designed to keep the program growing and doing what the unit does best, with no expectations to be perfect.  This unit’s practice may be on track but the self-study will need to pull all of the elements together on paper.  The standard on faculty will provide an opportunity to brag about our efforts.

The NCATE evaluation will be seen within the context of the institution.  The processes of curriculum evaluation and revision should be formalized more.

There is a heavy personnel time expenditure for the NCATE evaluation process.
Dr. Fuller had 6 credits out of 12 credits assigned time for each of 3 semesters before the visit and full-time assigned time for the last semester during the visit.   She will not continue as NCATE Coordinator in the fall but someone else should pick it up, essential particularly in the area of evaluation.  It would be good to have an organized person in charge of the process.  The sharing of the assignments doesn’t seem to work; the model of one NCATE Coordinator seems to be more effective.  TSU created a committee for each of the standards, with a teacher or two and Arts and Sciences faculty for each committee.  There are lots of institutional reports on the Web.  Six standard committees with 4-5 people might be optimal.  There is a need for a lot of data and a way to make the information accessible for the team.   David Smith does workshops on analyzing data for each of the standards.  The unit should focus on the questions and then collect the data.  We might focus on qualitative data if there isn’t sufficient quantity of quantitative data.

The issue of content at ECSU is important.  PRAXIS II measures content at the exit of the program – but how might content be assessed throughout the program?  Perhaps the content professors might become involved in assessing student teachers in the field.  The use of videotapes of content teaching might be useful.  The student teaching evaluation forms do have content standards as well as the Connecticut Common Core of Teaching.

Dr. Fuller thinks that we might have enough time to be ready for a visit Fall 2002.  The downside of waiting is that the expectations increase with every semester.  We would be expected to have a year and a half of data.  The assessment will require a lot more reflection and greater connection with the standards, envisioning a matrix with local learning outcomes and their correspondence within an alignment with the INTASC, NBPTS, NCATE Elementary, and other folios.  The NCATE standards might also be connected to the course syllabi in a matrix.

Discussions adjourned at 2:30.  Thanks to Dr. Fuller for facilitating this informative session and to Dean Kleine for hosting the gathering.

Respectfully submitted for your review and comments,
 

David L. Stoloff, Ph.D., Professor and Department Chair,
Education Department
Eastern Connecticut State University
83 Windham Street, Webb Hall Room 129
Willimantic, CT 06226
tel. no. (860) 465 - 5501
fax. no. (860) 465 - 5099
email:  stoloffd@easternct.edu
WWW:  http://www.easternct.edu/depts/edu/stoloff.html

back to top

Present:  Dean Patricia Kleine, Leslie Ricklin, Jeff Trawick-Smith, Jacqueline Bowman, Dan Rothermel, Neil Williams, Hari Koirala, Mitch Sakofs, Ken Dobush, David Stoloff (recorder).

1) Report on NCATE Institutional Orientation Sessions, DC, last weekend

Ken Dobush reported on the sessions he attended in Washington last weekend.  He noted that most campuses have Assistant Deans in charge of the ongoing NCATE process, that ongoing assessment is crucial to the process, and that multi-data points of student assessment and the collection and analysis of information is essential for program growth and development.

He noted that the the St. Cloud State College's NCATE website -
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~coe/accreditation/ncate/index.html is considered to be exemplary.

2) Dean Kleine reported on her conversations with NCATE.  The next steps should include the submission of the program reports in the next month, but first asked the writers to contact their professional organizations for specific details on the form and method of submissions.  A list of website addresses of contact people in professional organizations was circulated.

Dean Kleine is coordinating the refinement of the Pre-Condition Document, which should be submitted before the end of the Spring Semester.

The Institutional Report should be submitted 2-3 months before the visit, still expected to be during Spring 2002.

3) Discussion of the umbrella mission statement followed.  David noted that the Education Department has revised its mission statement and hoped that the Health and Physical Education Department faculty members might refine the following statement -

The mission of the Teacher Preparation Programs of Eastern Connecticut State University is to recruit and prepare, in accordance with state and national standards, undergraduate and graduate students of diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds to be reflective teachers and leaders in our nation's schools.   Teacher Education faculty initiate basic, applied, and collaborative research which relate to problems and issues in education and provide professional services and consultation to public school centers, community and state agencies, and professional organizations.

4) The group plans to meet regularly on Thursdays, 2-3 in WH 115 to continue this process of refining the documents for submission.

Respectfully submitted for your comments and revisions,

David Stoloff
stoloffd@easternct.edu

back to top

Present:  Leslie Ricklin, Jeff Trawick-Smith, Hari Koirala, Mitch Sakofs, Dan Rothermel, Ken Dobush, David Stoloff (recorder).

1) Discussion of due dates - with a request for as much time as possible to reflect program revisions.  Time is needed for more sharing of curriculum, revision of departmental bylaws, revision of generic syllabi.

2) Dean Kleine has requested that portfolios should be presented to her for review by mid-January.

3) Mitch expressed willingness to supply data and analyses.  More information is needed from ETS on graduates compared to national results.

4) Also needed is an organizational chart to highlight Teacher Education place in the University structure.

