|
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
Discussion:
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
|
