Home General Documents Institutional Report Conceptual Framework
Exhibit Room Louisiana St. Supp. Rep. SPA Reports  




NCATE Standard 2 Meeting Minutes November 2005

At this meeting, the committee discussed the process of documenting formal complaints and the use of data for program improvement.

Southeastern Louisiana University

College of Education & Human Development

NCATE Standard II Meeting Minutes

November 8, 2005

Attendees: Flo Winstead, Cheryl Edwards, John Trowbridge, Tom Devaney, Camille Yates, and Thomas Cothern

Agenda items:

1) Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation  Purpose & Update

2) COEHD Assessment System

3) Data Collection Chart

4) Questions: Assessment of the Standard

5) Discussion: 2004-2005 Action Plan, April Meeting Minutes, Issues/Concerns, Future Plans, and Arts & Sciences Request

6) 2005-2006 Action Plan

Chairperson Flo Winstead began the meeting by provided an overview, including an update of the committee’s work to date and a review of the committee’s purpose.

Discussion in regard to NCATE Standard 2, Chapter 2, p. 22:  The unit maintains a record of formal candidate complaints and documentation of resolutions.

A question was raised and discussion (discussants Devaney, Trowbridge, Winstead) followed about the meaning of this requirement. The committee seeks to clarify that which constitutes a formal complaint. Dr. Devaney noted that the university has a system/procedures in place to address student-to-faculty complaints.  Ms. Winstead noted that a document was reviewed by D.A.C.

Ms. Winstead noted that data is collected, but we need to determine how it is used to improve programs. Dr. Devaney suggested that we identify what each degree program does to review and use data.  There is a list of major field assessments, like the exit survey, but getting results is a slow process. In regard to the student teacher exit survey in Teaching and Learning, Dr. Trowbridge noted that we identified diversity/differentiated instruction through this survey. Dr. Edwards added that this eventually led to a BoR grant to improve the program to better meet the needs of candidates.

The chairperson pointed out that since we are no longer in transition, all assessments need to be used to make improvements.  Dr. Trowbridge added that, since we have a new (revised) Conceptual Framework (applicable to the College), we no longer use the “effective educator” terminology.  Ms. Winstead noted that for all programs there is a standard of excellence.

The Spring 2004 Assessment System (Gates/Portals 1-5/initial certification-undergrad and grad/MAT) was reviewed.  In regard to the video critique now in Gate 3, should we keep it and create a uniform procedure or delete/replace it and leave it only in Gate 4?  Gate 5—An assessment was piloted last year in Livingston Parish with first-year teachers, who are graduates of Southeastern, and principals.  The assessment system (Gates 6-9) was reviewed.  Beginning master’s candidates will be surveyed this year.

A hand-out, a sheet comparing 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, was reviewed. Data collected and aggregated suggested that there will be assignments assessed to demonstrate the achievement of standards. (There are course-based assessments and program-based assessments.)  A generic rubric for the portfolio is available, but what is in the portfolio will be determined by each program.  The 2004-2005 chart shows that assessments are in place and data collected and aggregated (except for the S-T video self-critique).  For 2005-2006, assessments are in place for course and program evaluations.

Action Plan


Standard 2, p. 11: #4 To what extent are the assessment measures used to determine admission, continuation in, and completion of programs? What happens when candidates do not meet expectations?  This item will be addressed this year.  This was raised for discussion because, in the grad program, we do not have a teacher development for assisting candidates, throughout the program, who are identified as needing remediation or assistance. A policy statement is needed and should be published in the catalogue. Point of discussion: If an assessment for a portfolio component/artifact required is required in a course, then it would become more manageable.

Standard 2, p. 12: C (Use of data for program improvement) Topic: use of evaluations for program improvement—How do we make data available to individual faculty, groups, and programs?  The chairperson pointed out that we have a great deal of data, and that reports could be requested through PASS-PORT. Dr. Trowbridge noted that program data needs to be made available, if wanted.  [Refer to the last part of the “Acceptable” section on p. 12: “Candidates and faculty assessment data are regularly shared with candidates and faculty respectively to help them reflect on their performance and improve it.] 

Last year’s action plan was reviewed. There is ongoing work on requesting instruments to assess diversity and technology knowledge/use.  We are using the instruments and data we currently have. [Refer to the last meeting’s minutes for a synopsis of the status on this item.]  We need to know who is involved with the technology committee and what they do.  Ms. Winstead will seek clarification on their function.  Discussion on uses/performance: Dr. Devaney raised a question about the difference between candidates’ self-report and actual performance.   

We also need to define what constitutes work samples that candidates will include in their portfolios.

Initial tasks were identified.  The committee will

1. determine the use(s) of data and a process of dissemination;

2. document changes in major field assessments;

3. (p. 12, #4) To what extent are the assessment measures used to determine admission, continuation in, and completion of programs? What happens when candidates do not meet expectations?

4. clarify what constitutes formal candidate complaints and their resolution;

5. revise/modify initial assessments in regard to student improvement; and

6.  write a narrative of requirements for the report, keeping NCATE requirements in mind (Standard 2 Board of Examiner questions).

The committee decided that, next year, it will address the validity and reliability of instuments.

Minutes recored and submitted by: C. Edwards 11/09/05




Southeastern Louisiana University
© 2007Southeastern Louisiana University
All Rights Reserved
Unofficial and external sites are not endorsed by Southeastern Louisiana University