Please let me know if you have any comments or corrections on these notes.

Respectfully submitted,

David Stoloff
stoloffd@easternct.edu

back to top
 
 

Present - Jacqueline Bowman, Neil Williams, Dan Rothermel, Hari Koirala, Jeffrey Trawick-Smith, Leslie Ricklin, Shirley  Ernst, and David Stoloff (recorder).

1) Discussion of proposed timeline for PETE visit and document due date.  Writers recognize need for deadlines and timelines for this process, which should include outside consultation before the documents are shared with NCATE.

2) Planning - discussion raised the following issues and necessary action items -

• need for enhanced outcome data,
• updated generic syllabi with more information on student assessment,
• more discussion on the conceptual framework - to be distributed with Ed. Dept. during next two weeks,
• need for discussions across on the revision of syllabi to reflect standards in specific content areas,
• more discussion on the preparation of state report to reflect SDE standards,
• usefulness of a review of documents by outside reviewers,
• more discussion on enhancing program and outcome assessment during student teaching,
• need for additional assessment data from ETS or from our students,
• aligning report language (i.e. assessment vs. objectives vs. learning outcomes

please address questions or comments to David L. Stoloff, Education Department Chair
TEL:    (860) 465-5501        email:   stoloffd@easternct.edu
Education Department News Index
Disclaimer

last updated October 18, 2000

back to top

Present - Dean Patricia Kleine, Neil Williams, Jeff Trawick-Smith, Mitch Sakofs, Leslie Ricklin, Hari Koirala, Jacqueline Bowman, and David Stoloff (recorder).

1) Discussion of statistics and information needed.  Any scores on the PRAXIS II tests by program and major, both passing and non-passing scores would be important to analyze.  Information on alumni - their passing rates on BEST portfolio assessments, where they are teaching would also be useful.  An organizational chart for the certification programs needs to be developed.

2) Need to involve other faculty in the writing process.  Dan Rothermel would be invited to assist in the writing of the NCTE and Middle Level folios.   A list of Summer 2000 initial folio developers may be found at http://www.easternct.edu/depts/edu/dept/ncatewriting.html  .

3) It was agreed that the folios would respond to the standards of the undergraduate, post-bac, and graduate tracks for the certification programs.  The writers would also attempt to both describe the current programs and the planning for the new revised programs.

4) The group provide some ideas for the revision of the student teaching evaluation form that would now reflect the Connecticut Common of Teaching [http://www.easternct.edu/depts/edu/dept/ctcoreofteaching.html] .   Mitch Sakofs has developed a draft of the revised form that may be viewed at http://www.easternct.edu/depts/edu/dept/stevalform.html .

5) Jackie Bowman agreed to place the generic syllabi of Education Department courses in the Common folder on the faculty Z: drive.  Please see David if you would have problems accessing the syllabi.    The syllabi need to be revised with a focus on student assessment.
 

Respectfully submitted for your review, suggestions, and revisions,
David Stoloff

please address questions or comments to David L. Stoloff, Education Department Chair
TEL:    (860) 465-5501        email:   stoloffd@easternct.edu
Education Department News Index
Disclaimer

last updated August 1, 2000

Present - Dean Patricia Kleine, Neil Williams, Jeff Trawick-Smith, Sudha Swaminathan,  Mitch Sakofs, Leslie Ricklin, Hari Koirala, Jacqueline Bowman, Ann Gruenberg, and David Stoloff (recorder).

1) Review of program standards compiled and shared with writers - available from NCATE and the professional associations at http://www.ncate.org/standard/m_stds.htm

2) Discussion of potential reports needed from list of professional associations at
http://www.ncate.org/standard/programstds.htm - documents and matrices may be downloaded from this page.

We discussed that Health, Special Education at ECSU are not initial certification programs;  we will not develop folios reviewing their standards.

The standards for the subject areas - English,  Social Studies/History, Science, and Mathematics - will be reviewed for their relationships with our secondary certification programs.

We will be responding to the Middle Level standards - Mitch will review with the State Department of Education their expectations on responding to Middle Level subject areas.  The Middle Level cross-endorsement program will be mentioned but will not be the focus of our response to the Middle Level standards.

Dean Kleine will ask NCATE whether we will respond to the Professsional Development Schools draft standards.

Our only advanced certification program in the Reading/Language Arts certification and consultant certification programs.

The process of curriculum revision is the most critical piece of these responses.

Dean Kleine will discuss with the SDE and NCATE whether these folios will be due by Sept. 15, 2000 at NCATE;  we hope for a later date in Fall 2000, since our initial visit is expected in May 2002.

3) We will be developing during the summer a virtual document room with syllabi, program objectives, and the last accreditation report.

Please let David Stoloff know if there is any other items that should add to these notes.

Thanks to Dean Kleine for hosting this meeting.  The next meeting is scheduled for July 18, 1-2:30 in WH 159.

Respectfully submitted for your review, suggestions, and revisions,
David Stoloff

please address questions or comments to David L. Stoloff, Education Department Chair
TEL:    (860) 465-5501        email:   stoloffd@ecsu.ctstateu.edu
Education Department News Index
Disclaimer

last updated Februrary 1, 2001
back to top